Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex Shih (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 15 August 2017 (→WP:IDHT behavior from Light show: final update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours 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

    Nurseline247 repeatedly reinstates content on multiple character lists, deletes warnings

    (non-admin closure) User blocked per SPI case regarding them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Since they began editing last year, Nurseline247 has made a habit of adding unencyclopedic, frivolous and out-of-scope content to character lists and after it's reverted, they put it back in with misleading edit summaries. I typically veer away from bringing verified users to the noticeboard, but this is not an isolated incident and Nurseline247 has not heeded advice whatsoever-- they have only removed the warnings from their talk page and continued onward.

    There are a number of pages in which this has played out. For example...

    1. Spider-Man in film: Nurseline247 has repeatedly added content about the animated films to a page strictly reserved for live action productions. They've re-added the content with misleading edit summaries... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (I may have missed some).
    2. Beauty and the Beast: On this page, they keep on re-adding the Direct-to-Video specials that Disney produced that the other editors have reached a consensus not to include, but Nurseline247 apparently doesn't realize that... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    3. Alien (franchise)/List of Alien characters: Before the release of Alien: Covenant, Nurseline247 began adding the advertisements for the film to the franchise page and referred to them as "short films", which was way out of scope. After a number of editors, including myself, removed the content from the page, Nurseline247 simply re-added it to the characters page list, which put it at risk of losing its Featured List status.
    4. Frozen (franchise): They keep adding out-of-scope content about Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2, despite that not being a part of the franchise. 1, 2
    5. List of fictional shared universes in film and television: Nurseline247 apparently disagrees with the parameters of what a shared universe is, with other editors arguing it needs to have inter-connected concepts and characters... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
    6. Arrowverse: Other editors argue that only characters that cross over between the series should be included, but alas... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and there are more, but I believe everyone can get the idea by this point...

    Those are a few of the examples just right off the top, from the last month. Over the last two weeks alone, they have been warned many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times- with several of those being final warnings- but it appears as if that doesn't warrant adjustment on their behalf. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I was notified by the filer regarding the thread. I am dropping here my two cents since I am quite involved with the reported user. Nurseline247 has/had (I am unaware of their previous edits) of adding unsourced edits at Spider-Man: Homecoming. I got involved when I saw this edit summary on my watchlist. I have used Twinkle for three now and this statement was false right off the bat. I went out to correct the user per one of the diffs above. Going back, Nurseline247 made a bold edit but was reverted. They then readded the content, which was reverted by me. This was a slow mo edit war per this and this. The content isn't exactly the same with every edit, but it was similar regarding the timeline. My issue with their edits there was that timelines should be discussed at the talk page. It involves original research and it's unsourced. Plus, a user can easily make a mistake with the timeline. I warned them and told them to take it to the talk page. They didn't feel like it. And it appears they were involved in other disruptive editing on other articles. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 01:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There had been problems with the addition of the name of a minor-level crewmember for the film Alien: Covenant being inserted into the cast section of the Alien franchise page. The name had been previously removed, but the editor Nurseline247 made → this edit re-emplacing the name onto that page. I informed Nurseline247 that this was a crewmember's name which appears approximately three minutes and 40 seconds into the screencredits for that film, and how that position within Covenant's screencredit hierarchy did not warrant the position Nurseline247 was attempting to place onto it by including it in the list. I went on to state on Nurseline247's talk page in this edit herethat the person's role as movement artist in the production of Alien: Covenant was no more important than the hundreds of other artists, assistants, technicians, compositors, etc. found within the screencredits, and that including it in the article's cast list served only to inflate this person's contributions to the film. I ended by stating that it ought to be considered vandalism should that name reappear again on the list in the future. I never received a response on either Nurseline247's or my talk page. Recently, I noticed that what I had added to Nurseline247's talk page and several other editors had been removed (which is that user's right to do), although I placed the WP:OW template on Nurseline247's talk page to let future editors know that not only were my concerns and others deleted, but that they were left unaddressed by that editor. — SpintendoTalk 15:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like since this was posted to the noticeboard, Nurseline247 has continued their behavior at the Aladdin (franchise) and Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) pages. The I.P. editor 86.46.205.88 added out-of-scope content, including short films, which was reverted at the Diary of a Wimpy Kid page. After Zucat reverted them, Nurseline247 incrementally added the content back. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 19:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While I have had my issues with Nurseline247 (mostly concerning shared universes), I think they can learn if they receive some appropriate punishment like a longer block.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the editor is not willing to communicate, I think a block would be the appropriate action to take. This just might be another simple case of WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeez, how long has this been here? In my defense, my edits to Alien (franchise) restoring minor level crew member Badego was simply because the absence of a name meant the Character column did not line up with the Cast. (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_(franchise)&oldid=785944130), an dbecause I believed that Badego did indeed play a neomorph in the film. Now, in regards to Spider-Man: Homecoming, my edits there simply stated what year the film was set in, something I saw as necessary to clarify due to various online disputes I read about the topic. As I said in those edits, the criminal record of character Aaron Davis shows the film takes place in 2017, at least at that point in time, which ret. I'm not sure what the Arrowverse problem is exactly; from the links I viewed, I never added a non-Recurring character to that list. Are you talking about Constantine? Or maybe Harrison Wells?
    In regards to "Nurseline247 has repeatedly added content about the animated films to a page strictly reserved for live action productions", I'm afraid that I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. What animated films? Since when have there ever been animated Spider-Man films outside of the Miles Morales one that was added to the page by someone else? Were you referring to the "Sony's Marvel Universe" films? True, it has yet to be confirmed whether Spider-Man will be in Venom or Silver and Black, but to my knowledge, it has yet to be denied either, hence why I put TBA. If it has been denied since I edited that page, my bad! Sorry about that.
    Back to Alien (franchise), I changed "Short films" to "Promotional Short films", because that IS, in fact, what they were. The Prologues to Alien: Covenant had beginnings, middles and ends; none of the footage in them was intended to be in the final film.
    And I know exactly what makes a shared universe, The Earth Day Special and A Million Ways to Die in the West perfectly fit the definitions, as does Hercules and the Arabian Night. I'm sorry I don't atypically read my talk page by the way. But I did take note of what was written there before I cleared it up. Will clarify at Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series) that Class Clown is a short film. Thank you very much for your feedback.Nurseline247 (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You've misremembered exactly what changes were made to that cast list. There has never been a dispute over the addition of Bolaji Badejo, rather, the revision that you made shown here is of a person whose name had been removed nine days prior to you adding it again. And while we have this rare opportunity to speak with you regarding your edits, could you possibly elaborate on your page moves shown here and here, one of which has already been reverted and the other which was done w/o consensus? I ask because the reasoning behind your various article redirects performed over the past year (close to 80 of them) are rarely — if ever — expounded upon elsewhere. I believe it's these explanatory moves by you (or a lack thereof) which is bothersome, and that increasing the level of dialogue from you with your fellow co-editors on the changes you make would benefit us all.SpintendoTalk 17:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the poster for Sinister II, you will notice that it does NOT, say Sinister 2 but rather Sinister II. Back to the Future Part II isn't called Back to the Future Part 2 after all. I was just following what the poster said.
    On Killer BOB, I wasn't aware of any consensus, it's just that any time I've seen BOB written in text on Twin Peaks, Fire Walk With Me or The Return, it's been in all caps rather than small. Even in that Diary of Laura Palmer book from a while back, BOB is never spelled with anything other than all caps. Are these explanations satisfactory?? Nurseline247 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    While you're justifying yourself here, you manage to continue to edit war with Zucat at Diary of a Wimpy Kid (film series), doing the exact same thing that prompted scores of warnings. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can comment mainly on the recent edits by Nurseline at Spider-Man in film (and also Spider-Man: Homecoming). At DarthBotto listed and linked, many of the edits to that article added or changed more than they described in the edit summary. While I am not as concerned by this, I am with what these extra edits include. Much of the time it was very excessive and unnecessary table coding, as well as WP:OR material regarding actors and characters they are playing. Also, regarding behavior of material at Spider-Man: Homecoming (see this edit). Not only was this largely WP:OR, Nurseline attempted to source such claims with statements, not reliable sources. Nurseline was warned countless times regarding this behavior, and encourage to engage on talk pages (users or articles') but did not. These edits also alerted me to the user's behavior on other article that was very similar. I've sadly come to the conclusion that the edits by Nurseline are generally more disruptive than helpful and they ultimately may not be here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my understanding that consistency sets the agenda with regards to a film's nomenclature. In the case of Back to the Future, the sequels have been consistently set in Roman numerals in everything from posters to DVD clamshell packaging. This has not been the case with Sinister 2, as seen in packaging used on Amazon or in their promotional materials in other languages. In the case of Killer Bob, it would appear that a consensus should have been sought for the change you made simply due to the longstanding nature of it being disputatious. That being said, when one looks at the pendulum of editor preference for either style over the last 12 years of the article's existence (as shown below) it could be argued that the time had come for the pendulum to swing to the other, all-capitalized style. — SpintendoTalk 04:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Killer BOB.....2005-2008
    2. Killer Bob......2008-2012
    3. Killer BOB.....2012-2016
    4. Killer Bob......2016-2017
    5. Killer BOB.....2017-????

    Now you're back at re-implementing the contents you added to List of fictional shared universes in film and television that were previously deleted? Do you have no respect for what people have been advising you about for months? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 01:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could @Nurseline247 please confirm whether or not they are editing under the username Impending IP? These two usernames share similar edits on similar subjects, even sharing the same idiosyncrasy of marking all edits as minor. Please clarify. — SpintendoTalk 02:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The same goes for 86.46.205.88. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mark ALL my edits as minor; at least I don't intend to. I have full respect for what people have been advising me about, thank you very much! I hadn't looked at the page List of fictional shared universes in film and television; and I saw what you were talking about in regards to certain things not being "shared universes". However, I noticed that several genuine shared universes were deleted from my initial edit, so I re-added them in a considerably neater way. Sorry for the inconvenience.
    Now, A shared universe is created when two or more characters come together into one film.
    Now, A shared sockpuppet is created when two or more usernames come together under one editor who makes edits in their names.
    I'll take your sidestep of my question (WP:IDHT) as confirmation that you're also editing under the username Impending IP. Of course, using multiple accounts is your own prerogative (WP:VALIDALT). The expectation is on you to clearly delineate on your various talk-pages that the other accounts exist, using the Alternative account template or other such notification, in order to ensure WP:SCRUTINY. Since you're experienced at page redirects, may I suggest that redirecting one of your account's talk pages to the other one would sufficiently act as notification to other editors.
    However, I'm afraid that restrictions on crossover editing of articles and topics might prove too cumbersome for you — if not downright impossible — given this edit in particular. Now that you've been informed of the expectations, I would note for future reference that any innocuous intentions expressed by you regarding crossover editing won't suffice as an excuse, and without any kind of alternative account notifications would likely be viewed unfavorably. — SpintendoTalk 21:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've identified another account being used by Nurseline247 — TotalTruthTeller24. Here are range contribution logs for all three accounts. Again, the minor edit idiosyncrasy is key to identification. Similar to the previous two accounts Nurseline247 and Impending IP, TotalTruthTeller24's talk page is also heavily edited to remove what appears to be a continuous stream of complaints — much more so than the other two accounts. I've left AN/I notices on the two additional talk pages identified thus far. — SpintendoTalk 11:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of this, I will create an SPI case file for these users. I will link back to this discussion. @Spintendo:, once this has been created, since you identified the socks, you should add specific diffs, if you can, between the three accounts to support this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI has been created here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Exclusive: Why The Mummy needed Brendan Fraser trilogy Easter eggs, according to director Alex Kurtzman
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    long-term IP hopper tagging drafts with AfC to delete them (and apparently not a fan of mine)

    I could use some help sorting this out. Though some admin action seems like a good idea, I'm not quite sure what sort of action would be effective.

    An IP hopper has been tagging other people's drafts (apparently those he/she thinks should be deleted) with AfC submission templates for quite a while now. I opened an ANI thread when I first noticed it last year and though I had to revert once or twice since then, I haven't thought about it much.

    But now after reverting a few more yesterday, I see another IP with interesting edit summaries. It seems the user has a particular interest in me that I was not aware of. See User talk:82.40.180.42/Usage with the various "rhodoreaction"/"RR"/"rhodoedits" (that list is transcluded on 13 other pages). I came across that user page when trying to compile a list of IPs that have done this over the last year or two. Might as well ping the only two registered users who have edited that page: RHaworth and Sgroupace.

    Again, I'm not sure what course of action would be best. Not sure how they could be blocked; an LTA page seems like overkill; I have a weak suspicion about socking, but not enough evidence to name/insinuate (and to be clear, I'm not thinking of anyone I've named above); an edit filter likewise seems like a big much... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't even using open nodes to the internet or something, office-shared router or something is my guess, who knows. It feels like socking since IPs generally don't really get concerned with drafts or anything, and playing around is mostly inconsequential. In retrospect, rhodoedits can be a pretty cool name for your alt account. --QEDK (愛) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I was thinking "rhodoreversion!" might be a good template for me to use if I could only format it in a text bubble written in a comic book font... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bumping this before it's archived. Would appreciate advice on where to mention this if not here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request of removal of permission to use Twinkle for Adamgerber80

    Copied from my talk page per request of the IP 146.96.252.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    Recently I added some material, well sourced (except a mistake: I mismemorized the year 1973 as 1968), to Kingdom of Sikkim, which was subsequently reverted by Adamgerber80 with a threat to block me. His edit and threat were subsequently reverted by another user (which was to my surprise, years ago it would just leave there).

    It would be a happy ending but later I realized Adamgerber80 do not at all think he has done anything wrong and questioned Kautilya3's right to "undo issued warnings". He attributed the issue to "ones which have a history of pushing their agenda", which he later clarified that it has nothing to do with "this particular case":

    As he insinuated my behaviour were the reason of the conflict while I have never added anything unsourced or done any vandalism in WIkipedia, I intervened into and told him even if he believes that a small part of my edit withour source, he could just undo the small part and ask for a reference about it, instead of undo all valid edits and issue a threat. Unfortunately, he didn't agree to change his "approach", using his word.

    I believe, if more than 1~2 percent of rollback from a user are false positive with false warning, granting him rollback right would do more harm than good, as Twinkle rollbacks and warnings give inexperienced users a facade that his edit might be reverted by an admin and he might be warned by an admin (thus more people would refrain from editing Wikipedia). Plus, without Twinkle, one can still undo edits, leave messages, etc. Also, I have noticed that this is not the first time Adamgerber80 has done a disputed rollback within the eight months he has rollback rights (see his talk page). For all of those reason above, I request a removal of Adamgerber80's Twinkle permission. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC) Posted by There'sNoTime on behalf of 146.96.252.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 19:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have posted the above as per a request on my talk page. I'm yet to look into the situation -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Having now read around the issue, I agree with the IP that is not the first time Adamgerber80 has done a disputed rollback, and agree with the sentiment at Adamgerber80's talk page thread here that this sort of behaviour is most definitely biting and needs to stop. I am uncomfortable removing the rollback right yet for two reasons; I believe strongly in the idea that people can improve from constructive criticism, and as the administrator who granted the right in December 2016 I would prefer a second opinion. I would like to hear from Adamgerber80 on the above matter (though they did respond here on my talk page) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    as a procedural note, their rollback permission can be revoked, but that's largely symbolic--the Twinkle rollback function that they're using doesn't depend on it, and their ability to use any of Twinkle's functions won't be affected. There's no way to remove someone's access to Twinkle, short of blocking them altogether. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: It doesn't matter. On one hand if his rollback right is withdrew I can keep an eye on him and report it when I see him using it without granting, on the other hand I don't think there's any necessity for me to do so because from my talk with him it seems he is a well-educated Indian, and will not do anything the community explicitly told him not to. In my opinion Adamgerber80 has a good respect of rules but poor understanding of people (allow me to be a bit "racist" by calling this "Anglicized-Indian personality"). It necessary to let him know that it's the community rather than laws that runs Wikipedia. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) My two cents. The IP made a series of edits of questionable quality. In particular the edits contained a POV WP:LABEL "puppet state" without a source. So the revert done by Adamgerber80 was appropriate even if it went too deep (too many edits reverted). I just disagreed that this warranted a level 3 warning. Adamgerber80's explanation was that, since the IP had already received a level-2 warning, he gave the next level. I thought it was an understandable situation, even if I didn't agree, and withdrew the {{trout}} that I slapped on his talk page. I think the discussion on his talk page as well as here is perhaps enough to caution Adamberger80. I don't recommend any further sanctions. I also don't think the IP's conduct is quite above board. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My two rupees (1.96 cents): I assume you got something wrong: this is not a discussion about sanctions. We are here to discuss whether Adamgerber80 can better serve Wikipedia with a rollback grant or without a rollback grant. I personally believes without a rollback grant it's better both for Wikipedia and for him. I totally agree with you that if Adamberger80 get cautioned, he will be a good rollbacker (I went back to some of his working history: needless to say he's indeed a hardworking one and it would be a loss to Wikipedia if he stop undo edits). Unfortunately, it's not the case: there's no sign that Adamgerber80 consider this a caution. P.S. for the "POV" claim, although I still believe differentiating "state administrated by India" from "Indian puppet state" might be trolling (we can consult with experts in that field later in a different thread), I agree with you that undoing of such a change, espcially the one with a wrong year 1968, is appropriate. Nevertheless I don't agree with you that doing it too deep with rolling back can still be appropriate (if this is not considered a misdemeanor then Wikipedia will become a more and more closed community). From Adamgerber80's post it seems he has some misunderstanding on my editing history and I'm going to leave him a message. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi There'sNoTime, This is going to be verbose but please bear with me. First the IP editor in question is misrepresenting facts and trying to portray him/herself as a victim here. The edits done by the IP on the particular page in concern(as verified by Kautilya3) was pretty much a POV. The references did have any mention of the word Puppet State yet was added. It was not a simple fumbling of years. Now this in the backdrop of a page which had recent a series of vandalized edits and POV pushes in recent days because of the on-going India-China standoff. In this situation, I did what most other editors would do aka revert back to Status Quo and ask the editor to discuss on the talk page. In hindsight, maybe I went a bit too deep but as explained above there was clear POV pushing in those edits. Second, as is the case when a page is being constantly vandalized I checked on the talk page of the IP in discussion. I did notice that another editor had given a second level warning(in July 2017) for vandalism to the IP. At this stage, I decided to elevate the level of warning because for me the IP was showing a pattern. This warning is standard Wikipedia Level 3 warning. In response, the IP depicted edit warring behavior and instead of a discussion reverted the edits back. Now the IP claims to be an experienced editor (see more here [User_talk:Adamgerber80#Don.27t_bite_newbies]) and if this is the case, then I would like to raise the following questions, why were they adding content which was not clearly in the references (this was not a simple year jumble up as claimed). Moreover, if their edit was reverted why did they not discuss this on the Talk page as other editors would do, instead jumped right into edit warring. Lastly, if the editor is indeed here to contribute Wikipedia why did they already have a warning from another editor for vandalizing.
    Second, you and the IP did make an observation, that "not the first time Adamgerber80 has done a disputed rollback". Can you please care to elaborate more on this? I would like to know that if I have erred and how to improve on it. AFAIK, I also revert back edits which have no references. If the editor does have an issue with it, we discuss this on the article talk page or my talk page and I think I have provided with sufficient and valid explanations on why it was reverted. Please do note here, that most of edits are related to Military related pages which see a high level of vandalism and POV pushing and when people are jingoistic. The only one instance where I think I messed up was when I accidentally rollbacked more edits when reverting some vandalism. I immediately apologized and have been careful about this.
    Third, about biting new editors. This is clearly not a case since the IP claims to be an experience editor and claims to know what they are doing. If you would prefer, please go again through my talk page. I have always been courteous to newcomers and explained to them what was wrong with their edits. I do want to do my part to retain new editors but when someone is here clearly to POV push or vandalize (not referring to anyone in particular here), editors who refuse to discuss on the talk page or heed warnings then I do report them to the admins as per the rules.
    Finally, I don't claim to be perfect and am learning every day I spend on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I think this has been blown out of proportion. Kautilya3 and I discussed this and put forth our points. I am cognizant of the what happened and we reached a consensus. I am happy to hear what you have to say on this. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamgerber80, a couple more points while we are here:
    • Almost all new editors would be "POV editors" from our point of view, because they come here when they see something that doesn't agree with them. Perhaps they think they know better and want to fix it. They don't know the standards expected for edits. So it is important to tell them Wikipedia policies (via welcome messages) and warn them when they don't adhere to them.
    • Increasing the levels of warnings is appropriate only when they repeatedly make the same mistakes in the same context. It is a mark of "exasperation", so to speak. A level-3 warning doesn't provide information about what they did wrong. It is expected that it has been told already. So starting with a level-3 warning for a particular issue doesn't make sense. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Kautilya3 I agree with your points you have raised. Yes, I am aware that new editors do not understand well the rules of Wikipedia and thus we should be careful in nurturing them to be better contributors. I do not give warnings straight away but simply revert/fix their edits up first. But that is clearly not the case here (where the editor has claimed to be experience). Second, yes higher level warnings are given even if the same behavior persists. In hindsight, I should have given the editor a lower level warning or none at all but I have explained my rationale above. But I think the IP editor in question seems to have a racist bent against Indians which is obvious in the statements he has made. Does he mean to imply that "non-angliczed" Indians (don't know what that even means) are not capable of contributing to Wikipedia. Also, I am still waiting for them to tell me where I have erred in the past (as per their claim) to become a better editor. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just on the contrary, I implied Anglicized Indian usually have some personality flaw and does not get used to community-based systems very good. Feel free to call that racist, but against Anglicized Indians rather than against non-Anglicized Indians. I sincerely believe you have some flaws on understanding the world, thus when other tell some good thing about you you'll focus on the bad part. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked for 3 months (not longer as it is an IP) for that blatantly racist personal attack. Fram (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked in violation of policy

    Dear administrators,

    Recently, I found that a number of article about galaxies contained fanciful names invented, apparently, by an amateur astronomer from Belgium. These names have no legitimacy, no recognition and no place in any encyclopaedia article. So I began to remove them.

    At 00:02 on 29 July, I made this edit. At 00:05, the edit was undone by User:Winhunter. At 00:06, they left me a message accusing me of vandalism [1], and at 00:07, they blocked me for 72 hours, claiming vandalism [2].

    WP:VAND says "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." It later says "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."

    It is not possible to perceive my edits as vandalism. They were clearly not intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. They were clearly a good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia. Nor were they misguided, disruptive or wilfully against consensus. Indeed, they had been explicitly endorsed by a consensus [3]. So the block was obviously wrong.

    The administrator who placed the block has made less than 200 edits since 2010. Approximately 30 of these were on 29 July this year, when they went on a spree to undo my edits. They broke sort ordering in a table that I'd fixed, replaced incorrect punctuation that I'd removed, and of course replaced nonsensical galaxy "names" in a series of astronomy articles.

    The administrator was vaguely questioned about the block [4], but has not responded. Given their extraordinarily sparse editing history, it seems unlikely that they ever will. They have not edited since their spree of reverts ended in the small hours of 29 July. The block was obviously incorrect, and the failure of the administrator to explain or account for their actions seems to me to fall far below the standards you expect. So I raise it here for your awareness. I think that an administrator who barely edits in a decade and then places such an obviously wrong block is a problem. I hope that you agree. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm gonna have to agree with the IP here. The block, in my opinion, was unwarranted. In particular, what's more troubling is that the blocking admin clicked the block button after the second warning when it is normally after four warnings unless the user is only here to truly vandalize. The IP's edits were seriously not vandalism at all. And 72 hours is seriously harsh. All of the IP's edits were WP:BOLD. Also, to revert all of the IPs' edits was also really unnecessary unless you have good reason (e.g., sock). In terms of content, I agree with the IP. The source used to name NGC 523 comes from a blog and the names are not known per consensus at the WikiProject page. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 21:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Someone needs to go back to admin school, and in the meantime needs to account for his/her actions. EEng 21:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that's how ANI works. We look at ALL of the aspects of the case, not just the ones you'd like us to look at. While I understand your frustration at the block, you need to understand that civility is required. Your best course of action would be to apologize for it, or at the very least make clear that you understand that it's not acceptable. Note, I am not saying Winhunter's block was valid, but you both have issues in this case that need to be addressed. --Tarage (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a look at my block log, I'm of the mind that it's a lot more helpful than insulting an admin trying to help you. The fact that you're still calling that help "contempt and trolling" is probably not helpful, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No admin was trying to help. What makes you claim that they were? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Berean Hunter was offering you advice, and has even indicated that they were sympathetic to your situation before you blanked your page with that insulting edit summary rant and caught a block extension for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is simply not true. They did not offer any advice, nor indicate that they were sympathetic to my position. They stalled and refused to lift the clearly unjustified block, and said " I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case". 2.25.45.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true as anyone can see in the diff I posted. If you feel like Berean Hunter wasn't helpful or sympathetic, then I suggest you try to wrangle your feelings into something based on the real world, and not on the assumption that everyone who doesn't immediately jump to your defense with guns blazing is actually out to get you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a poor initial block, and WH should respond the next time they log on. Unfortunately it may be a while, as WH doesn't appear to be very active. WH is responsible for the poor initial block, and the IP and other blocking admins and reverters share relative blame (by some formula I don't plan to come up with) for the ensuing flameout. Advice: Don't block too quickly, don't assume all IP's are vandals, don't react too aggressively, don't punish someone venting on their talk page, don't revert something you don't understand just because you see other people doing it. That said, I'd say this is something that Wikipedia is best known for.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh lord that opens another can of worms. I'm not going to touch that one. Regardless, this is yet another troubling instance of administrators going well beyond their bounds with seemingly no means for the community to enact corrections. I realize there is a pending case in arbitration for something similar, but I have little faith that it will result in anything but a 'this is a one time issue' statement. We need better. --Tarage (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I agree with Floquenbeam here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._K._Chesterton&diff=prev&oldid=791125842 is enough evidence that this is who we're dealing with. Someone needs to block ASAP. --Tarage (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I really do not understand what you're saying here. Was that edit a bad edit? It seems to be it was a good edit that improved the article. I think the previous was very jarring, using the present continuous tense when the guy's been dead for more than 40 years, and using five words where one would do. I think that any capable editor would wish to make the same or similar change. But you think I should be blocked for making this edit? 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also add the advice: don't insist on hearing from the blocking admin first, when that person typically shows up infrequently, especially when it becomes so obvious that the block was incorrect. All in all, I'd have been pretty livid too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just put this out there as well; an admin who (prior to reverting all of the IPs edits) had 19 edits to Wikipedia in 2017, two in 2016, and four in 2015. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure, it was a bad block for the wrong reasons, but given the above, it needs to be reinstated. --Tarage (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I keep seeing new things to comment on. Assuming this is not who I think it is, then I really think the long 1RR restriction imposed as a condition for the current unblock is unfair. Not sure how an incorrect 3 day block morphs into a 3 month 1RR restriction in order to get unblocked. Perhaps if it was also applied to WH and to the people who automatically reverted the IP again - people who actually reverted incorrectly, unlike the IP - but somehow I don't think that's likely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I just restored the IP's edits in Contemporary Latin per WP:MADEUP and WP:SELFREFERENCE, which should have been pretty clear-cut. Like Floquenbeam, I'd be pretty pissed off if I were the IP, making good faith efforts. It's no excuse, but certainly a reason to fly off the handle. Kleuske (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Floquenbeam and Kleuske. All in all, it was a bad block from the first blocking admin. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agh - that's really not good either. Whether or not the IP editor is BKF (at this point it doesn't really matter), I think there are a number of things that a number of editors could learn from the whole situation. But it did all stem from the original bad block, from an admin (and I'll say it again) with 25 edits to Wikipedia in the last three years. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite, I agree completely. I wish we didn't have such a trigger-happy Recent changes patrol who are biased against IPs, and this block...yeah. I went back through the archives of my talk page: I have been in the middle of mindless reverts on the one hand and insults on the other hand since at least 2011. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, first let's get a factor that could possibly conflate the analysis out of the way here: If you dig far enough back into the IP's contributions, you do begin to see a pattern of needlessly inflammatory language in edit summaries: [5]. That's something the user is going to want to address regardless of the outcome here.
    That said, most of these comments are stale and none of them (as far as I can tell) were involved with the issues involved in the content dispute or the block. Certainly, no incivility issues were cited by the admin, as they should have been if they were contributing factors to the block. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with regard to this admin's inappropriate approach here. First off, they lept straight to a level three warning, assuming bad faith and perhaps forestalling otherwise productive discussion. Or at least, under normal circumstances it might have forestalled discussion, but Winunter doesn't seem to have cared for discussion regardless because, less than a minute later and for unexplained reasons, they changed their mind and blocked the IP altogether, without giving them a chance to process the warning and/or make a case for why their edits were not vandalism. And putting aside any possible, attenuated argument for how the IP's edits may have been disruptive in some form (and I don't think they were, in this instance) they clearly were not vandalsim. Even if said edit had been inappropriate (and they actually seem to align with our verification and sourcing policies, as well as consensus discussions on the matter), they were pretty clearly made in good faith to add permissible content, and thus not even in the remotest since WP:vandalism as the term applies on this project.
    In short, Winhunter's behaviour here seems completely sloppy, if not outright WP:disruptive. And their failure to account for any of it is not particularly reassuring; far from being a context to assume that they may have legitimate reasons for having taken the actions that they did, the fact that they may once again have gone into dormancy is actually strong additional cause to consider stripping them of the bit. We simply can't have admins empowered with the block hammer who make highly questionable choices in how they implement it, without sufficient explanation, and then just disappear into the aether again immediately. Indeed, the particular details of this case raise the question of whether it is advisable to allow a user to maintain such tools at all, after such a prolonged period of inactivity. Admins need to be completely up-to-date on community guidelines, be reasonably well-practiced in how to implement them and be regular, recognizable, and constructive contributors to the project in general. I sense we are about to hear yet more complaints about how the community ought to be able to desysop without needing to appeal to ArbCom, for the second time in as many weeks; I'm neutral on that issue, but I will say that this instance makes a much stronger case than the one that can currently be found at the top of the page.
    The one place where I will call out the IP is in their approach to that talk page discussion. Yes, they have cause to be frustrated here, but Drmies and other admins, having discovered the facts here, ultimately gave them a method to exit the mess and restore their full editing rights. All they were requested to do was repeat the unblock request (presumably for reasonable pro forma reasons) and instead chose to register their ire. That does raise the question of how they will cope with disputes or administrative matters in the future, I think. Nevertheless, I do think they deserve an apology for having been dropped into this mess in the first place. Snow let's rap 23:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that imposing 1RR as a condition for unblock is unreasonable when there's enough blame to go around, and should be removed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole behaviour and general gameplay of this editor is the likely cause of the grief. The first and second blocks were really justified by saying things like "Don't be stupid." [6] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [7] (then delete it all just to avoid scrutiny!]. Editors here are all volunteers and should not be subjected to such behaviour, and it avoids the trumping policy of all - WP:GF - good faith. The pattern seems to me easily construed as deliberately WP:disruptive.
    I also responded to the various complaints of the reverts made by me here.[8]
    NOTE: I do suspect this unregistered User might be just another sockpuppet of the now indefinitely blocked Tetraquark [9], who also deletes Talkpage information they don't like or even blocks, turn quickly highly combative at any even minor slight, also edits astronomical pages (especially towards images), and equally shows similar poor and rude behaviour. (For a non registered User, they seem to know an awful lot about Wikipedia policies. e.g. Quoting WP:IG) Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he for sure is for sure the BKF vandal, which is why I am concerned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP --Tarage (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do either of you have any evidence to back up these suspicions? If not, WP:ASPERSIONS, if so WP:SPI. Kleuske (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do. Check out his edit history where there are numerous removals of phrases like 'best known for' with edit summaries straight out of that LBA page. If you want actual diffs I'll post them later tonight. It's pretty obvious. --Tarage (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, WP:SPI is the correct place to post the diffs. Kleuske (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That was my initial thought as well, Kleuske (see my comments immediately below). But now that Tarage has linked to that longterm abuse page for the editor in question, I daresay the case is pretty strong and more than satisfies the WP:DUCK test, based on the contributions I have looked at since coming upon this thread. Unfortunately, SPI is going to be of less use than usual, since the use rin question does not register and hops from IP to IP. I do, however, agree that SPI should be the next stop: a sanction can still be implmented there, even without a CU, based on behavioural evidence (which i think is strong in this case). Filing at SPI will also allow exploration of the socking issues to be disentangled from the inappropriate admin actions being discussed here. Plus an admin action is more likely to be prompt at SPI, especially in light of the fact that admins may be hesitant to be the latest to reverse this editors status after the back and forth of the last 24 hours, if they first dsicover the situation via this mess. Snow let's rap 01:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I'll leave it to you then. --Tarage (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not recall removing "phrases like 'best known for'", and struggle to see in any case why you would think that could be called vandalism. It's quite ironic on a thread about being blocked with a false accusation of vandalism though. If you can find an edit of mine that you think was deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, only then you can accuse me of vandalism. You will not find any such edits. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pretty confident that you never act with the explicit intention of obstructing or defeating the project's purpose, for what it's worth. However, I also suspect you may have a substantial and fundamental disconnect with the collaborative nature of this project. Snow let's rap 10:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, pretty sneaky sis! But this isn't my rodeo! It's your theory, and though you have me more than half convinced after sharing that link, if you're really confident, you're going to have to propose the action yourself. Snow let's rap 09:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)That theory sounds like a matter for SPI. I will say that there is apparently a second line of speculation as to this user being someone else above (at least, there is reference to such positions, apparently drawn from another discussion that is not being linked to here). I will say that certain elements of this IP's behaviour and knowledge of process do suggest an experienced editor to me, but without more substantial editing, I am not willing to assume that they are anything other than what they claim to be: a moderately experienced non-registered user who ran afoul of particularly under-experienced admin and then lacked the patience to negotiate the situation as easily as they might have. And I suspect most community members here will feel the same, pending deeper evidence.
    OhanaUnited, I initially shared your perspective and almost called on Drmies to reconsider repealing that restriction. Then I did a little more digging and saw the full context of how that came about. Bear in mind especially that Drmies' initial posts on that talk page were to validate the IP's position and call for all blocks and restrictions to be removed. Other admins/community members(both involved and uninvolved) then agreed, and the IP was asked to resubmit their unblock request, and was given back talk page access for that purpose. At this point the IP used that ability to speak their mind again to immediately balk and complain about the unfairness of having to take 15 minutes (at most, surely) to format that request. It was only at this point that Drmies changes their stance and implemented the 1RR restriction, while also removing the block. Even considering the frustrating and unfair context in which they were initially blocked, that was an impressive display of shooting themselves in their own foot. I'm not sure that 1rr is exactly the most targeted possible sanction here, given that edit warring does not seem to be their issue. But I suspect the intended preventative effect here was to make the editor think twice about acting impulsively when dealing with their fellow editors. Snow let's rap 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was pinged here as the blocking admin? I'm the unblocking admin, who disagreed to some extent with the initial block or at least the given block rationale; I'm the one who (with Anthony) broke a lance for the IP editor. I used to do that in the old days for some other editor whose name escapes me (though Floq might remember)...no, I can't come up with it now. Anyway, I imposed the 1R restriction because it seems to me that trouble starts when the IP gets reverted and then strikes back. Snow Rise, your comments are quite to the point and I appreciate them. If the community thinks that the restriction is too much, that's fine: overturn it. But do note that I have not reverted any of their edits, that I believe I have advocated for them (here and in a slew of messages on the ArbCom mail list, where this user posted with ever-increasing urgency, and that I offered assistance, saying that they could ping me if they got reverted. Mind you, I didn't even need for them to request to be unblocked again--I was just hoping they'd say something reasonable. User:OhanaUnited, in these circumstances, I don't think my restriction was unreasonable. At any rate, have at it, y'all--I did my bit by supporting the IP's initial case and unblocking them, and at the same time trying to protect all sides with a restriction that will require the IP editor to reflect and give them the opportunity to call in the cavalry--but I won't be surprised if this backfires spectacularly, given how the temperature seems to rise when this editor shows up, no matter how solid and positive their edits are. Please don't ping me anymore in this ANI thread: it's not a concern of mine. If the IP wants to ping me to point at some revert or other, my door is always open, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I wasn't blocked for reverting anything, or striking back after reverting. I was blocked for vandalism, when I had clearly done no such thing. I am glad to see that the consensus here seems to be quite strongly that the block was not valid. I am extremely heartened to see that someone suggested I deserved an apology for it. I am less heartened to see I'm accused of being various sockpuppets but whatever.
      • As for what I said when asked to make one more unblock request: what was the need for it? I'd been blocked for vandalism, blocked for being angry about that, and then blocked for no actual clear reason for *three months*. I'd followed all the appeals right up to mailing the arbitration committee, which was crazy given how obvious it was (confirmed here) that the original block was wrong. And then someone says "I'll unblock you, but only if you ask me to one more time." It seemed really pointless. I stand by that.
      • And as for editing restrictions, well I'm not likely to edit any articles for a while anyway. You'll notice I have not edited any articles since being unblocked. The whole experience of being blocked for "vandalism" when making perfectly good edits was extremely unpleasant, and doesn't particularly make me feel like fixing errors I find, far less refixing them when other people have unfixed them, having been accused of "disruption" when I did that before.
      • Anyway I have found this a very useful and interesting discussion. Thanks. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "I was blocked for vandalism," is not entirely true. The first two instances you were plainly blocked for saying things like "Don't be stupid." [10] and "just how stupid are you? it takes virtually no brainpower to distinguish between vandalism and my good edits,..." [11]. You then multiplied the mistake by then delete it all just to avoid scrutiny!
    I see these blocks as a reflection of your own poor aggressive behaviour and the utter contempt you exhibit to others (including me.) This is clearly the needed evidence of "disruptive editing." None of your excuses above at all addresses your own poor behaviour, and your near continuous inflicted 'insults' to other Users if they disagree with you. Wikipedia is for editors in collaborations not those acting like vigilantes. (Some wisdom: Showing an inkling of contrition here would help your cause considerably.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Wikipedia:Vandalism it plainly says: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose,..." The word 'behaviour' here is important, and hasn't been addressed by this IP User at all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor accuses me of aggressive behaviour while aggressively undoing my reverts and slandering me, restoring to articles things that they themselves had described as "abhorrent" and (incorrectly) "vandalism", and responding aggressively when I asked them why they did that. They are yet to provide an answer. I do view them as a problem but that's really a separate discussion. 2.25.45.251 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Go right ahead. You are falsely accusing me of something. You were blocked not just because of the edits but because of your behaviour. If someone reverts an edit once, twice or three times, right or wrong, you should attempt to seek consensus. You did not do this at all. Instead you started throwing insults. End of story. Get it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Arianewiki1, the IP was first blocked for supposedly vandalizing Wikipedia. Of all the three blocks, only one was regarding civility and NPA. The other was for disruptive editing. I don't know if you're insinuating that the IP was vandalizing, because that is entirely false. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 16:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hooo boy, if somebody filed an RfA like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Winhunter 2 today, they'd get WP:SNOW opposed out of the door. How times change. Meanwhile, I have been in 2.25's shoes myself as I used to edit logged out at my local library for security reasons - see User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 45#The war on IPs continues, and I seem to recall I was pretty pissed off when I got hit with a two year block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one is even more telling, but in both Winhunter expresses a very personal take on fighting vandalism, clearly identified as arising out of their frustration as non-sysop to be able to stop them more immediately and effectively. In fact, at every opportunity and before all other factors, they identify their reason for wanting tools to be the ability to rapidly block vandals. That's pretty telling under the present circumstances. It seems these days, in the few minutes they can spare the project every few years, the user now has no time for warnings or discussion before blocking on their vandal assumptions. Not withstanding the fact that I'm low on AGF for the IP, we do owe them for bring this to our attention and I think this matter should be referred to ArbCom, regardless of whether or not the IP gets boomerang blocked for socking. Snow let's rap 10:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO this is why admins should need to earn their wings every year, and not just by making X admin actions; they can't just disappear for over a decade and then swoop in and do stupid $#it with the tools and get away with it. There needs to be a requirement that admins make at least X number of actual edits (not admin actions) every two years or they are de-sysopped. We've been skirting around this problem for way too long and I've seen way too many absentee admins do stupid stuff. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That would help considering the other contributing factor of this issue: editors who became admins in the early days of Wikipedia, when the requirements for a RfA candidate were much lower. Cjhard (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I would survive a reconfirmation RfA, I've made too many enemies. I suspect if you tried to make it policy, the turkeys would gather round and prevent a vote (or a !vote) for Christmas, even though in principle it's a good idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, I think those voting against a reconfirmation RfA based on nothing more than a personal grudge would be identified as doing so and would be discounted when establishing consensus, just as the case would be in regular RfCs. But you're not wrong that it would perhaps be more of an issue. That's something in favour of Softlavender's idea of an increased minimum standard of activity to maintain sysop status: it provides an objective standard, avoiding the axe-grinding issue completely. Cjhard (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I mentioned this possibility above, and though I can't recall having seen it anywhere before, I can't fathom that it has been suggested repeatedly over the years. It's definitely a more reasonable solution than recurrent RfA's in my opinion. That's just begs for disruption and bad blood from a completely needless airing of grievances, which the most disruptive editors will be most certain to turn out for. But a minimum standard of activity? That's completely called for. I'm surprised we don't have it, except to say that the community probably wasn't thinking in the longterm as we originated and perpetuated the process; only with time has the need become obvious. Seems like something that is ripe for VPP, if you ask me.Would need broad support from existing admins though, to survive the community process. Snow let's rap 12:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPI clerk comment - based on the IP's behaviour here and the non-CU technical evidence available to me, I can't reason a situation where this IP is any other than the Best Known For long-term abuser, who is banned by the community. If you want, compare in particular the IP's archived diatribe on their talk page with their comments in the linked ban discussion. While I respect that several admins here have taken it upon themselves to overturn what does appear to have been an inappropriate series of blocks, along with whatever's going on behind the veil of ArbCom, the community ban has been neither appealed nor overturned, and as such I have re-blocked the IP for 3 months to enforce the banning policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ivan. --Tarage (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin acct

    "That is simply not true. They did not offer any advice, nor indicate that they were sympathetic to my position. They stalled and refused to lift the clearly unjustified block, and said " I'll remove this from my watchlist and let another admin consider your case"." (link)

    My responses show that is patently false and the fact that they cherry-picked a sentence from within a post that contains evidence that contradicts them is telling.

    I would still like to hear from Winhunter regarding the IP's initial concern. Has anyone emailed him?

    BKF will have an additional ax to grind with me. His employer contacted me last week and I supplied them with lots of details. They identified him. Different managerial levels are involved and he has received formal counseling that he is not to use their network to edit Wikipedia again to which he has agreed. They are interested in him being a "good neighbour" from here on and it is ironic that I had just written someone looking into the case an email reply detailing the standard offer, how he should contribute elsewhere for no less than six months with an account and that he would have to request a ban appeal from the community. They intend to monitor the situation. That said, since the IP hints at inappropriate admin actions on my part, I'll refrain from commenting further on a possible socking connection here.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not certain that this is the user described in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP (if he doesn't scream abuse at my sympathetic reply above, it isn't), but if it is, he is community banned and should not be editing Wikipedia at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to support Arianewiki1 above - Behaviorally, this really looks like TQ. Scr★pIronIV 18:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been blocked as a sock of BKF. --Tarage (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh fair enough. He'll be back on another IP soon enough. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Berean Hunter thanks for your email, apologies I was busy during the week so couldn't respond to this thread earlier. I do recognize I could have actioned the original block in a better way so thanks for everyone's feedback. Noticed the thread is now concluded though if anyone require additional information from myself please feel free to reach out. -WinHunter (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm reaching out. What does "I could have actioned the original block in a better way" mean? EEng 05:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm open to suggestion for improvement. At the time I saw the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject which made me feel he was a repeated vandal. I could have explained the reason of my block a bit better at the time of the block and also see if I could have used a more appropriate warning . -WinHunter (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully WinHunter, those responses are insufficient to address the questions being asked by the community members here. This thread is not in fact "concluded" and I dare say that it's an indication of your inexperience with this community in the decade since you became an admin that you don't realize that. The IP was banned for being a likely sock of a user banned for behavioural problems, but that doesn't let you off scott free for your involvement in this matter. You instituted a block for another user for vandalism, even though most every editor who has reviewed those edits agrees they are not WP:vandalism in any sense relevant to this community's guidelines. More seriously, you applied the block without any warning, discussion or effort at clarification with the user in question, (unless you count a level three template slapped to their talk page less than one full minute before you blocked them anyway). Then you immediately disappeared as the situation exploded, leaving other admins and the community to deal with the fallout of your actions while the user disruptively worked their way through every community process they knew of (both on the site and off), armed with a legitimate claim of admin abuse which only amped up their existing persecution complex and gave them an excuse to game the system.
      • I admit I am not an active Wikipedian, though I did not intend to "disappear" and when someone emailed me I immediately login over my iphone and tried to respond with my thinking at the time. I am not saying I did the right thing at the time and I do apologies for all the trouble as a result of that action, I was trying to explain my thought process and mentioned that I am open for suggestions for improvement. I am happy to review the latest policies again to refresh my knowledge and if the community still find next admin actions unsatisfactory I am more than happy to let the community to decide my future.--WinHunter (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You say: "At the time I saw the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject which made me feel he was a repeated vandal." Well...why? Legitimate users remove content across multiple related articles as a matter of daily business here; that is not sufficient cause in even the remotest sense to use your privileges to block. You then go on to say "I could have explained the reason of my block a bit better at the time of the block and also see if I could have used a more appropriate warning." But the reality is that you didn't provide any explanation of your block, beyond the erroneous "vandal" in the block summary, nor did you provide any real warning or make any real effort to discuss the matter with the user that you decided (on apparently no hard evidence) was a vandal. You got lucky this time that your random block happened to be a banned user, but the community is now reasonably asking if your lack of involvement here over a long period of time makes you a problematic steward for our most significant (and thus potentially disruptive tools). Sorry to be so strident about it, but your answers are not particularly reassuring me, because they seem to indicate you don't know basic proceedure for our WP:BLOCKing policy. Snow let's rap 06:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)Winhunter, please go to Arbcom and hand in your admin tools. You are very lucky that the IP you blocked turns out to be a banned user, but the reason you blocked them was absolutely wrong. "the continuing removal of similar data across multiple pages for the same subject" is not vandalism if the editor is correct and the data needs removal. These kind of edits need discussion, not the admin hammer, and that you still defend your block indicates that you have not learned anything from this episode. Coupled with your almost complete lack of edits and admin actions for years and years now makes it clear that you are no longer to be trusted to act as admins should. Fram (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with both of the above, in particular the call to resign. As I said on another thread, "We seem to have a mini-epidemic of editors in positions of trust who don't know which way is up, possibly due to limited experience editing articles and discussing with other editors." An admin with 3600 article edits and 350 article talk edits??? [12] And how does someone with that few (not-deleted) article edits accumulate 3300 deleted edits? Plus, he still doesn't doesn't seem to understand what he did wrong. EEng 14:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason of the high delete count is I decided to volunteer over recent years to helpout on WP:CSD as I have more limited time after my day job, and I hope you would find most of those deletions uncontroversial (like user request for their own userpages / obvious advertising etc). As I responded to another editor above I am happy to learn from this experience and review the latest policies, and if my next admin actions is still unsatisfactory I am more than happy to let the community to decide on my future. --WinHunter (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that explains the deleted edits, but that leaves everything else. You still seem unable to enunciate what you did wrong in this case, which is _______________________________ (fill in the blank, please). EEng 16:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do you one better. "The reason I need to be an admin is _____________________." --Tarage (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Winhunter, your failure to engage these concerns is extremely troubling. EEng 23:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Fram and EEng. As a fellow Hong Konger, I would also like to ask you to hand in your admin tools. Removing inaccurate contents is something everyone does, IP or registered. Your revert could be viewed as repeated insertion of "Introducing deliberate factual errors", which ironically is grounds for yourself being blocked. I also think everyone here agrees that the resignation of WinHunter's admin rights, if that happens is considered as done "under the cloud". OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Kick to ArbCom with community recommendation

    It seems that WinHunter is either unable or unwilling to provide significant explanation or engagement regarding the substantial community concerns relating to the problematic way in which WinHunter has approached the use of their privileges--as well as other concerns regarding whether they have sufficient experience, perspective, and engagement in the project to be serving in an administrative capacity. At present, WinHunter seems to either be trying to ride out the scrutiny, or else the handful of brief and insufficient responses above represent the sum total of their ability and desire to explain actions which, consensus in this discussion seems to clearly hold, were deeply problematic (and if I can add my own impressions, indicative of a lack of even the most basic understanding of our blocking policies).

    However, ultimately the removal of tools is ArbCom's purview, so I don't see what more is to be accomplished here. We could long-term block WinHunter, but that does not seem the most transparent way to address the root issue, nor do I think we should prevent the user from possibly returning to the project to contribute productively in other capacities (unlikely as that seems given the user's lack of activity over the years since getting the bit). I therefore propose that we resolve to open a report with ArbCom, but that the report be coupled with a link to this discussion and a strong community endorsement that ArbCom investigate the issues here (and, depending on the result of this poll, a strong recommendation to desysyop). I was hesitant at first to suggest such an approach on the basis of one major incident, but the responses above have been wholly insufficient to assuage my concerns as to whether the user is an appropriate steward of the ban hammer, and I don't think I'm the only one. Snow let's rap 01:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Addendum: Since WinHunter has said that they are willing to accept community consensus on their future role as an admin (without specifying a particular community process), we can also consider asking them to voluntarily relinquish their tools, if the poll suggests they should, thus saving some time in the process. If they are unwilling to part with the tools on the basis of the community consensus here, then we can proceed with the request for review by ArbCom, no harm done. Snow let's rap 01:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Snow said, wait and see if Winhunter has the courtesy to simply resign ("under a cloud", of course). EEng 03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering their behaviour so far, I seriously doubt it. But I'll give it a week or so. Hopefully the knowledge that another ADMINACCT case is heading there should be enough to get something out of them. If their response is anything like what it took Arthur a couple of months to produce, i'll be filing the case anyway. Twitbookspacetube 05:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not concur with your sentiments. I do not believe that "all admins" need a "wake-up call", but that the vast majority of admins do a decent to very good job. They don't need or deserve to be lumped in with an egregious example such as this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, just to be clear, I wouldn't be making this proposal, but for the fact that the issues are particularly egregious; I can't ever recall seeing another pattern of facts surrounding the improper use of blocking privileges quite like this. There are occasional sloppy or involved blocks that stand to have some scrutiny, but the distinguishing factors here are this user's tangential involvement with the project, single-minded reasons for wanting to be an admin, and lack of basic familiarity with the relevant policies. If not for that highly specific combination of factors, I would not have made the proposal--and I I'm not sure that all three apply to so much as a single other active admin. None that I've come across, certainly. Snow let's rap 05:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: "Vast majority of admins do a decent to very good job". That part I agree. But within last 30 days alone, we have 2 admins, including this one, who failed to satisfactory justify their actions (the other being this case which I'm sure you're aware of its existence because you commented on it). And these are the only complaints that surfaced because the affected party knows where and how to complain. Think about how many newbie biting incidents that didn't get reported and this number would have gone up. Two in a month isn't something we should be proud about. At any rate, admins have to be accountable for their actions and that's a given when they decide to run for it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course admins have to be accountable, and most of them do so willingly. As for 2 in a month - since there weren't 2 such last month or the month before, I'd say it's just random, the normal distribution of disconnected events, uncorrelated to the quality of our admin corps.
    Look, I know there are some bad admins out there -- believe me, I've run into a few, and it's shocking simply because it's so rare. Most of the admins interactions I've had have been perfectly normal and justifiable, and if I'm being called to task, I've generally deserved it. We have 1,250 admins, over 500 of whom are active, and I'd be surprised if there were more than a couple of handfuls of bad ones, at the very most. So, I still think you're wrong about the necessity of a "wake-up call" to all admins. What we need is better procedures to get rid of the handful of bad apples, not swatting our admins en masse on their noses with a rolled up newspaper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That more or less sums up my position; the fact that we've had two public discussions about possible admin misconduct this month doesn't add up to me to say much about admins on the project in general. I find most act with restraint; indeed, if there is a problem these days, it's in getting an admin to act definitively on a pressing matter--but that's another discussion altogether. I certainly didn't intend this proposal to be a wake-up call for anyone; the facts are just particularly compelling that there is are basic competency/engagement problems, in the present case. Snow let's rap 08:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The user's inactivity, combined with their recent poor decision and poor response, suggests that they shouldn't be an admin. Perhaps this should serve as a lesson for us about having inactive admins. If you aren't a reasonably active contributor, you probably shouldn't be making administrative decisions. It's like any volunteer situation—while volunteer help is always welcome, you don't want some guy who only pops in a few times a year to be ordering other volunteers out of the building. Everyking (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The IP was first blocked for supposedly vandalizing Wikipedia. From the beginning, it was clear that this block was wrong, and wrongly done. And should have been reverted by the blocking admin, as soon as the consensus became clear on this matter. Perhaps (understatement) the IP has to be blocked for other reasons, by another admin. But it remains that WinHunter messed the situation... and failed to clean it. Don't keep the mop, if you don't understand what cleaning could mean. Pldx1 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on the stipulation that part of the case also be able the community's ability to restrict/revoke mops for behavior like this. --Tarage (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Emmy Expert has been making an enormous number of edits, regularly making watchlists, for edits of very little worth, in this case changing images on the supposed premise of "updating" them, but in a completely nonsensical way, and typically without edit summaries.[13] [14] [15] Myself and other editors have spoken to him. He routinely removes our messages on his user talk. [16] On the plus side, he's apologizing and conceding wrongdoing in his edit summaries. [17] [18] [19] [20] On the downside, we're seeing an extreme case of WP:IDHT, as he goes right back to troublesome behaviour [21] [22] and revert wars [23]. Not sure if he's deliberately playing us or genuinely can't help himself in this area, but he's wearing us out. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm one of a few editors who has commented on Emmy Expert's talk page, and this edit summary of his was very telling: "I apologize, it’s just that I’m obsessed and dedicated to replace these images with one(s) of more currency of the person; that’s my reason. accept?" I've suggested that this is not a recommended practice, that he only "update" images to more recent ones when he believes they actually improves the article, explain his reasoning, and not revert others who challenge his updates, but my requests seem to have fallen on deaf ears. In many/most cases the new images are literally just more recent photos of similar quality in which the subject doesn't look different, so while there may be no real reason to revert the changes, the sheer quantity is making them disruptive.— TAnthonyTalk 02:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed this, too. Emmy Expert, you should comment here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emmy Expert: was notified of this thread, and subsequently blanked the notice [24], followed by returning to the same behaviour [25] Ribbet32 (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And he's not going to stop any time soon. Since being pinged, still felt the need to change and blow up an image on an FL [26] "I didn't hear that!" Ribbet32 (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    After another warning was issued to the editor about refraining from making another tendentious image-related edit before addressing this AN/I discussion (about the editing behaviour in question), the warning was reverted twice by the editor ([27] [28]) with the initial edit summary I'll try harder to stop. The editor then almost immediately went on to make several kind of edits ([29] [30]) that are identical to the ones that have been questioned in this AN/I discussion. After a block was issued, the editor then changed the time stamp and added caps lock to the block notice ([31] [32]). I would like to ask for some community input. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 15:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think this is going to end well. Emmy Expert doesn't seem capable of controlling whatever urge is compelling these edits, including editing other people's comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Or they're trolling you. --Tarage (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Emmy Expert is not a troll, I'm confident of that. At the same time, I don't believe there's some "irresistible urge" to change images on Wikipedia, as until now unknown, undocumented and undiagnosed in the medical community. I think that, until now, the "warnings" Emmy has received have just been words, and now, hopefully, after 48 hours, he'll have learned actions have consequences. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bypassing redirects in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN

    For months now, User:Grouches101 has been bypassing redirects in violation of the guideline WP:NOTBROKEN. Despite many clear warnings from at least four users[33][34][35][36][37][38][39], the behavior is continuing[40][41]. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Poster boy for How Not To Be A Wikipedia Editor. WP:NOTHERE section "Little or no interest in working collaboratively". After two years of unheeded inquiries, attempts to help, and warnings, I don't think the typical 31-hour first block would be enough. An effective "Guidelines, schmidelines. Stop bothering me!" is just not acceptable. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:There'sNoTime had closed this discussion with "Editor appears to have left the project, and hasn't edited for 19 hours (since this report was made). No admin action required until they start again" but I have reopened it as this seems counterproductive: there is zero evidence that they have left the project (they only edit a few times a day anyway, the current gap is way too small to suppose "leaving the project") and this closure means that someone has to open a discussion here while the other editor is actively editing, not a few hours later, which is not really the best way to serve the project or to help the OP. Fram (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) @Fram: Bad close on my behalf - apologies all, but I'm still not seeing any admin action needed here. What do you think we should do? An editor violating NOTBROKEN is hardly a big deal, but them not wanting to communicate does fly in the face of NOTHERE and suggests a block may be in order. I read Why are you telling me this? I told you before I'm gettin the hell outta here. Goodbye & good luck!! from their talk but admittedly disregarded the timestamp, so I was entirely incorrect in saying they've left. They're rather clearly not up for discussing it, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth to block over NOTBROKEN -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reopen. I count 112 edits in the 12 days since their two emphatic declarations of retirement. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @There'sNoTime: As you yourself suggested, a block would be for NOTHERE (and generally wasting a lot of good editors' time), not for NOTBROKEN vios. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken, I'll bow out of making any decisions on this one given the above muck up, but I would at least give them the opportunity to respond to this thread -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears they are declining the opportunity.[42] ―Mandruss ☎ 04:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: That's unfortunate. I have issued a warning to the editor. Alex ShihTalk 16:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Attack page?

    Would User:Morty C-137/SPI-Case be considered an attack page? I was under the impression that accusations of sockpuppetry should be confined to WP:SPI.

    Recent reports regarding Morty C-137:

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Morty C-137: Battleground attitude, personal attacks and edit warring.

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive343#User:Morty C-137 and User:Rjensen reported by User:Cjhard (Result: Warned)

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive342#User:Pepe.is.great and User:Morty C-137 reported by User:KDS4444 (Result: Warned)

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive953#Morty C-137

    --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion has already been had by administators and answered, and I consider Guy Macon's filing here to be in obvious bad faith. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Morty C-137: Where did this admin discussion occur? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been attacked over and over [43] and I have every right to keep records given that we are "required to give evidence". Morty C-137 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I asked. Where has an admin told you this page is OK? This page has been up for over a month with no SPI case filed. We can't keep pages like this around, per WP:POLEMIC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just linked a diff for you above. Take it up with them. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Since Morty's decide to revert the blanking, I've deleted the page per WP:POLEMIC. These type of pages cannot be left around for long periods of time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that proves this whole listing is in bad faith, since you gave me no actual chance to save the material offline and you're ignoring policy. Morty C-137 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undeleted for 10 minutes so you can copy everything. Then it's getting deleted again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm lucky I saw that at the 9th minute, such a "generous" amount of time. What a load of harassing crap. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    May I interject here? Morty C-137 none of those users nor an admin EVER said that you could do that. Dinah In Wonderland 19:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconding this. It's possible Morty linked to the wrong diff, of course. If you're collecting evidence in this manner, it's best to do it off wiki. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things here. A quick look through Cjhard's (very short) edit summary:

    1. It screams "sock puppet" of the sleeper kind. The account has only approx. 815 edits but extensive knowledge not only of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines but it's internal politics, feuds, obscure cases and ANI reports (examples [44]. It made 16 edits in 2007, 8 edits in 2008, 4 edits in 2009, 4 in 2011, 3 in 2012 and then... it "woke up" and exploded with several hundred edits starting in May of this year. And a lot of these involve following and reverting Morty around - there's no freakin' way this is a legit account.
    2. It's immediately obvious that the account HAS in fact been following and harassing Morty.

    It's hard to tell who the sock master here is but at least this account looks like one of the socks of the same person.

    I can easily see why Morty is frustrated here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, do it at SPI. Doing it here, incorrectly, without evidence, and without having the courtesy of pinging me in a conversation I hadn't already been made aware of, is an unacceptable personal attack. Honestly, I'm getting tired of it from Morty, and my tolerance for it is waning. Cjhard (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Better yet, provide your input to the SPI case Morty finally opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cjhard. Cjhard (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If User:Morty C-137 doesn't understand why his behavior (both in maintaining a page full of un-substantiated attacks on wiki, and his recent contributions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard) is problematic, administrative action against him should be considered. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    AFAICT there's no "problematic" behavior at RN/B, which, incidentally, is not a discussion you yourself participated in. As far as I can tell.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've commented on it now, though I'm not sure what your remark regarding my lack of participation is supposed to imply. I hope that, after the fourth invocation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, he will let the discussion die on its own; it hasn't been about "Reliable Sources" for quite some time. That said, it's not actionable; as the SPI case is filed and the attack page is blanked, hopefully an admin can close this soon. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (copy of recent post to WP:REFUND): This page is covered both by WP:POLEMIC (a policy), and WP:CSD#G10 (a speedy deletion criterion that references WP:ATP, a slightly different but essentially similar policy page). I referenced the first policy in the deletion log, kind of assuming the link to G10 was clear, but if that's too lazy and if it helps in dotting the i's and crossing the t's, consider it deleted per WP:CSD#G10. We generally haven't considered short-term compilation of evidence an attack page, but they aren't allowed to linger in user space for a long time; in this case over a month, plus a week since its undeletion. From WP:ATP: "keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate". If it's going to take a long time to compile evidence, that should be done offline. Morty now has this material offline if he chooses to use it. If an admin thinks WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP doesn't apply here, they can certainly undelete (I'll say as much at ANI in a moment). Or ditto if Morty wants to take it to WP:DELREV instead. But it pretty clearly qualifies to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC) (end of copy)[reply]
    I'm not preventing Morty from continuing to compile evidence, I'm not preventing him from filing an SPI, I'm not claiming Sjhard is or isn't a sock, and I'm not Morty's enemies' newest buddy. But my experience has been that we enforce WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP like this all the time. I even tried to blank it instead of delete it, and was immediately reverted. Again, if any admin thinks undeletion is warranted and WP:POLEMIC/WP:CSD#G10/WP:ATP doesn't apply, please feel free to undelete. Now I've been told I'm a stuck up jerk, that I'm someone's pet admin, and that I am intentionally harassing Morty, and I still temporarily undeleted the page for Monty to copy the contents, and I've explained myself sufficiently to satisfy WP:ADMINACCT. I've had more than enough, so I'm disengaging now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Whether the page in question should be deleted or not is subject to the usual administrative rules and guidelines (though I've seen other people do similar, just in a but less transparent way and get away with it). My point rather is that Morty's action were understandable and importantly, that this ANI report is completely pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Floquenbeam, I apologize for the jerk comment. That being said, I am frustrated because (a) the last person to blank that page was a freaking sockpuppet of a stalker and (b) you didn't explain ANYTHING of your blanking, followed by just up and deleting it when I reverted and tried to add the newest sockpuppet to the list. How the hell was I supposed to know what you were up to when you were too lazy to give an explanation? Morty C-137 (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be a sock puppet. Nothing has been proven yet. --Tarage (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I learned today that this user filed a false allegation of sockpuppetry against me. It's certainly "Not Here" behavior. It needs to be stopped either on its own or by a hasty door showing. The attack page is a symptom of the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no shortage of symptoms; the repeated assumption/leap to accuse other users above (including intervening admins) of "harassment" demonstrates A) a pretty profound lack of understanding of basic process (which can always be remedied with experience) and B) a more fundamental sense of persecution and refusal to WP:AGF (which is more problematic). We already see enough users show up here on a revolving door basis who are convinced that any time their wishes are thwarted or their behaviour questioned, it is a form of harassment. Best to disabuse this notion early, before it progresses to the conspiracy theory stage and truly disruptive discussions that usually follow. Snow let's rap 11:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Dheyward ran right in after someone was blocked. The Clerk on the case admitted "I can see why it looks suspicious." But hey, go ahead and roundly misrepresent everything. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two sets of sockpuppets attacking Morty. The earliest one is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.H.110/Archive A second set is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D.Pearson/Archive. I'll quote Bbb23, who is sadly now inactive here: " I can see the confusion because of the usernames, all the pepes and earsons, but they are separate masters editing from different continents and using different other technical data. I don't know why this person is mimicking the other.-" That is my finding also. Two different continents but the later one is mimicking the earlier. I have my own thoughts on this but need to ponder on the evidence a bit longer. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy mother of WP:IDHT; you really need to stop assuming (and vocally asserting) that everyone who questions you is out to get you, and listen to what the experienced admins and users here are trying to tell you. A few things relating to your last couple of posts:
    A) I wasn't commenting on Dheyward's assertions, but rather pointing to your behaviour above of attacking every administrator who takes action to keep you from trampling on policy. I don't see how I am "roundly misrepresenting" anything by pointing out that this is an incredibly self-defeating strategy.
    B) You have so selectively quoted mz7's comments in the SPI that you opened against DHeyward (and mischaracterized their role in the SPI) so as to have essentially reversed the conclusion they came to. Here's the full quote, with the context you omitted: "I am not an SPI clerk, but for what it's worth, I agree that the reverts alone are insufficient evidence. I can see why it looks suspicious, but DHeyward is a longstanding editor (created in 2005), and the Doorzki account is not exactly new either (created in 2012). If these were single-purpose accounts with no other edits besides these reverts, we would probably call it a WP:DUCK. However, that's not the case here: both editors have coexisted for a while now without drawing suspicion of sockpuppetry. Given this, I would need to see more evidence of interaction between these accounts or other idiosyncratic behavior (e.g. similar writing style/editing philosophies) before blocking or even recommending CheckUser in this case."
    C) Your latest SPI is an absolute nightmare of disorganized non-cogent accusations and non-contexualized links. Moreover, you clearly knew what you were adding to that page, because this was your edit summary for your second edit: "Fuck it. I was trying to get my head wrapped round it and was going to start paring things down and reformatting, but since I got harassed today and told "use it or lose it", it's up. Have fun, whoever.". Uhh, no. That's not how this works. If you want the community to take your accusations seriously, the responsibility is on you to make the argument in a structured and intelligible fashion. It is not the community's responsibility to go digging through that mess of gibberish to make heads or tales of which of the dozens of editors you accuse might actually be a sock, just because you still wanted to open another SPI but you were also angry and wanted to make a statement about your attack page being closed.
    You need to take a pause for the cause here, because at ANI we look at the behaviour of all involved parties, even once we've established that one of them is problematic. It will do you no good at all to identify a sock who may or may not be harassing you if, in the course of trying to make your case, you demonstrate a profound inability to contribute to the project yourself without accusing every good-faith contributor and admin you come across of being in on the harassment, and just generally demonstrating a highly WP:disruptive attitude. Snow let's rap 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Related: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#User:Morty_C-137/SPI-Case (2nd request). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Really, this user has been here for 4 months[45] and he has an enemies and sock accusation list. Not since Psycho in the movie Stripes has someone created a death list so quickly. It's hardly the type of activity new users find themselves embroiled in and arguing about. It's about time to call this one as an obviously returning editor. --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering his SPI against Cjhard is failing(unsurprisingly), I think we need to start limiting the amount of accusations Morty is allowed to toss around. Yes, it is unfortunate that he has been the target of two sock puppet editors, but that is no excuse for slinging accusations at everyone and hoping some stick. --Tarage (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the SPI is as much as done; the CU found no relationship between Cjhard and any of the other editors. I'm actually pretty shocked jpgordon decided to run a CU in that situation at all, but perhaps they recognized it may prove necessary to refer back to that SPI as fruitless. In light of the polemic/attack page, the recurrent fruitless SPIs, the constant assumption of bad faith and unsubstantiated claims of harassment (particularly the accusations against Guy Macon and Floquenbeam above), and just the generally WP:battleground and WP:disruptive attitude this user is bringing into every space they enter into, I'm fully prepared to support restrictions of some sort--a topic ban from SPI in particular. Frankly, at this point, it's beginning to feel less like IDHT and more like "I will never hear that", but the smallest targeted restrictions should be considered first. I definitely think something needs to be done though; this is a whole lot of drama for the community to have to contend with to indulge for a user who has been around for four months and spends half of their time grinding axes; harassment from socks gets one a certain amount of sympathy, but this user is primed to see foes no matter the circumstances. Morty either needs to learn what is an acceptable claim of harassment or, as has been suggested above, he will have to be shown the door. Snow let's rap 01:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    English Wikipedia has a history of sanctioning editors when they respond poorly to harassment. Some of this is unavoidable, but I still think we need to come up with a better approach. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how responding poorly to harassment by another editor gives Morty C-137 a free pass to abuse multiple editors who had no part in any harassment.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] Morty C-137, given the wide variety of editors who you have accused of harassing you and acting in bad faith, could it be possible that the problem is you?
    There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon presents a heck of a Gish Gallop, but none of those diffs show what he is saying, with the exception of one edit that I've already apologized for. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Respectfully NRP, multiple admins have attempted to approach this user with kids gloves only to be told to stop "harassing" him. I wasn't suggesting a block, but rather trying to isolate them from areas they don't seem yet competent to handle--areas in which they are currently sinking a lot of time into, and which are the nexus of all of the issues they are having with just about everyone they seem to be interacting with on the project now.
    The smallest and most targeted sanction I could think of is a topic ban from SPI complaints, appeal-able in a few months once they have enough experience to know what really looks like suspicious activity, under this community's standards--not just the criteria of anyone who disagrees with them ever, on any article. Though, if I'm frank, it's the refusal to AGF / general hostility to anyone thwarting their will that is the real problem. If you think you can reach them, short of that sort of thing becoming a necessity, by all means have at it. But I'll direct you to the above, and this user's talk page, where numerous notably patient admins and veteran community members have tried. Snow let's rap 09:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Whilst dealing with true harassment is something we need to do much better, dealing with tactical (or misguided) cries of harassment based on a simple disagreement or failure to gain consensus is something we do poorly too. CRYHARASS can be similar to CRYBLP: a diversion from the underlying issue by appeal to the authority of an inapplicable generality which deliberately invokes strong reactions. Both of these are gaming tactics, and, historically, we've not dealt particularly well with that, either. NRP makes a good point, but, as you say, the issues are wide and nuanced. -- Begoon 10:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think what’s clear is that since his block Morty C-137’s conduct hasn’t improved since his first block. His behaviour on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is a great example of his personal attacks, tendentiousness and battlefield behaviour continuing unabated. His presence is almost inevitably disruptive in any political topic he engages with and his temperament appears to be inherently compatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia. A series of increasingly long bans ending in retirement or an indefinite ban appears inevitable. However, Morty’s work on articles related to Rick and Morty suggests that he is able to contribute to the project positively in areas which require less collaboration and are less politically charged. The optimist in me would suggest that a topic ban on all political topics along with a sanction against making any personal attacks (specifically accusations of wrongdoing without evidence and/or outside the proper channels) might prevent his negative behaviour while retaining him as an editor. Cjhard (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest a short block for incivility and not assuming good faith, followed by longer and longer blocks until he either gets the point or is blocked indefinitely. His behavior has completely disrupted what would have otherwise been a calm, rational discussion on RSNB about whether a particular source, previously reliable, has become unreliable. This is interfering with the operation of the encyclopedia. I am agnostic on the politics topic ban, not having examined his behavior in that area. --Guy Macon (talk)09:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue his behaviour on RSNB is an example of his behaviour in the politics topic, given the nature of the sources discussed and what they're being used for. Cjhard (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that, as a party, jumping on some sort of perceived bandwagon might not be the best thing for you to do here. Despite the very poor SPI, people may still have questions. Your last couple of posts have not helped to convince me that you don't deserve deep scrutiny, yourself. -- Begoon 12:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with Morty's disruptive behavior and personal attacks? A Morty-free encyclopedia has a lot less drama overhead. Threatening his victims doesn't solve the problem. --DHeyward (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    DARVO. Those who have been through abusive situations recognize this sort of behavior when someone tries it on them. I've done nothing to warrant the torrent of abuse you've heaped on me, I legitimately saw something weird in a pattern of edits and reported it. You've been page hopping for the past couple days insulting me and trying to get me "banned" while calling me things like "ban-boy" and it needs to stop. Morty C-137 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No Morty. I've followed you to admin pages where you are abusing other editors including me. It needs to stop. Your behavior is deplorable and your accusations lack merit. I've not sought you out or even knew you existed until someone pointed out your merit-less SPI accusation in an apparent attempt to get me sanctioned and I learned that I was one of many. I have done nothing but point at your poor behavior. It's incompatible with Wikipedia. I have not started any ANI/SPI/3RR or any other process against you but that seems to be your sole contributions as there are at least 4 open ones about you. Your familiarity with these avenues, your long list of "bad users" and attitude suggest this isn't your first rodeo. I personally find that those that see sockpuppets at every turn are often the worse sock puppeteers and is why they think a torrent of socks are out to get them. --DHeyward (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that DHeyward has now begun stalking my edits and reverting me wherever he can find me, in an attempt to get me angry. [57][58] [59] Morty C-137 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?"[60] --Monty Python and the Holy Grail
    According to WP:WIKIHOUNDING, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." DHeyward appears to be simply correcting related problems on multiple articles that you have edited. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."
    Repeat: to repeatedly confront... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. Dheyward has never edited those pages before - they were following me in hopes of creating irritation, annoyance or distress. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If these edits you cited [61] [62] annoyed you, you are in the wrong place. You called them reverts when in fact your exact text and citation were retained. You didn't bother to check that the source and content were duplicated. --DHeyward (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Morty C-137, it appears that pretty much everything causes you "irritation, annoyance or distress", including the most innocuous of edits. Right now it looks like you are heading toward an indefinite block, and your continued claims of harassment and bad faith are making that block more likely. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruptive commentary by LynnWysong, lashing out at an editor she has a beef with, but irrelevant to this discussion, even if she unhats this, again. LynnWysong: You're rapidly putting yourself into a place where other editors are going to start considering you a net negative to the project if you keep inserting yourself into discussions you know nothing about, merely to slag off one of the editors you've taken a dislike to. My advice is to knock it off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to know if anyone's opinion here is influenced by this. Seems like whether or not keeping a page like this, the real issue here, is okay, depends on who you are. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know Morty C-137, but what I see here is that he/she was brought here because they were keeping a page to prepare for an SPI. In the edit summary they provided, they were told that they shouldn't keep it more than six months without taking action. That forced him to file an SPI before it was ready. Now, he's being accused by the object of the SPI of having brought the accusation here instead of at SPI in the first place. Uh, no, he didn't. And now, he's being told that since he made that accusation, his own behavior is under review.
    In the meantime, a couple of years ago, an established editor was keeping a similar page. When it was pegged for deletion, the community rallied to her side. This is hypocrisy at it most pathological.
    If what Guy Macon (talk · contribs) was really upset about was the editor's behavior at other articles, that's what this ANI should have been about. Right now it looks like a bait and switch. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This is just wrong on so many levels...first, Montanabw's page had only been there for two months, it was supplementing an active SPA of a LTA, and it was moved away to WP space once people noticed it and MfD'd it. Second, Morty didn't have to file the SPI at that time, he could have easily kept this stuff off-wiki as suggested by the deleting admin and others until he was ready (not that it would have affected the outcome; baseless accusations are just that no matter how polished). Third, Cjhard was telling Volunteer Marek to take the accusations to the SPI, not Morty. And fourth, there's no "whistleblower protection" here, per WP:BOOMERANG; everyone's behavior is scrutinized. ansh666 02:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. But, didn't it say that Morty's page had only been there for one month?
    2. Yes, he could have, and, upon having not had his hand called, he may have not filed it all.
    3. Ah. I misunderstood
    4. How does WP:BOOMERANG apply when then the person supposedly being boomeranged didn't bring the action? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Lynn, I don't even know where to start. To begin with, most of the commentary here has nothing to do with the WP:POLEMIC page (which Floquenbeam was completely within their administrative prerogative to remove, regardless) but rather about their generally comabative and hostile attitude towards criticism in general, whatever the context and space it occurs in. Second, so you managed to dig up one occasion, from years ago, in which a similar page was retained? So what? I think you should read WP:OTHERSTUFF (even if it is just an essay); or better yet confirmation bias, because while that one page may have been retained (for a very short time) on the basis of a "no consensus" result, the standard approach on this project, applied time and time again, is to not allow such evidence to be compiled and stored longterm. There's an unambiguous policy about this: WP:POLEMIC, in case you've missed it the dozen or so times it's been cited here already. It doesn't matter if, once upon a time, in one discussion, the community failed to uphold that policy (or decided under the facts of those circumstances that it was appropriate)--that's not a reason for doing so again here.
    Meanwhile your argument that deleting that policy-violating page "forced Morty to file an SPI prematurely" makes absolutely zero sense. No one put a clock on Morty and no one tried to (or realistically could) prevent Morty from compiling his evidence offline, if he felt that was a worthwhile use of his time. He was simply prevented from hosting the information in his user space. Again, per policy. Certainly no one encouraged Morty to file any one of those SPIs without proper merit or evidence (other than "they got in my away, why else would they do that if they weren't out to get me?").
    Lastly, I don't really care what Guy's other concerns with the user were and which issue he should have raised first, according to you. The community members who have responded here are all discussing what they perceive to be a complex of issues with this user, but all of them going back to a short fuse and an inability to have their actions questions or their will thwarted without lashing out with accusations of "harassment". And frankly, your off-base argument that they are being singled out or treated differently from other members of the community (when almost all longterm POLEMIC pages are deleted upon discovery) is not going to help this user correct course, but only encourage them to turtle up further into the comforting assumption that they are being persecuted. Snow let's rap 02:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just bringing up what I see to be a true flaw with ANI, which is that it never seems to deal with the issue at hand. (edit) The editor was brought here ostensibly for keeping a page against policy, and he/she is being threatened with a boomerang, when they didn't bring the action. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Until Ansh's response to you above, WP:BOOMERANG wasn't mentioned once, and nobody is being "threatened" with anything. The user's conduct is being examined. There is no prohibition here against noting relevant problematic behaviours just because they happen to not be the focus of the OP's original comments; that would make zero pragmatic sense for this space. Certainly the community is not required to turn a blind eye to an issue that is explicitly on display in the ANI itself. Snow let's rap 02:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike what many people assume, BOOMERANG doesn't just apply to the filer of a case (or whatever the applicable metaphor is), it applies to everyone involved. (oh, I see - I wasn't addressing Morty specifically on that last point, just speaking generally) ansh666 03:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "And frankly, your off-base argument that they are being singled out or treated differently from other members of the community (when almost all longterm POLEMIC pages are deleted upon discovery) is not going to help this user correct course, but only encourage them to turtle up further into the comforting assumption that they are being persecuted." I don't think that doing a bait and switch at ANI, bringing up a minor problem-a POLEMIC page that had only been up for a month when others are not only allowed to stay longer but even defended, and then switching to what "the community" perceives as the real problem, helps with a feeling of persecution either. Also, he's being taken to task for filing SPIs, that don't appear to be entirely frivolous or vindictive. In my experience, discouraging filing SPIs when someone thinks they have legitimate cause will lead to much worse behavior. Believe me, I've been the victim of it, so I'm coming from a different perspective here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion is thoroughly off the rails. I request an un-involved admin close it with no action against any editors. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I've changed the template from {{hat}} to {{cot}} to prevent edit warring. But hopefully off-topic discussions can stop here. Alex ShihTalk 04:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, with Lynn's divergence being now hatted, I must disagree with your description of the discussion and with your recommendation. There are real and substantial issues still being addressed here, and (Lynn aside) all of the community members who have responded to this thread are roughly of the same mind that the behaviour in question is problematic (even if no clear solution / response from the community has been proposed). Morty has responded to every halfway critical appraisal of his actions with cries of "harassment", even while under community scrutiny and while responding to admin directives here at ANI. If he's willing to shout accusations in the faces of admins trying to restrain him, how can we reasonably believe he's about to change his approach when dealing with the rank and file in disputes on some random article--especially the highly charged socio-political ones he favours? I don't see the point in closing this thread when it's virtually certain the user will be back here at ANI or back spamming SPI before we can blink. Snow let's rap 05:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Off topic Show me an ANI thread with this much activity that wasn't off the rails after 36 hours. I'd honestly like to know what that looks like. Absent some kind of ground rules, firmly enforced, there aren't any rails to be off of. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My point also. The ANI was filed in response to what was called an "Attack Page". Now, I didn't see the page, and I don't know if there was anything on it that could be termed an "attack" rather than part of compiling an SPI case, but it sounds like that was what it was, and that it wasn't a frivolous case, as per Volunteer Marek. "Not frivolous" as opposed to "valid"...I'm not making judgements on the validity of Morty's suspicions, but it does seem to me that he was doing what he was supposed to do when one has suspicions of socking, and that is to file an SPI. Sounds like he filed a couple, ended up with egg on his face, and was being more cautious with the third, when all of a sudden his hand is forced. So, he files the SPI in response to that, and now he's being attacked himself on all fronts, for one being accused of "spamming" SPI. This is the problem with ANI. This thread went off the rails as soon as it stopped being about the "Attack Page" and whether or not it was okay to have it. Which means it went off the rails in lines 2-5 of the thread, when Guy Macon started bringing up the recent ANIs that had been brought against Morty. And, as to how long one should be allowed to maintain a page of difs related to sockpuppet suspicions, what is the "timely manner" (quote from policy) in which it should be used? The answers are: "It depends on whether or not you've recently been brought to ANI" and/or "It depends on what editor is keeping them, and who they are keeping them on," neither of which is an objective, rationale response that is going to diffuse an editor that is already feeling persecuted.
    So yes, this should be closed without action. If another ANI is opened, there should first be a perusal of Robert's Rules of Order by all parties. The dogpile method that ANI currently uses is not just dysfunctional, it's something out of Lord of the Flies. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cjhard has now been closed: "Checkuser finds nothing interesting connecting Cjhard with any of these accounts or with any problematic accounts at all."

    Meanwhile, the previously listed problem behavior ([63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73]) has continued with [74][75][76][77].

    There is a broad consensus that the behavior of Morty C-137 is problematic. Everyone who criticizes Morty C-137 in any way is accused of bad faith, harassment, or sockpuppetry. If this is closed without administrative action, someone will open a new report when the behavior continues. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A Proposal

    Morty C-137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now editing 2017 Unite the Right rally, and while he has managed to technically avoid violating 3RR (because some of his reverts are of obvious vandalism), editing that page at all during this discussion is a sign of incredibly poor judgment on his part. As a friendly offer to him, I suggest that he voluntarily agree to a post-1932 American Politics TBAN for the next month. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that I can't promise that other editors will consider this sufficient. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And I note that I think that the object of the ANI has been met, which was to address the "Attack Page." It's gone. But you're right, he probably should walk away from articles like that for a while (why 1932?). I, for one, wouldn't touch one of those types of articles with a 10 foot pole (My focus is on the fur trade and nice, un-contentious articles about horses Oh, wait) My observation is that anyone who does edit those ends up getting regularly brought to ANI and blocked. Just part of the whole "encyclopedia anyone can edit" scenario. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki: Have I made any bad edits on that page? Can you point to any? I'm willing to bet you can't. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the right response Morty. He didn't say you made questionable edits, but that your editing the page was questionable. You need to walk away from all this for a while. Believe me, I know what it feels like to be dogpiled, and that's why I took hits here calling that out, but if you don't settle down you're going to be right back here and it will probably be for the right reasons next time. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, there is no "right response", ever. No matter what policy is complied with, there's another contradictory policy. Trying to report harassment results in more threats; filing quickly when there are likely sockpuppets gets attacked, trying to put it all together to get it right gets attacked the same way. Whatever I say, whatever I do, someone with an agenda will twist it and misrepresent it in some way. They won't do shit about people who hunt me page to page, they won't do shit about the people constantly making new accounts to harass me, but they'll go after me nonstop. Morty C-137 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And your belief that is the case is a good reason for the proposed TBAN. Your non-political edits seem to be stress free for you but your political edits have you seeing boogeymen at every turn. That's a problem for all of us much more than any problems you are dealng with. --DHeyward (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's a reason someone who stalked my edits trying to irritate me will have no impact on my opinion. Morty C-137 (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's OK. Being blocked from editing Wikipedia has been show to be an effective method for impacting the opinion of editors like you.
    You are claiming that it's always someone else, never you. For some inexplicable reason dozens of people who don't know each other have somehow gotten together and decided to harass poor, innocent you, while the vast majority of editors get along fine with everyone else.
    The fact of the matter is that we do care about those who legitimately harass you, and we are putting in our absolute best effort to identify them and stop them from posting to Wikipedia. But none of that changes the fact that your behavior is a problem as well.
    Here are some diffs. Study them, and identify the things that you are doing that others here are not doing. Then stop doing those things.
    • "Bullshit and WP:WEASEL words"[78]
    • "The repeated dishonesty ... just designed to try to irritate and provoke "[79]
    • "Rudely and dishonestly misrepresenting ... false accusation"[80]
    • "Fraudulent ... in bad faith"[81]
    • "Obvious bad faith"[82]
    • "Inappropriate and done in a manner calculated to harass."[83]
    • "That proves this whole listing is in bad faith"[84]
    • "You'd prefer to beat me up. Now I see why admins are considered suck stuck up jerks on wikipedia."[85]
    • "What a load of harassing crap."[86]
    • "Go away. You know you only posted that garbage to harass me."[87]
    • "But hey, go ahead and roundly misrepresent everything."[88]
    • "Not sure what game you're playing or if you just decided you hate my guts for some reason."[89]
    • "Such a sad individual."[90]
    • "So many personal attacks."[91]
    • "Stalking my edits and reverting me wherever he can find me, in an attempt to get me angry."[92].
    Free clue: The thing you keep doing that is pissing everyone else off involves accusing others of harassment, accusing others of bad faith, and in general acting like a total jerk.
    I propose a short block for the above behavior, followed by longer and longer blocks if he keeps doing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I know full well you decided you hate me and want me blocked, and you won't shut up nor stop misrepresenting my edits till you get your way. Such as your rank mischaracterization of when I noted the many personal attacks from DHeyward after he launched a flurry of them including calling me "ban-boy". Morty C-137 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, bad behavior (real or imaginary) by others does not excuse your behavior. If you think that either I or DHeyward have misbehaved, file an ANI report with diffs supporting your claims. Your continued assertions that it is never you, always someone else are making it more likely that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Morty C-137, your post right above is an example of the behavior Guy was pointing out. It probably isn't really helpful to your cause. May I suggest you consider moderating your behavior some? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already posted the diffs here. LynnWysong was right about one thing, Guy Macon posted this just to cause a dogpile because this board isn't for resolving things, it's for a bunch of vultures to get their fill ripping into victims and engaging in DARVO. Morty C-137 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Votes on action against Morty C-137

    • Support short block Enough of this. This has wasted way too much time and the editor, even after a failed malformed SPI, still doesn't get it. --Tarage (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support short block as a minimum option to deal with Morty. Hopefully it'll cause him to look at the criticism he's received here and correct his behaviour, but his levels of IDHT are through the roof, so the more likely outcome is that he will add this to his list of grievances by the harrassers at Wikipedia and we'll be back here when he resumes editing. Cjhard (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what's the point? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support a topic ban on political topics as a measure which might be more effective in preventing Morty's disruptive behaviour in the long term. Cjhard (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OpposeThis ANI has been a cluster. The fact that it started by characterizing Morty's draft SPI report as an "Attack Page" fatally flawed it from the beginning. Process should mean something. Even if you have to let someone off the hook that probably doesn't deserve it, you can't use flawed process to justify retribution. Let's piece the conch back together and do make people do it right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended discussion on the "draft SPI report"
    • Of course it was an attack page. It was (quite properly) deleted under WP:CSD#G10 and undeletion was declined at deletion review. Read WP:POLEMIC:
    "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Unrelated content includes, but is not limited to the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used..."
    or read WP:ATP, which says
    "keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody."
    --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "...the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted." Compiling evidence for an SPI is a legitimate action, and should not be termed an "Attack Page". The key words there are "timely manner" and "imminently." That should have been the focus of the ANI, unless there were things on there that didn't apply to the ANI. I don't know, and you didn't provide difs of any, instead you brought up his past ANIs. Not right. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you keep insisting (although everyone else here keeps telling you otherwise) that it is somehow "inappropriate" to bring up multiple issues about a problematic user? This isn't a court case, nor is Wikipedia a bureaucracy. And Guy didn't pull any kind of "bait and switch" as you've implied repeatedly above. He brought an initial issue here, which could have been resolved quickly, except for the fact that Morty instead chose to accuse every admin and community member here who tried to get them to what was wrong with their approach of harassment. That is what lead to community looking into the broader issues with this user's conduct, insofar as I can tell from the above. Your insistence that Guy did something wrong or that the other community members here are acting inappropriately by no turning a blind eye to clearly problematic behaviours that were not mentioned by the OP has no basis in policy or community consensus and is, frankly, nonsensical. I appreciate that you identify with this user's aggravation and also that you don't have a high impression of Guy, but I don't think you're keeping proper perspective here and you're out on a limb as a result. Snow let's rap 04:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no impression of Guy at all, other than that I think he set up this ANI in an unfair manner. And, the fact that I am "out on a limb" for providing a dissenting opinion here is yet another indication of why this process is so dysfunctional. No, ANI is not a court, but it would serve the community much better if some ground rules, based on common court procedures, were established, rather than the free-for-all it currently is. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well of all of the possible pro forma adjustments to the approach of ANI that you might suggest, the recommendation that we refuse to address behavioural problems not raised in the original post is pretty close to single most non-pragamtic and counter-intuitive suggestion you could make, and not one I think you will ever generate much support for, for that very reason. Snow let's rap 17:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad. Because that is why ANI discussions constantly derail, resulting in bad decisions that don't resolve the issue at hand. I'm not saying that behavior can't be an exacerbating factor in a case, but in this case, the discuss veered so off-course the proposed "prevention of disruption" doesn't even fit the issue brought to ANI, and that is that Morty was planning another SPI report in the wake of two that were bad choices of action. So, the logical consequence would be to ban him from filing any more SPI's, but that doesn't seem necessary anymore, so, I guess the "community" has to find some other way to justify all this. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support both block and TBAN - As a pending changes reviewer, I am witnessing the reversions made on Jenny McCarthy in opposition to Morty's acts. A temporary block will stop D.Pearson's hatred, while the topic ban will prevent further attacks. I also recommend page protection for any affected articles that Pearson is attacking Morty on, including the one I mentioned. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended discussion regarding socks
    O.M.G. You mean the reversions made by BanMorty (talk · contribs) and MortyKillYourself (talk · contribs)??????!!!!!!! No wonder the guy's got a huge chip on his shoulder. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but do notice that both of those uers has been already blocked. This community has done, and will continue to do, what it can to shield Morty from this trolling. What it cannot and will not do is allow Morty to see a foe (and then pursue them as such) in every person he comes across who questions his generally bombastic approach, for purely good-faith reasons. What would you have us do, block everyone he suspects of being a sock? Or just let him file SPI after SPI against longterm good-faith contributors, simply because they reverted him on an article that happens to be one of those where he has clashed with his troll? This user needs to learn that WP:DUCK ≠ "person who criticized me". Until they learn and internalize community standards on such things, it's hard to see any alternative to restraining their contributions. Snow let's rap 03:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow RiseI am simply pointing out that there are mitigating circumstances here. The guy is under attack and isn't dealing with it well. He was accused of seeing "socks everywhere" when in reality, there are socks everywhere. He filed a couple of un-advisable SPI's, (but I don't think they were entirely frivolous-it does sound like he had a reason to believe there was socking involved) and seemed to be realizing he needed to be more methodical if he did another one, hence the "Attack Page". He's like a high strung dog that was attacked by a pack of coyotes, when the other dogs came into help him he was so worked up that he couldn't tell friend from foe. He may have continued to calm down but what happens? He gets dragged here under the auspices that his more methodical manner of dealing with socks is an "Attack Page".
    Yes, the difs provided by Guy are concerning, and those are what he should be taken to task for. But that issue has been so buried in the red herring of the "attack page" that right now, any block or topic ban is probably not going to send the right message, and would instead seem arbitrary and capricious. That is why process is important here. This idea of "well, we can't really punish you for what you were brought here for so we'll find something else to punish you for is, in my mind, the sign of a "community" devolving into anarchy. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what this place is for and what the goals of the community are in a situation like this: no one is here to "punish" Morty, the goal is is prevent further disruption. Would it be nice if we could do that short of restricting his participation on the project? Of course. But multiple admins and community volunteers tried that approach, only to be told they were "clearly out to get/smeer/misrepresent/troll/harass" Morty, or something similar, all while the editor continues to exhibit problematic behaviours in both mainspace and in community spaces and on procedural pages. And I'm sorry, but your argument that if he had just been left in peace to plan his attack page, everything would have turned out rainbows and sunshine does not track for me, to put it mildly. Nor is the fact that a troll amped him up excuse for his lashing out at everyone else; we need our editors to show a more baseline level of restraint than that. And I think it's just plain histrionic to suggest that this project is "descending into anarchy" because the community has decided to do something about this situation; insisting that our editors comport with just the most very basic and essential provisions of our community behavioural guidelines is the opposite of anarchy. And like most community sanctions, Morty will be able to appeal any topic ban after a time, once he can demonstrate a period of non-disruptive editing and identify what went wrong here (without alluding to alleged harassment by the community). Snow let's rap 17:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're putting words in my mouth and twisting what I said, which means this discussion, like this whole Action, has devolved into a hopeless mess. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either or both short block and topic ban. Morty C-137 has clearly indicated that he will not stop his disruptive behavior unless forced to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block and AP2 topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support short-term block and (especially) topic ban from AP2 topics. The IDHT is off the charts here and Morty seems incapable of distinguishing community concerns from genuine harassment. In my opinion the troll who has pestered him (presumably after locking horns with him on some article or another) has only exacerbated an underlying and pronounced difficulty with the collaborative process that seems to be fundamental to Morty's approach on this project. In other words, I'm quite certain that Morty's battleground attitude is a feature of his general attitude while editing here, and that it has been (and will continue to be) present, even in the absence of any kind of actual provocation. A preventative block to temporarily disengage him from his current feuds, combined with removing him from the especially contentious areas until he has demonstrated an understanding of our behavioural standards stands the best chance of forestalling further attacks on passers-by. Personally I would have started with a much more narrow ban from SPI, but the AP2 topic ban being the one put forward, I can support it without qualms. Snow let's rap 03:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban of some kind, no opinion on a possible block. I think that a tban from SPI (broadly construed to prevent Morty from throwing about these blanket accusations regarding others being socks in general - we're smart enough to be able to get rid of the two sockfarms when they pop up) would be better than a tban from AP2, but if that's the consensus there's no opposition from me. ansh666 05:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - both block and TBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for Snow Close

    It is clear that there is community consensus for a short block followed by a topic ban.

    I propose that this report be closed with a short block followed by a six month topic ban from filing new sock puppet investigations and from all edits about and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States, broadly construed. This should be accompanied by a warning about accusing other editors of harassment or bad faith, and an explanation that any further accusations should be in the form of ANI reports, not inline comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely not as a WP:SNOW close. However, I do support your proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a block, that would purely be punitive; TBAN is another thing. By the way, any admins thinking of closing this might want to first examine the rev-del'd edits a few minutes ago to this section. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A block would not be punitive if the behavior is ongoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Which opens up a golden opportunity for User:Morty C-137. Are you listening Morty? All you have to do is give us the slightest indication that you understand why eight people just supported having you blocked and/or topic banned and indicate that you will make a good-faith effort to change. Pretty much everyone here (including me) would love to close this with "no administrative action required" and move on. Just give us a reason to think that things will change. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    124.106.247.20

    He keeps making disruptive editing on 1977, changing nationalities on people that are born in Russia/Ukraine/Georgia to Soviet, England/Wales/Northern Ireland/Scotland to British, uses the double/triple image template(s), when I keep telling him that they're not appropriate on Wikipedia. And he is a sock of 124.106.250.21, who was blocked by Richie333. Someone please help. Gar (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you mean it's block evasion by 124.106.251.20. I blocked the new IP for two weeks. I could do a range block, but it would probably cause some collateral damage, and I think these IP addresses stick for a week or two before changing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know? Because every time I see 124.106.xxx.xxx (the six X's are the random numbers) makes disruptive edits like adding multiple image templates, changing nationalities, etc. and thanks for helping me. Hopefully, that IP won't do it again. Gar (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't know for sure, but I can make an educated guess based on how long previous IP addresses lasted. If you're curious, you can read a bit about this at User:NinjaRobotPirate/IP editors, which hopefully explains a few of the concepts. In this case, I scanned the range contribs and saw most of the IP addresses edited for between one and two weeks before they cycled. So, it's likely you're going to see a new editor on 124.106.xxx.xxx in about one week. If that's pretty much the only person who edits from this range, I can range block it, which means nobody will be able to edit from it. However, my cursory investigation showed that there were some potentially constructive edits coming from this range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a diff for the nationality changes? As looking through their contribs I'm mainly seeing quite a lot of constructive edits. The nationality thing RE the UK is more nuanced in that outside of specifically identifying with a country (self-identification, sportsman representing their country etc) they would generally default to British. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But what about ones that were in like Russia/Georgia/Ukraine? The only way they are Soviet is if the person is born after 1923 and before 1991. Gar (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Antisemitism

    Could someone have a look at the Antisemitism in the United Kingdom page. There are two editors determined to include a picture of Jeremy Corbyn. The picture was added only two weeks ago, shortly after the 2017 UK general election. There was no discussion and no consensus was sought. There's little evidence of a consensus for such a controversial move. Garageland66 (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As this is a content dispute, I have fully protected the article for one week and advised editors to gain consensus for the inclusion of these images. I don't believe any other admin action is necessary at this time -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, says User:Philip Cross, it fits "as the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn has been implicated in a tolerance of antisemitism by very many sources"--a ridiculous excuse for a BLP violation. One wonders (maybe) why Cross picked only Corbyn, when all major parties were indicted in the recent report. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid I am with my honourable colleague Drmies here. I don't wonder at anything anybody does or says here any more, but I would be prepared if necessary to exercise a technical measure to prevent any such damage to our project. --John (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Phillp Cross said is correct and the fact it hardly appears anywhere is an obvious NPOV problem (not opining on Corbyn's picture on that page, but the general coverage of the issue in this encyclopedia). Corbyn even had to commission an inquiry about it due to the pressure from the media, yet none of that appears on his page or the Labour page. Funny that, eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's a RS that states that the Labour party linked to increase in anti-semitic acts in the UK. [94] hiding behind PC policy is just wrong, here's another RS, where a third of voters stated they will not vote Labour because of alleged anti-semitism, clearly Labour and Antisemitism in the UK is relateable, [95] Sir Joseph (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    However Labour != Jeremy Corbyn. Its inappropriate to link a living person in that way absent reliable sources that do. That *Labour* has an anti-Semitism problem (allegedly) has been well covered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this? The same percentage of Jews said they'd vote Labour as Muslims who voted for Trump, linked directly to Corbyn.
    This is not the place to go over the content issue, but it's obvious noting criticism of how Corbyn deals with antisemitism is not a BLP violation. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, the fact nothing about this stuff appears in any relevant article despite years of coverage in places like the BBC, NBC, Guardian, etc, is an obvious WP:BIAS issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Irish troubles after end of block

    Apollo the Logician indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and talk page access revoked for continued personal attacks on other editors. Nothing more to do here. Blackmane (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Apollo The Logician (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), having just come off a month's block for editing warring, proceeded to drop in a whole series of controversialist edits (e.g. [96], [97], [98], [99]) and creation of a tendentious category and a micro-article on one incident, all related to The Troubles and the Easter Rising. I'm simply a bystander in this, having come across the category creation first, but it seems to me that this is headed to a bad end if this user doesn't back off and, I would suggest, find some other topic on which to expend his energies. Mangoe (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia does not punish editors for controversial edits, only disruptive ones.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to post much the same comment, but I see you've made the whole thing moot anyway. That was a rather obvious result. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apollo just created Conchobar O Beig and Conchobar Ó Beig v 2.0 and has used the first account to continue edit warring. I've blocked both of the sock accounts. Apollo copied their 1RR restriction to the Conchobar O Beig account, so I'm not sure whether they believed it was a clean start (which they aren't eligible for), or just messed up. Given the extensive block log and the creation of sock accounts to continue edit warring, I've blocked Apollo The Logician indefinitely.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. I had hopes that they could actually get past the warring and be a productive editor, as some of their edits were actually very useful. Unfortunately the battleground mentality and POV pushing seems to have been too ingrained. Canterbury Tail talk 22:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this block. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block - blatantly WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and so on. Twitbookspacetube 04:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed an unhelpful comment at the bottom of Talk:Implicit and explicit atheism (09:19, 11 August 2017) shortly after it was made (diff). That is a non-actionable and vacuous complaint that has no effect other than to make a claim about consensus that might presumably be used in the future to justify "bold" edits on the article. Apollo is a net negative. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of this charming outburst, I've removed talkpage access—frustration from a blocked user is understandable and I always turn a blind eye to venting, but this was well over any conceivable line. By a very strict interpretation I could be considered WP:INVOLVED, having been on the receiving end of this charming comment for daring to decline an unblock request during one of his many previous blocks; if any other admin does feel that removing talk page access was inappropriate you have my explicit consent to restore it without consulting me. ‑ Iridescent 22:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Strangely compromised page

    Hi there,

    On the page for North Korea, there appears to be some compromise that's only affecting the current version. There's an image element on the page which is 7000x7000, linking to the user "lrhlive" on Twitch. Here's the HTML in question:

    <div style="position:fixed;left:0;top:0;"><a href="https://www.twitch.tv/lrhlive" rel="nofollow"><img alt="Arimaa-border.png" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Arimaa-border.png" width="7000" height="7000" data-file-width="18" data-file-height="18"></a></div>

    I've saved the source of the page, in case you guys can't see the problem on your end. I can only see the problem in the rendered HTML; there doesn't appear to be any injected scripts causing the issue, and it's not visible in the wiki source code.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korea&type=revision&diff=794953630&oldid=794895481


    Yonisyuumei (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - Someone reverted however I should point out that this edit was done way before 13 July and yet seemingly it was never noticed ? ... saying that it took 3-4 page refreshes for the link to actually work but seems bizarre no one noticed a thing for nearly a whole month ? –Davey2010Talk 03:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Same thing's happened at Japan. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been an editor making a spree of changes adding that sort of thing. Anyone wanna check the other pages? --Tarage (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The only editor I could find whose edits were causing those changes was GodenDaeg, but I can't see how (the edits are just adding IPA for country names), I see other edits of his that don't have that effect, and he's got over a year of apparently good faith edits. As such, I don't see it being GodenDaeg, even though reverting that edit happened to undo the problem. Another user has asked him to check for malware. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that was the edit causing the problem as well (it was the latest revision at the time), but the rendered HTML included the image element and link. Could be something more sinister going on. Yonisyuumei (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The change causing the problem wasn't to that article, but one that gets pulled in. Here's a hint, anything more is just WP:BEANS. Ravensfire (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I see what happened. Thanks for the swift resolution. Yonisyuumei (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, that's sneaky. Apologies to GodenDaeg who was only doing proper edits. --Tarage (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, the edit that caused this problem was done recently - WP:BEANS and all that, but a common approach. May make sense for a filter to look at edits to a certain namespace where an image is added with an unusual size. Ravensfire (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem seems to have vanished as mysteriously as it arrived. Definitely nothing to do with anything that GodenDaeg did, that was just coincidence. Likewise Ravensfire's hypothesis that it was linked to the North Korea article is also not the case, as country sites not linked in any way were affected, including Italy and countries listed below. Reverting specific edits fixed the problem, with the archived pages having the problem, but now the archived pages are fixed as well. I suspect a back end problem unrelated to any edits that anyone is doing, but that the problem became actualised with edits to a page. It looks like Wikipedia has fixed the problem for now. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a known vector for vandalism that's happened before, there's nothing mysterious about what happened or anything wrong in the MediaWiki code. It was reverted and rev-del'd, but the hints I posted above should give folks a hint about what happened. Anything more is WP:BEANS as I've already said. Ravensfire (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravensfire, I take it that you know a lot more about this than you are letting on? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a real big secret. Template vandalism. See my comment below. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for clearing that up. I will know what to do in future. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravensfire Security through obscurity is no security at all. It's not going to stop a determined malicious user and it's just confusing for the rest of us. For anyone else reading this: someone edited a common template to add malicious HTML code that would cover affected pages with a transparent linked image. If this can be done for one template it can be done for another. Now that we know this vulnerability exists, how do we prevent it from being exploited again in future? 2601:644:0:DBD0:F0BF:80DE:142:9ECF (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The obvious solution would be to fully protect all templates that are so widely used. And I thought that was already done! Twitbookspacetube 07:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree that "Security through obscurity is no security at all". On the other hand, I was forced, through circumstance, to leave a front door key in an undisclosed location for someone who needed access recently. I should, and will, find a better way to deal with that. In the meantime, while the key was still there, should a friend have known where I concealed it, I'd still have preferred they didn't just twitter said location. I'm funny like that. -- Begoon 11:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @IP, I completely agree about obscurity is not security, but that's not what's happening here. Security would be using Begoon's solution. I was trying not to "wave the red flag in front of the bull". Someone with half a brain already knows what to do here, but the casual vandal probably doesn't. So I'd prefer not to give every bored person reading Wikipedia detail instructions. As I said, this isn't new, and has been done quite a few times on far, far more visible pages (think main page). Ravensfire (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw this vandalism several hours ago and created a Twitch account to inform the streamer through twitch chat. Interestingly, while the viewers and moderator seemed thankful for the fix, claiming that they were framed, the streamer claimed that he hated Wikipedia and said that he would like to "fight every Wikipedia administrator in a ring". I have reported the streamer on twitch, though I doubt it will do anything. Since there are still readers encountering the vandalism, perhaps purging all pages that transclude the template will help, but I don't have the technical knowledge to do so nor ascertain whether such an action will help or not. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits to various nations redirecting to twitch.tv account.

    Copy/pasted from an Admin Help template I wrote up a minute ago:

    First of all, I'm totally new to the Wikipedia editing business, so please forgive any errors I've made in etiquette or judgement. I recently discovered that the Wikipedia pages for Afghanistan, Algeria, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Chad, China, Columbia, Costa Rica, Gambia, Germany, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Korea, Nepal, and Norway have been vandalized in a bizarre manner. Somebody has put a blank png image that redirects to a twitch.tv account on each of these pages. The image may be present on other non-nation wikipedia pages, I only the pages in the Wikipedia List of sovereign states. These changes do NOT seem to be the work of a wikipedia editor, it seems to me that somebody has actually edited the code of the website without using an account. Here is a screenshot of the html code I found on the wikipedia page for India: https://i.imgur.com/FqJFs5O.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graxwell (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to note (this isn't made entirely clear in the thread above) that there was some vandalism to a template earlier, which has since been fixed. It may take a little time for cached versions to flush out of the internet - you might want to refresh your cache. Editors noticing such things in the future might want to check for recent changes using this link. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz: Would it be a good idea to add "https://www.twitch.tv/lrhlive" to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist? I've got no knowledge of Regex. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why not. The chances are that we won't see it again, but I don't see why not. Allow me. And if there's any advanced edit filter managers around, we could do with some extra problem solving abilities (all relevant information is obvious). -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We should report the vandalism to Twitch, maybe they can ban the user. 2601:644:0:DBD0:F0BF:80DE:142:9ECF (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me for being cynical but one thing you learn as a Wikipedia admin is that bans are rarely fully effective (QED). -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And they haven't actually done anything wrong in Twitch's eyes. Just advertising their stream. On Wikipedia though... Whole different story. Anyway. The page has been fixed, the edits have been revdel'd and the stream has been blacklisted. Time for a close? Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A close? Well, ok, but only if you think we should leave this HOWTO unfinished, without an actual, detailed and itemised, bullet-pointed, step by step walkthrough on one of our most visible pages.-- Begoon 10:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems still persist at Korea. Jarkeld (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem has been fixed. Try purging your cache by pressing Ctrl+F5. The vandalism was made to (Redacted) and reverted at 3:50 12 August 2017 (UTC).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    CanterburyUK's conduct regarding Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn and Jeremy Corbyn

    The issue mainly consists of contentious coatrack content User:CanterburyUK is adding on Political positions of Jeremy Corbyn#Syria.

    This IP edits were twice reverted here and here.

    The user twice restored it against WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BURDEN whilst a talk page discussion was ongoing here and here. Multiple editors (User:Dtellett, User:Seagull123, User:Govindaharihari, User:The Four Deuces) have disagreed with the content stating reasons regarding the nature of the content, its sources, or both.

    He/she removed tags which were added to help resolve the issues and restored the claim that the quote supports that Corbyn "defended fighters returning from Syria" here.

    Regarding his/her conduct, the user made a WP:NPA accusation of hypocrisy against me here. I made him/her aware of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and that this isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND here, he/she again made the same claim here albiet although wording it as "people might view this as hypocritical" to cover himself/herself here.

    The editor is not a new user, has been editing for nine years although, strangely, he/she barely has 250 edits to his/her name. I appreciate he/she may not be fully aware of all the rules and guidelines, however, he/she has been editing long enough to learn. It would appear that he/she has an WP:NOTHERE agenda to not build an encyclopedia but to add as much negative information about Jeremy Corbyn on Wikipedia against the community consensus formed on talk pages and with an WP:IDHT approach with other editors. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The consensus appears to have been formed with numerous, experienced editors (some of whom are involved in editing the article) providing detailed, insightful reasoning why the content isn't appropriate for the article. However, I believe the editor has editwared his/her preferred version of the article by restoring the problematic, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV content into the article as well as libellous bias and misrepresentation of sources.
    Also, his insults were unbecoming of a talk page discussion let alone Wikpedia, I believe this needs addressing too. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request that editors persisting in personalizing edit difference be warned to desist

    I came back from a 1 month block undertaking to hew strictly to the letter of the WP:AGF law. At 2000 Ramallah lynching, the following style of insinuating views about my motives from edit to edit started.

    I regard the following style of comment, following that closure, as disruptive. Robere has generally taken the advice there on board. NMMGG persist in, as far as I can see it, trying to niggle away by baiting his comments with sneers that personalize differences in reading the evidence. Every comment I make on policy or evidence is glossed as suspect because of some putative ulterior motive.

    p.s. as the page protection lapses, an editor about to edit states:

    Tone might be piddling, that's why I've brought this here, but the tenor of this hostility and insistent distraction from the technical issues (I brought in 15 sources, and their evidence was met with silence, as this ribbing kept up) to guess what my motives are, or intentions are, is self-evident. I don't mind being sanctioned for not observing protocols to the letter: but that is no reason for other editors to persist in badgering me, for one, to see if they can stoke up a reaction. It's very easy to just discuss evidence and policy, and when an experienced editor keeps sneering despite repeated requests that he drop it, the implication is that he does it to a purpose that has little to do with the merits of any article issue. I ask he be given a last warning. It's not a luxury he alone may indulge himself in while the other editors are muzzled by a strict commitment to AGF.Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on the talk page, I feel Nishidani should be included in any warnings. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This complaint is obviously without merit. If any uninvolved editor has any questions for me, please ping me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it is a complaint based on policy, one that at AE and here is regarded as crucial in a topic area where conflict is commonplace.
    My complaint regards the specific policies at

    Wikipedia:No personal attacks The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

    For one, dragging up diffs from 2015 to undercut my credibility in 2017 is to reintroduce off-topic an issue from the past, rather than address the issue I was trying to explain (to a third party, not to NMMGG). Kibitzing in this personal mode is disruptive, because it draws the focus off the problem, and makes out the editor is problematical (and therefore not to be taken seriously by the third party). Reread the flow, this is what was going on.
    And at WP:AVOIDYOU You are consistently referring to me, with a dismissive tone of malice, in the second person, rather than focusing on the technical merits of the problems raised. I’d brought 20 sources to the page, mostly ignored while NMMGG kept talking about me. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep bringing stuff up, and I respond to that. You brought up your bona fides, I noted those include falsifying sources on the article we were discussing. You said something about me disliking you, I noted that on the very same talk page, you made fun of two people who were lynched and mutilated and then called another editor and me racist. There's a lesson here that you for some reason refuse to learn. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't 'bring stuff up'. I add, invariably, numerous RS to every page I edit. I didn't bring up my bona fides. You challenged it by linking to a discussion in 2015, repeating the bizarre assertion here that I mocked the slaughtered and called two people racists. I would have been banned had that been, not your contention, but a verifiable fact. You brought up your contention about my assumed contempt for the dead in 2015, I didn't. We are editing in 2017, not dwelling on the past, and policy explicitly tells us to deal with present content issues, rather than nag the bone of the pastNishidani (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishidani's very first interaction with me was a needless reversion; the second was a 1RR violation notice. He then proceeded to revert every single edit I made on that page in the coming week, and engaged in rather tedious and lengthy discussions on eg. the semantic differences between "erred", "took the wrong turn" and "accidentally" - neither of which he was willing to accept. He has, while doing so, peppered his comments with policy references (NPOV, OR, 1RR...) and little lessons for other, not the least inexperienced editors, which he himself would disregard when given a chance. Were it not for other editors such as No More Mr Nice Guy and Kingsindian, a lesser editor than this humble Wikipedian might have been pining for the fjords by now. On these grounds I stand behind each and every one of my comments; do with it as you please. François Robere (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Robere. This was discussed at AE, and there is no need to rehash it here. I have no issue with you. I cited your comments before the AE case, and noted they rapidly dwindled after that case was closed. The last one is an understandable lapse. NMMGG's persistence in sneering is not a lapse, but continual and defiant of all requests that he desist.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    :::: Before this request came along, I had been thinking of having a word with NMMNG myself, as I have indeed had in the past. If Nishidani thinks that the issue is really with NMMNG (I agree) and not Francois Robere, I suggest that this ANI request be withdrawn: I will talk it over with Nishidani and open an AE request focusing on NMMNG myself if Nishidani still feels like it after our discussion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the discussion KI had with me on my talk page, for ease of reference. Interestingly, it too involves a certain someone falsifying sources and pushing a POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I brought it here to avoid AE. I'm not out to get anyone. It's not hard to write impersonally: I have adopted this, after two sanctions, and I think it fair that NMMGG be told with some severity that he must focus on productive discussions on the merits of edits, rather than adopting a sneering tone, with remarks that have nothing to do with the issues at hand.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are a couple of examples from the past couple of days of you "writing impersonally": [100] (compare with your complaint above that I said you're trying to block a legitimate edit) and [101]. Although I suppose it's an improvement over, say, this followed by this, just as an example off the top of my head. By the way, I wonder how you manage to get the acronym of my handle wrong so often? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like it's just you two talking to each other. Nothing going to come of this, at least nothing good. It might be best if you two simply ignore each other. It's not a perfect solution, but might work to keep the peace, while not much of value will be lost; since there are other people on the talkpage who you can respond to. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the best possible advice I can imagine under these conditions, Kingsindian, but even with long experience of having seen that particular piece of advice being handed out (often in this particular space), I have scarcely ever seen it recognized by the involved parties as their best solution. As to my impression of the specific issues, a review of that talk page suggests both editors are approaching this conflict less than ideally. I'm sure everyone is already aware, but since it hasn't been mentioned in any active discussions on that talk page (and given the heat there), I feel everyone should be reminded that this area falls under WP:Discretionary sanctions. Snow let's rap 06:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note however that NMMGG brings up again evidence from my preban remarks - he's dragging up the past, and the one remark that is not impersonal dating to the period after my ban has nothing to do with him. It's inappropriate by my own criteria, which I adopted because that was the advice at AE twice this year. I've undertaken since my ban to refrain from what comes naturally, quipping sardonically, and have not done so in NMMGG's regard: he persists. Judgement begins when one, regardless of all else, discriminates to see if differences exist. To waive away a state of evident conflict by saying, 'well, you're all the same' is to suspend judgement and therefore refuse to offer concrete advice to either or both parties. I don't mind being counseled. I do think it unhelpful that no advice is given. As to approaching a topic less than ideally, bringing 15 sources to the page to have them analysed, offering to summarize all of the contradictions in the evidence to allow the other editors to tweak or adjust (i.e. 'work) and sniping or sneering by editors who don't appear to look at the new evidence, cannot be collapsed as both equally acting in a 'less than ideal' manner. That is meaningless. I've tried to turn over a new leaf, and the other chap appears to be raking over mulch. All I request is that he be told to drop the overt hostility. I can live with hostility between the lines, but policy says you shouldn't adopt it openly as the default mode with other editors. In short I'm quite happy to live under any rigid AGF protocol, but I wish this to be seen to apply to all parties, and, here, specifically to NMMGG. Since my past weighs heavily here, one should note he once stated that AGF is not a suicide pact. But lack of good manners has never been interpreted as an exigency for survival, at least on Wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As a third party, I am perplexed at how long Nishidani and No More Mr Nice Guy have gone at one another over a period of years without an interaction and/or topic ban. Both users have been blocked recently for violating the 1RR of WP:ARBIPA. François Robere and Nishidani both violated the If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours remedy on 2000 Ramallah lynching [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]. GoldenRing handled the most recent AE, but it appears their hope for getting along didn't last. I could see recommending dispute resolution, but I fully believe that would wasted at this stage. Someone with more experience is needed to handle this, but I just wanted to make sure other readers are aware of the recent events. nihlus kryik (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the work you put into this, which shows scruple for evidence. However several things are wrong there. I did not break 1R. Robere did, and NMMGG tried to get me sanctioned at AE for what he tolerated in Robere's editing, when it did not apply to my edits.
    Whoever looks at this should examine matters chronologically, starting from the premise of my complaint. I was sanctioned, and undertook to drop any tone that could be construed as lacking WP:AGF, i.e., to use impersonal language. I have done so since, save for a lapse, not with regard to NMMGG. At AE this year, not only regarding myself but several others, I/P editors were warned that Discretionary Sanctions were in place, that no breach of them would be tolerated, and that these articles would be carefully followed to see that this stringent ruling was adhered to. I can't see any evidence of administrative oversight since my return: I see evidence, mustered above, of personalizing issues. Now, not to make a call on the evidence at that talk page since 9 August, is to leave ambiguity in the air. It is not a matter of sanctions: it is a matter of laying down the law in a way that applies to all editors, not just myself. It is unfair for me to work under that strict reading, while other editors feel free to snipe. I have been asked to keep my remarks impersonal, and I have since the recent AE block expired. I don't see this assiduous attention to my verbal lapses in the past being applied to everyone on these pages. It's humiliating to have to bring this piddling issue up, but I just want NMMGG and whoever else to work under the same stylistic conditions I am (happily) obliged to work under. The past is dead and buried, at least for me, and dragging it up disorients judgement. NMMGG's 'evidence' even here, all predates my sanction: he won't drop it, and I am simply asking that he be reminded that the explicit policy I cited applies also to him. It's not 'taking sides'. It is establishing parity and neutrality. If it does (which at the moment it doesn't seem to), then this board will be saying,'NMMGG's personalization of the issues' is within some limit, and he may persist in adopting the tone he has decided to use over the last few days' (the tone he has always used, and which, in the past I used as well). Parity in working conditions is all I am asking for, nothing else. Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours is a remedy beyond 1RR. When François Robere reverted you, you reverted him within hours. By doing so, you were in active violation of the Arbitration remedy. nihlus kryik (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You disagree with arbitrators. I've read your remark. There is no need to repeat it.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Its clearly that Nishidani gamed 1RR and reverted just few hours after the limit he also broke ARBCOM restriction when he reverted François like Nihlus Kryik pointed out.François didn'ht broke 1RR as its not clear to what version he reverted too and by my reading his first edit was just an edit and not revert.--Shrike (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me. I ask for attentive independent admins who understand policy, and have wide experience, to discuss evidence. I am not interested in opinions, distractions, misreadings, nor is, I hope, anyone else.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone is able to comment here. Just because you don't like what I or others are saying does not mean you should be dismissive. WP:BOOMERANG. I'd call on the admins to summarily enforce the Arbitration remedy (as written) that has been violated as it is clear Nishidani refuses to see any error on his part. nihlus kryik (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'ver ratched up around 57,00 edits over 11 years, created roughly 270 articles, and make content edits, introducing in the main what the best available academic opinion has to say about any topic. I don't sit on articles, revert, quip, tweak. I (re)write them with a view to encyclopedic comprehensiveness. Anyone can edit. Anyone can have an opinion. I think it helps if editors actually show a willingness to work hard, and constructively, otherwise this place becomes a pastime, a game. I know the rules, and obey them. I specialize in people who are on the receiving end of colonial development, and expect that the same principles apply to the I/P area that apply elsewhere, where I am very rarely reverted or attacked. It's a tedious burden but I will not renounce my right to apply there the standards I used everywhere, Australians do not get upset when I write up their history of dispossession: it's known, recognized and accepted as a fact. In the I/P area you have to work for days to get an obvious fact in. It's that simple. I don't see why that area should have taboo status, and lead admins to despair. I'm asked to hew to rigorous standards of AGF. Fine. Apply exactly that principle to everyone. Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, which is why I pointed out the problematic behavior of other editors as well. However, your edit count means absolutely nothing to me; it does not negate the obvious edit war you took part in. nihlus kryik (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, since you do edit elsewhere, why don't you just avoid the caustic environment of Israeli-Palestinian articles altogether? It seems it would be in your best interest for multiple reasons. nihlus kryik (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My best interests are not served by working for Wikipedia. I have to turn off 90% of ability to think, research and write in order to conform and contribute. In the real world, one has known peers to assess one's abilities. It's a happy pushover there.Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is the AE case being relitigated here? I suggest that Nishidani stop defending themselves in a case where a ruling was already made. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. If Nishidani wishes a discussion from only administrators, with no comments from lowly rank-and-file nobodies (who might contaminate the process with their torch-and-pitchfork-wielding ignorance) then they should file an appeal at AE, or otherwise shut the hell up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't do that for several reasons: there's a lot of complaints at AE recently that look retaliatory, and NMMGG just had me there. I dislike giving the impression that this is an abuse of administrative time just to 'get back'. I don't want NMMGG 'punished'. Wordsmith and GoldenRing repeatedly said personalizing discussions at I/P would be hit by a hammer: I guess they don't read those pages, but wait till a complaint is filed. Second. I'll let out a big secret. I don't know how to formulate an AE request. I'm a complete fucking ignoramus regarding anything to do with anything but the simplest formatting. Anyway, I've better things to do.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So go do them, and stop bitching. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Lucky man. I can't even get away with exclaiming remonstratively 'For fuck's sake' without it being used in an indictment.:)Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have alerted your volunteer meatpuppet [110][111]. He's the top non-admin contributor to AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which illustrates my point. yourvolunteer meatpuppetNishidani (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    He explicitly told you that if you have a problem with other editors, you should tell him and he'll do the reporting (implying that you may lose your temper). How would suggest phrasing that information differently? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As I say elsewhere, this request is likely to go nowhere. For the article itself, following full-protection (and its subsequent expiration), a draft which I had proposed has been accepted by all sides as a starting point, and further discussion on the disputed points is going on in the sections here and here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Good faith withstanding

    RudolfRedNose has been making contentious edits on an article page of a BLP [112]; and has a history of multiple accounts at WP: [113]. Recently, they have removed a COI tag on said article with no edit summary or Talk Page reason. I have invited other IP / editors to the Talk Page, but without success. There are multiple IP addresses with COI at present; and I feel that in addition to blocking; there may need to be a protection placed on this page until matters are resolved involving the disputed content. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll comment on this at WP:BLP/N. Whatever the material at issue is, it should not be included in the article until that discussion is done. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've semi-protected for a week to protect the article from BLP violations and edit warring from IPs and new accounts but dearie me, there's barely a reliable source in that article and that is going to have be sorted out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible template vulnerability used in Azad Hind to redirect to a Twitch channel/external website

    I was attempting to click on a link on this article when I was suddenly redirected to some sort of satirical Twitch channel. Apparently, somebody managed to insert a page-long image that links to an external website. Editing the article's source doesn't reveal any suspicious links, so I presume that the vulnerability resides inside of a template used within the page, and I'm not good enough with reading/editing Wikipedia templates (even though they must be simple enough to use) to locate the vulnerability (perhaps the vulnerability resides within the MediaWiki software itself?). This could be dangerous, as the external link might be an IP logger or even worse, and prevents normal usage of Wikipedia.

    You simply have to click anywhere inside the contents of the article to be redirected. The website's sidebar and top bar are normally usable as the link's reach doesn't leave the article's div tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaryLouka (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A remnant, I think, of some vandalism some days ago. Try purging the page's server cache by making a null edit on the page if you see it again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be gone now - That being said, however, I feel that the incident around twitch links in templates does need to be dealt with. Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, I purged the cache by making a null edit... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still there. I just had this issue on the exact same article and was going to come here to report it. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way here is what the page HTML source code looked like to me a few minutes ago. It is not longer appearing for me either. 81.98.14.109 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, it's no longer appearing for you? Perhaps it was a lingering caching effect. :) (I did purge a few more times...). The ext link has been blacklisted so it should not be appearing on the wiki again. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The spoof here was covering the whole page a transparent png; is there a reason not to size-limit img= things? Do we need 7000x7000 images anywhere? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Entire template space is semi-protected

    I would like to propose that the entire template space move to a minimum standard of semi-protection. Twitbookspacetube 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK nominations are the obvious examples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah, and when I find the editor who created that ridiculous structure for DYK I'm going to throttle them. EEng 01:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative proposal : Audit templates and TE protect above a threshold

    I like the idea of template editor protecting these sorts of templates; they are obviously high use, and vandals are likely to go for the ones that have the highest visibility. So, do we have an audit of the most widely transcluded templates (infoboxes and Twinkle-compatible templates must be high up the list)? And if not, can we make one. Once we know that, we can start identifying what should be protected, and act on that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    We have Wikipedia:Database reports/Unprotected templates with many transclusions (highest). — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:HRT. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is edits that add large images or layers to templates by IP or new users. Would it be possible to create an edit filter to look for those and prevent them from happening, directing the user to the template talk page to request the edit there? Ravensfire (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lamon Brewster is My hero

    For the last two weeks, blocked user Lamon Brewster is My hero, who has some obsession with Lamon Brewster, keeps returning under 109.240xx IPs almost daily. Examples:

    Could a rangeblock be applied? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    109.240.0.0/17 would take care of the 109.240.x.x edits (not the 109.162.x.x one) but there would be some collateral damage. I don't think there's an urgent need to protect the encyclopaedia to warrant that but I'd leave this open for second opinions. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with not urgent, but the scope of articles is gradually increasing every time they make such edits. It started with one article, but is now up to six—getting them all RPP'ed will be laborious. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's get some second opinions. :). We can keep a watching brief on that range in the meantime. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked earlier and I agree with Malcolm that the /17 isn't feasible right now. Is the vandal predictable enough for an edit filter to work? Katietalk 20:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They are. In every edit, they use the string "[is my] hero". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    117.247.155.234 changing articles to British English and date formats in contravention to MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:DATERET

    Assistance is requested with 117.247.155.234 (talk · contribs) who is changing date formats in contravention to MOS:DATERET. I tried to engage at User talk:117.247.155.234#Varieties of English and date formats, but the problem is worse now. Recent examples can be found at "Shuld not force US system onto a Russian article", "Unwantes US imperialism" and "This format is only used in the USA so inappropriate for this article". Quale (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC) I should note that many editors have difficulty understanding that MOS:TIES applies only to subjects with strong national ties to an English-language country. Russian and Danish subjects would not normally fall under this. For example, most Russian and Armenian persons would write dates in Cyrillic, which doesn't control English wikipedia usage. Quale (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP has not edited (17:13) since your warning to 'stop' (17:37) so perhaps he has got the message. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Chelisuk - Competency Issues

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

    I have had experience with this editor before. I noted they added a cite to British naval forces in the Falklands War claiming 400 Hong Kong Chinese served as crew for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in the Falklands War. To anyone familiar with the conflict this is indeed a rather bold claim to make, there were a few HK chinese laundrymen but they didn't crew whole RFA. So I checked the citation and noted it was a history of the RFA from 1905 to 1950. The Falklands War was in 1982. So I removed the cite, Chelisuk immediately edit wars it back [114].

    So I ask him how the cite supports his claim User talk:Chelisuk#August 2017, his response is very odd "People cite books all the time without having to justify it.". He links to a google books page, which only confirms what I thought [115] the cite doesn't support his edit. The page is referring to the inter-war period.

    I don't understand if he genuinely believes that this edit is acceptable but there appears to be serious WP:COMPETENCE issues here if he does. WCMemail 18:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I included two references, a book, History of the RFA from 1905 to 1950, Amongst other things, the book states 'Round Table class ships, which were exclusively manned by Hong Kong Chinese ratings from their first introduction in 1963 until 1989, when Sir Lancelot paid off as the last RFA crewed by ratings of this nationality.' The period 1963 to 1989 includes the 1982 Falklands War. Here is the link:- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pR3OAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=rfa+chinese+crew&source=bl&ots=nfUP1woscK&sig=GEJIC3nXDexqG74drwLF3FgCauA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifrN6Qi_PUAhUMJ8AKHYOLAsMQ6AEIPTAG#v=onepage&q=rfa%20chinese%20crew&f=false
    I should make clear that all six Round Table-class landing ship logistics ships including Sir Lancelot, took part in the Falklands War. I didn't make this clear to Wee Curry Monster, which may be the problem, but I don't understand why this user has ignored the clear statement in my second reference.
    My second reference was http://www.scmp.com/article/596179/war-within This states that 'Most of the 400 Hongkongers working aboard RFA vessels in 1982 were dispatched on the 100 ships carrying 18,000 men to the South Atlantic.' I didn't say 400 went, I said 'up to 400'. In this case, I was trying to reword the original statement, and this may be clumsy wording but nothing false was intended.User:Chelisuk
    No it wasn't a content dispute, I noted the cite he gave didn't include the material, asked him politely about it and got some very weird response. And even now, what he's doing is WP:SYN and WP:OR, he's taking a comment that RFA in the Far East were crewed by HK Chinese [116] and concluding that this must mean they were in the Falklands too. WCMemail 19:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you asking admins to do here??? To block Chelisuk on the basis of an alleged dodgy edit, which has now been removed via the usual editing process[117]? Not going to happen. If Chelisuk wants to pursue that edit he can find consensus (or not) on the talk page. There's nothing here for ANI. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary Renard redux

    Iridescent closed one of the two threads called RfC and MPants at work referenced that in closing the other. My request has been addressed. If somebody wants to talk about some other aspect of this, they can open a new thread. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So following the train wreck of the just-archived ANI, the 4th AfD proceeded and was closed today by User:Alex Shih, with a redirect. I implemented the close. User:Unscintillating promptly reverted, and opened a section on Talk about Article redirected to improper target. When we pointed out to this user there, that the proper procedure was WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or WP:Deletion review they instead opened an RfC at the article talk page, here.

    The 4th AfD was borderline out-of-process as several !voters there noted, but this effort to challenge the close is really not good (especially as it leaves the discussion captive only to page watchers and doesn't centralize it as either of the regular challenge processes do). Alex' close was generous, leaving the redirect instead of just deleting, and this is about the worst possible reaction.

    Am requesting an admin to shut down that RfC and instruct Unscintillating to follow one of the appropriate processes to challenge the close. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Always going to happen as that AFD was very poorly handled. But what is happening now (AFD's are not binding) is very iffy. I agree that then user should follow procedure.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am not looking to create another train wreck of an ANI thread. Am asking admins to look and judge and then close this, either way. If admins judge "not in our remit" please say so, and somebody else might frame a different request or this can be withdrawn. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect has been protected to prevent more reverts, but the history is still intact so that anyone who wants to merge is able to. That seems consistent with the AfD result. It looks to me that the problem is already solved. Reyk YO! 22:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is the RfC, which remains open. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My two cents: Alex Shih is an editor with only 10,000 edits, who was sysopped in May 2007 (as AQu01rius) [118] and then promptly disappeared for 10 years [119], returning 5 weeks ago and making a flurry of administrative errors which have caused multiple problems. He should not have closed the ANI; he should not have closed the AfD; and he should not have locked the page. He certainly should not have done all three. We need neutral, experienced, capable, uninvolved admins to make these calls, not someone who barely knows what they are doing and who after the initial action was clearly too WP:INVOLVED to make any further actions. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again? Jesus christ. Can we please PLEASE get a system in place where the community can remove the mop? --Tarage (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, that's a poor, unsupported reaction in a dispute you've been on "the other side of" for a long time. You're as guilty as anyone else of bludgeoning here, if not more, in multiple arenas. Time to back off, really. Yes, there's a problem with long inactive admins making errors, and we need to deal with that, but that has nothing to do with your "issue" here. Stop trying to divert attention from a consensus with which you disagree. You're flailing. -- Begoon 12:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Softlavender I encourage you to file a close challenge and test your claim that the close did not reasonably reflect the consensus of the AfD. I don't think it will succeed but that would be more productive. This is devolving.... Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The correct place to challenge a close is at DRV. This discussion is all over the place because people won't use the proper processes. Starting many irrelevant and perplexing "discussions" on the talk page, or making unfounded accusations of incompetence here on ANI, is not really productive. Reyk YO! 05:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with both the above. If you disagree with the closure of an AFD, Wikipedia:Deletion review is thataways. ANI is for reporting incidents that require administrative intervention, not a general noticeboard for people to vent whenever an admin does something they don't like. I've closed down the RFC as out-of-process; a central location for deletion review is one part of Wikipedia's bureaucracy which does make sense. ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Iridescent to be clear, what you did in this dif was to close an RfC that Unscintillating had withdrawn by removing the RfC tag, and Unscintillating had opened a 2nd, more or less identical one below that. User:MPants at work closed that 2nd RfC in this diff, citing what they believed to be your intent. I will not be surprised if that gets reverted; it would be useful if you kept your eye on that. Given that this has been addressed, I am closing this. If somebody wants to talk about some other aspect, they can open a new thread. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And now another RFC [120] this is reaching tendentious editing now. One RFC is close and another (slightly differently worded) is opened up.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Sorry, he actually has two ruining at once.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Visa policy of Qatar

    Hi there. I have recently tried to fight off edits by an IP address 182.239.82.14 on the page Visa policy of Qatar where he made several unconstructive edits. I keep leaving him messages and invite him to discuss the issues, but he refused to answer and simply reverted my edits every time. I would not like to get into an edit war with him so now I am asking the administrators to step in. C-GAUN (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Appreciate it. Meanwhile, I will try to get in touch with him to discuss this issue. C-GAUN (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock question

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

    User:172.58.136.31 was just blocked for 2 days, after 30 attempts to add the same vandalism to various articles, whatever they were adding was bad enough that it was revdel'ed, then the IP began making unblock requests containing pornographic images, leading to the revocation of talk page access. I asked the blocking admin why the block was so short, the admin responded that it was a dynamic IP who is a known IP-hopping porn adder. The admin said blocking the whole range would also block innocent IPs, so the best he could do was a short block but the IP would probably be back to adding porn when his IP changes. So what is the policy on rangeblocks? if this isn't the time for a rangeblock then what is? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The collateral damage is far too big. For example, from the 172.58.X.X range this month alone, there have been over 500 edits from around 100 different IP addresses, most of which weren't our vandal friend - who also edits from other parts of this network as well (it's 172.32.0.0/11, a huge range of over 2 million IPs; it's T-Mobile USA, I suspect their entire network). Some smaller targeted rangeblocks may have some effect, but they're not going to stop him, and anything will affect a number of innocent users. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense, closing. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Death threat

    Dealt with. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 02:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

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

    Here. Emergency have been informed. Sorry it took so long to report here but I can't find an admin to contact privately. Adam9007 (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked and rev del'd. Thanks for the heads up :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Might be time for a rangeblock

    After going through the AIV page history, I found IPs belonging to this range that were getting blocked:
    Sorted 8 IPv6 addresses:

    2600:387:2:803::58
    2600:387:2:803::7b
    2600:387:2:803::92
    2600:387:2:805::a5
    2600:387:2:809::5e
    2600:387:2:809::85
    2600:387:2:809::c0
    2600:387:2:811::ba
    Total
    affected    		 Affected
    addresses    		 Given
    addresses    		 Range Contribs
    32 /64 32 /64 8 2600:387:2:800::/59 contribs
    17 /64 16 /64 7 2600:387:2:800::/60 contribs
    1 /64 1 2600:387:2:811::/64 contribs
    10 /64 8 /64 4 2600:387:2:800::/61 contribs
    1 /64 3 2600:387:2:809::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2600:387:2:811::/64 contribs
    4 /64 1 /64 3 2600:387:2:803::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2600:387:2:805::/64 contribs
    1 /64 3 2600:387:2:809::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2600:387:2:811::/64 contribs

    It might be time to block 2600:387:2:800::/59 and see if that helps. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 02:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes they were repeatedly reporting administrators, then I started reverting them so they started repeatedly reporting me. Lol. Home Lander (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi administrators. MiInReAs has just made a legal threat towards me, for removing material from a BLP article, James Ibold, which our discussion had determined came from personal notes on the subject rather than published sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked by Alex Shih. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to hear that. I have courtesy blanked the legal threat and blocked the user while leaving a note to ask for clarification on the intention ([122]). Alex ShihTalk 14:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Alex Shih. I suspect that the user has an undisclosed COI, because I don't see how someone who doesn't know the subject personally would have access to some of the information and images they have posted. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone want to revdel that Lawyer's address? Its probably his business, but no need to have a real person's info stuck in our history. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Revdel?

    (non-admin closure)RevDel! Kleuske (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello.

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

    There may be reason to hide some revisions for this user.

    Regards.

    HandsomeFella (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest requesting action from somelist listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests, HandsomeFella. Please see WP:REVDEL. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Already handled by Zzuuzz it seems. Alex ShihTalk 14:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BLP violation

    (non-admin closure) Dealt with. Kleuske (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone please revdel this revision. Serious unsourced BLP violation. Home Lander (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also these two others. Home Lander (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - thanks User:Malcolmxl5. Home Lander (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:IDHT behavior from Light show

    TOPIC BANNED
    Swiftly implementing the proposal not only because of the unanimous support here, but also because this has been a longstanding problem that has been addressed in a previous AN/I discussion back in April 2017 that lasted for three weeks, with the participation of the editor in question. The topic ban proposal at the time was not implemented due to lack of participation. If the consensus was not clear then, it is clear now and Light show have been topic banned indefinitely from any edits relating to biographies, broadly construed. This editing restriction has been logged here and the editor in question has been notified of this community decision. Alex ShihTalk 01:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Light show (talk · contribs · count) is notorious for making disruptive edits on biographies as noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289#Disruptive editing by User: Light show (see that thread for extended details). His most recent campaign is beating a dead horse on Talk:Charlie Chaplin where his points were already proven to be flawed via an RFC. He very obviously doesn't care about the valid counter-points raised and continues to insist his faulty edits are somehow worth keeping, and went so far to start another RFC. TrueHeartSusie3 and We hope have noted he should at least be topic banned from biographies given his past history, and possibly banned from Wikipedia altogether. Within the thread I linked above, a biography topic ban was previously proposed, but never got official closure. It's time to bring the matter up again and get this fully resolved. In short, I also support him being banned from biographical articles for his long-term WP:IDHT actions, and if problems go even further than they already have onto other subjects, then perhaps a full ban altogether. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support The problem has gone on for a long time at Chaplin and also at Marilyn Monroe as can be seen in the thread mentioned above. There were similar issues at Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick which resulted in topic bans from these articles. The editor is also topic banned from uploading any images here at en:WP. How much longer do the editors of the Chaplin article need to put up with his complaints re: IDONTLIKEIT and his starting RfCs as an attempt to force content to reflect his views? We hope (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per SNUGGUMS and We hope. A second RfC on the same topic so soon after the previous one is par for the course for this particular editor, I am afraid to say. If there is no topic ban, I suspect it would not be long until another 'variation on a theme' thread is started if this RfC fails (as it should do). - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dennis, you commented in the previous ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a ban from Chaplin...It's not something I like to see happen and it's not something I feel good about, but he really has been relentlessly negative and difficult with the article. It's been going on for four years now. There have been numerous times when we've tried to explain and/or compromise but he continues pushing the same issues, even though the article was thoroughly researched and went through three extensive review processes. It's started to feel like trolling. --Loeba (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per the dob fiasco at Lee Grant (see Talk:Lee Grant#Precise age?). That discussion went beyond satire. It was fairly straightforward and should have been resolved within an evening but instead went on for over two years and 100kB of discussion. The discussion ended up being three times as big as the article. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a ban from all biographies - a look at any of the talk pages above will quickly show what a timesink this editor has been over a long period. The Kubrick ANI, linked above, shows that this is a continuing issue - it was closed by Callannec with "Light show is warned that if they continue this disruptive behaviour the ban may be extended or they may be blocked or banned indefinitely". It is time for this to end; it is completely unfair to other editors on these articles to continue to have to put up with this disruption. I will say that this would be really unfortunate, because LS also does some great, uncontentious work on biographies, but I think two BIO topic bans (plus the image one) is probably enough. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per SNUGGUMS. The last ANI discussion turned into quite the cluster, and we don't need a repeat of that. It's obvious that Light Snow still does not get it, and the amount of disruption that their actions are presenting to the community has become a detriment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support then as now, for the reasons I stated then. I've been busy, I'm shocked it didn't get implemented at the other ANI. I still feel there is an indef on the way, but a topic ban is a way to prove me wrong if they can get along in other areas. Ban wording should included all biographical edits in addition to biographical articles. I would assume that is what everyone is thinking (ie: broadly construed). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Supportper Black Kite and Rick and Dennis. (That's a trifecta I don't think I've ever invoked...) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this has gone on too long and in too many places. WP:IDHT has been the response. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Ban from all biographies and biographical edits broadly construed. (EG no editing about subjects of biographies on other articles that may mention them etc) Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Dennis Brown, MarnetteD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Snuggums and everyone else who recognizes this is a long-term, seemingly never-ending issue. -- ψλ ● ✉ 01:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    possible sock at Xenios Thrasyvoulou

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

    An IP (31.6.8.158) has now twice removed a speedy deletion tag at Xenios Thrasyvoulou, this IP has not made any other edits and I suspect them to be a sock of User:Xenios55 (the creator of Xenios Thrasyvoulou who is continuing to edit the page). Tornado chaser (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The page has been deleted by Alex Shih. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    looks delt with, the page has been deleted and I have explained to the user what was a violation of policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A moved page from sandbox deleted all my edits from when I created the page.

    I created a new live Wikipedia article at 16:07, 13 August 2017, the article being Diallang Jaiyesimi. However, just over 12 hours later at 16:34, 14 August 2017, another wikipedian has moved their basic sandbox to the live page, which erased all the data I had posted with 17 citations included. I have reverted this, am I in my right to do this, as the person who moved their basic sandbox is an actual administrator? I spent a full day literally researching, gathering information. I am the original creator of the page, who posted it live to Wikipedia. Thanks. --Nelly GTFC (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @Nelly GTFC: I have notified GiantSnowman per protocol. From the article history, it appears GiantSnowman started his draft version on 10 August, deleted your mainspace article today so that he could move his version in, but then did a history merge so that your edits were restored to the history of the article. Your edits are still there in the history and can still be used. From a cursory glance, what transpired was not exactly how I would have done it in GS's place, since your version looked far more fully fleshed out, but that's more of a matter for hashing out on the article talk page now. --Finngall talk 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Finngall: Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. What is the general consensus in regards to pages that have been created? Do sandbox creation dates overrule that of someone who has posted a live in depth article with as much data as can be possibly found? I just find it rather rude that anyone can just remove facts and references/citations just like that.--Nelly GTFC (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nelly GTFC: Anyone can remove info, edit info, or remove references as they see fit (making sure it aligns with Wikipedia policy) since no one owns the articles. Given that, I do find the actions of GiantSnowman to be... disruptive given the version you created was much more detailed. This shows the difference between your version right before the merge and the current version, so it appears that most of it has been fixed. nihlus kryik (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Heads up: Named (but not outed) editors in Breitbart piece on WP edits surrounding the Google Memo

    [123]

    Pinging those named: @Nanite:, @Jytdog:, @Aquillion:, @Volunteer Marek:, @NorthBySouthBaranof:.

    No apparent outing, but learning the lesson from the Daily Mail issue, it makes to alert those that may see outside attacks for their editing activity. --MASEM (t) 01:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=795568715"