Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:36, 7 July 2018

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Disruptive edits from IP

14.192.52.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP User_talk:14.192.52.187 is continues to insert unsourced information into Om Prakash Jindal diff, John King, Baron King of Wartnaby diff and Corporate affairs of Singapore Airlines diff. Did not react to multiple challenges on talk page(s), no even edit summaries, just continues to revert user contributions. Related account might be User talk:Drvedjindal but has only made one edit. Further reverting/warning them seems a bit pointless given the lack of any reaction despite continued activity. Averell (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems they switched to using the Drvedjindal account after the IP was anonblocked contributions. Maybe they're also trying their mobile for a different IP diff. I've given warning on their talk page, again, and will revert, again, just to make sure. I'd appreciate if some admin could have another look. Averell (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently they are back to using the above IP after the anonblock expired... Averell (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Long-term disruption, copyvios, trademark-vios, plus 8 solid months of total refusal to interact with other editors

Higher Ground 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

As Thewolfchild brought to my attention yesterday, Since joining last November, they have made ˜5600 edits, but not a single one of them has been to any talk page, (user, WP or article). That is despite the numerous warnings they've received for disruptive editing.

I came across Higher Ground 1 due to their massive copyvio upload of flags and trademarked tribal seals from German webpages that sell them in violation of US copyright laws. This is a liability to WP. "Higher Ground 1"'s pattern is to insert blatant inaccuracies into tribal and historical articles, and upload and then insert copyvio and trademark-vio images into these articles. Nothing is sourced. In some of his edits this user has fabricated stories about the people in these photos (the man in the photo, Eric Alvarado, is not Chumash; he is Hopi and the photo lacks proper permissions). This is the third time they've been warned up through a final warning. User then backs off for a bit, only to return when things have cooled down and repeat the process. Clearly the user understands the rules.

Since the Lenape copyvios were discovered, a few of us have gone through the user's contribs, and looked at their talk, and found the massive amount of damage this user has done to other low-traffic articles through inserting misinformation. Whether this damage was done out of ignorance or a POV push does not matter at this point, as their total refusal to engage on talk or work in collaboration makes it clear they are not here to work in the spirit of the 'pedia. Yuchitown and Indigenous girl have also attempted to reach this user, and are working on cleanup, but this user continues to meet every Wikipedian's efforts with silence.

I've been deleting the unfree images on en-wiki, but we need admins on Commons to help with the images there. It's possible this may be the same user as Xasartha. I can add a bunch more diffs, but just look at their talk.

We could wait for them to again edit after the most recent final warning, but looking at the solid wall of warnings and deleted uploads on their talk, the false permissions they've given for copyvios, their deleted contribs, and absolute refusal to engage or collaborate demonstrates a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. As I'm doing the cleanup I'd like someone else to push the button. Thanks. - CorbieV ☼ 23:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy... it's getting even more interesting now: Lucky For You (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who was brought to ANI for the same pattern: Seemingly "do as I wish" account.

Lucky For You was blocked on 14 Nov 2017 by Oshwah for persistent disruptive editing and refusal to engage on talk.

User account Higher Ground 1 was created on November 13, 2017 at 16:00, while the ANI discussion went on without them, and shortly before the Lucky For You account was blocked.

Editor Interaction Tool for the two accounts: heavy, heavy overlap in editing. As account creation was blocked during the block on Lucky, the IP block looks to have kept the sock, Higher Ground, from editing during that time as well.

Quack. - CorbieV ☼ 01:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. So many problems. I'd go straight to indef. block given the evidence. They've been warned and actively avoided collaboration or even interaction with other editors. Does anyone have a reason for not going to indef block? Given that the user has obviously used sockpuppets to avoid a block, I'm going to block the account unless someone advises caution. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Higher Ground 1 and will mark the Lucky For You as the puppetmaster and the other two as socks since the pattern seems clear. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll continue to look for other socks but we can handle those as they come up. - CorbieV ☼ 02:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

See also User:Chitt66. Blocked for copyright violations in January 2017. Editor Interaction Tool shows strong links to Lucky For You. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an indef to me. Not competent for a collaborative project, and generally unconstructive. We have better things to do that try to work around a thrasher with an I-can't-hear-you forcefield.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The overlap between Lucky and Chitt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is definitely quacking. I think it's clear that Chitt66 is part of the Lucky sockdrawer. In the last ANI about Lucky, another editor suggested indeffed Emmy Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as the puppetteer for Lucky. I initially ruled that user out as not enough overlap. But there is some overlap between Emmy and Chitt. It's not as solid as the others, but may be something there. I'll take a look through Emmy's socks, but it may have to wait till tomorrow. - CorbieV ☼ 05:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

We can re-arrange all of the sockdrawer flags once it's sorted, but noting for now that the oldest account so far is Chitt66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with first edit: 02:15, February 23, 2011. - CorbieV ☼ 05:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget the mothballs. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just spamming for my recently-created essay about these sort of accounts at WP:RADAR. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool. - CorbieV ☼ 00:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice. I'm wondering if there is any way for a bot to find such user talk pages. Another tactic used is to consistently delete their talk page contents when people try to engage with them. Without a little digging and user talk page history, many editors will not see long-term problems posted there. This is a little off topic but another flag for some problem users. --Mark Ironie (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on Metcalf89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)?
Found this one on some of Chitt's fave pages, including the very first ones edited by Chitt. Hasn't been blocked, but a look at talk also shows repeated warnings (and almost blocked) for repeated additions of unsourced content, followed by total refusal to engage on talk. Here since Nov. 26, 2016, but like the other accounts, not one single edit to any talk page. - CorbieV ☼ 00:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Metcalf overlaps even more with indef-blocked user Emmy Expert. - CorbieV ☼ 00:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Gave Metcalf89 a chance to respond here or on talk, and was met with the usual wall of silence. Blocked per same pattern. If by some miracle it's a mistake, their talk page is there. - CorbieV ☼ 23:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• A note User:Higher Ground 1's block: I set it up with an autoblock for account creation. Talk page editing is still allowed but I don't expect them to use it. Why start now? The autoblock keeps resetting fairly frequently, at least a couple of times a day. I suspect that is because the IP keeps triggering it, trying to create new accounts. The IP appears to be static so the block shouldn't affect any non-sock access to WP. --Mark Ironie (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of sock puppetry and of being a "Satanic spook"

Behold, WikiEditorial101 (talk · contribs) refers to Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) and myself as "Satanic spook" and accuses us of being sock puppets at this diff: over edits at Yahweh. Usually I ignore this sort of stuff, but I figure behavior like this deserves more eyes. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Satanic spook" is a good line, but what's at issue here apart from rudeness, and possibly paranoia?PiCo (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I can see, they are edit-warring over the "see also" section of the article, on whether there is a connection between Yahweh and Marduk. Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely accurate. Katolophyromai and WikiEditorial101 exchanged a few reverts each, during which time I contributed a revert, and requested discussion. Katolophyromai spent a lot of effort attempting to discuss the topic. Typical Misplaced Pages stuff. What isn't typical: the accusations, particularly in relation to the topic. Anyway, I'm a lot less concerned about the exchange than I am about the quickness to resort to conspiracy theories and unfounded accusations, and it's unlikely to be the last time said user resorts to them, so here's a notification that this happened and may likely happen again. Your friendly neighborhood spook-sock, :bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I share your concerns, given the context. You or I may be inclined to let a comment like "satanic" roll off our backs, but there are community members who would regard it as offensive as applied to them. This editor seems to edit primarily in the field of religious concepts, so they need to be able co communicate during disputes in a manner that doesn't (quite literally in this case) imply that others are in league with the devil. Those kinds of comments, combined with focus on a topic matter like this, are suggestive of a WP:NOTHERE editor who is more concerned with putting forward the "one truth" as they see it than with engaging with the collaborative work that takes place here. If they want to avoid being perceived as such they need to (wait for it...) exorcise their participation here of any such comments. Snow 21:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And I tend to not be much of jokester on-project, and don't wish to further distract from Bloodofox's legitimate appeal here...but if I don't get a barnstar of good humour or some form of wikilove for that brilliant and initially unintended double entendre, I'm going to have to conclude that you people are impossible to satisfy. Snow 10:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 done Congratulations Edaham (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

What level of Hell does a Satanic spook live on? Do I have to refer to my old D&D Monster Manual?  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Director Infernal Intelligence, perhaps  :) —SerialNumber54129 11:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

this is what happens when you will use subject headings like "Yahweh, Marduk, and human sacrifice" you know! Curdle (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're on Misplaced Pages, you never need one of those, just take a look at List of Dungeons and Dragons creatures (A) (yes, as in A-Z, exclusive of the hundreds of other independent articles about particular D&D creatures), which comes complete with totally-not-copyvio descriptions and totally-not-violating-every-policy-in-the-book external links to images... Seriously though, this must be the single worst collection of organized and expansive WP:WWIN content on the encyclopedia. I wonder if we can convince those much-more-industrious-than-me editors currently beginning to attend to the pro wrestling content on to this mess next... Snow 23:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: hahahah exorcise - Anyway "satanic spooks" I can't think what could have possessed the editor to come up with that term in the first place. Badum tsss Edaham (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Templated warning issued for personal attacks, but we can consider blocking if personal attacks continue past this point. Please re-report if necessary! Swarm ♠ 06:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:80.189.37.38

This user was blocked for 31 hours on 24 June 2018 for disruptive editing. Since the block was removed, the user has made a series of unhelpful edits:

• Adding unsourced content
• Removing content
• Stating that the subject of the article is transgender
• Changing someone's age or birth information without a source
• Other disruptive edits.

I've added comments to the user's talk page to catalog some of the improper edits, see this diff for all the notices regarding improper edits. There were others that were reverted by other editors, such as Aspening and Flyer22 Reborn.

Because nothing was learned by the early block, this person should be blocked again - either for a longer period of time or indefinitely.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want me to add the diffs for all the improper edits, I can do that, but it's essentially every edit in their contributions (except for one helpful punctuation edit).–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

For a bigger picture, that editor was apparently using these IPs going back to 2015.

• 80.189.37.38
• 80.189.37.16
• 80.189.37.26
• 80.189.37.36

They have made one edit since getting the ANI notice which is this one. If they make another without responding then they should be blocked for a month for failing to communicate.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Berean Hunter - I agree with your assessment. I'm keeping eyes on Special:Contributions/80.189.37.0/24 and so far, no edits have been made since just prior to your statement here on July 3. Ball is in this user's court... ~Oshwah~ 17:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah and others, I have not seen any new edits, so maybe the point has been taken about the issue with unhelpful edits.

Perhaps a comment could be added to the user's page to refrain from disruptive types of editing and a suggestion to use the tutorial or tips for writing better articles to get a good foundation for constructive editing? And, then close this out?

I can keep an eye out to see if any disruptive editing returns after that using the Special:Contributions/80.189.37.0/24 link. Would this pick up any new associated IPs?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

CaroleHenson - Sounds fine to me :-) ~Oshwah~ 18:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, I was just going to say, perhaps we should close this out, and thought I'd take one last look at Special:Contributions/80.189.37.0/24 and one of the IPs in that grouping made this edit adding a category that said the person was of Native American ancestry, when there's no evidence on the page for that and the person was born in England. On its own, it's not a huge deal, but it doesn't show an interest in mending their ways either. Now what?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

CaroleHenson - Whelp, the user edited the project without responding to this ANI, so I've blocked the range for two weeks for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~ 21:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

With the 2015 edits leading to this article history, 5 albert square may want to look at this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Berean Hunter sorry but I know nothing about this IP or the articles that they have edited. The reversion that I made above was simply because an IP editor had removed information from an article and not stated why they were doing it.--5 albert square (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Writings from blocked range

See User talk:72.64.9.241. The user is writing stuff on their talk page apparently because their range is blocked due to previous attacks on administrator accounts. The block is set to expire in less then a month, and it looks like the blocking administrator is no longer here. Not sure what, if any, attention this should receive, so I figured I'd bring it here. Not notifying the user of this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is good reason to think that the problem that prompted the block will return again after three years, it's probably best to let the block expire. Three years is a long time to block a moderately wide IP range for an ISP (FairPoint Communications). I suspect there is quite a bit of collateral damage (and the talk page comment linked above is just a harmless reflection of that). -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Elockid's block summary seems to be a fairly compelling rationale for why this range should remain blocked, and for the record it's been blocked continuously for five years as of next week and seems to have been intended to be indefinite. JamesBWatson might have some insight into this as well, and since this was a checkuser block from ages ago, let's dial up Bbb23 too. As for the user on the IP currently, they should be advised to create an account if they wish to edit. It's inconvenient unfortunately, but not compared to having compromised admin accounts running amok. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what Elockid meant by compromising admin accounts. The only thing I can think of is the resetting of passwords, which happens often enough but is completely ineffective. This range used to belong to a well-known sockmaster, but I don't know if they still use it. In any event, the block affects only IPs, not named accounts. All in all, I favor letting the block expire.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Admin accounts with weak passwords, e.g. those used on other sites which have been compromised in one of the many, many, many, many, many successful attacks could easily be compromised. If this happened 5 years ago, I think it may have been before we had 2FA on wikimedia, and did we even have the strong policy requirement? Either way, while the admins may be at fault, this doesn't give a free pass to anyone who compromised those accounts with malicious purposes. (Anyone who compromised them to show that there is a problem, even if they intentionally did harm, is perhaps a legitimate point, or is that WP:POINT) of debate.) Of course, even if the[REDACTED] password is secure, if the email password is not and someone is able to guess the email address tied to the account, than resetting passwords is more than just an annoyance. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• This relates to a banned editor, whose first account was called Bigshowandkane64, which has been blocked since 2013. He has been evading blocks using at least 60 sockpuppet accounts (maybe many more) and goodness knows how many IP addresses. The block evasion was continuing at least as recently as March of this year, and I doubt that he has suddenly given up in the last couple of months. He was using the IP range involved in this case (72.64.0.0/20) from 2013 until at least as late as June 2016. There is no doubt whatever of that: editing includes various unmistakable hallmarks, such as childish attacks on the same editors that the accounts have attacked. Since June 2016 there have been fewer edits, almost all of them unblock requests, and none of them has shown any clear signs of being made by Bigshowandkane64, though of course they could have been. As for collateral damage, it is clear that for several years all the editing was from one person, so it is likely that the range has not been available to a large number of users, as otherwise we might have had unblock requests from other editors scattered over the years. The range may have more recently switched to someone else, so that there may now be collateral damage. However, being subject to collateral damage from an IP-only block is just a small inconvenience: I once suffered from exactly that, and my way of dealing with it was to create this account, which I have now been using without problems for almost 12 years. A mild inconvenience, but no more. I agree with Bbb23 that the best thing is to just let the block expire.
• On the subject of "compromising admin accounts", the editor tried to reset my password back in 2013, and I guess further attempts to do that are what Elockid referred to. If so, Bbb23 is totally right in saying that such attempts are completely ineffective: all that happens is that the owner of the account gets an email about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• One more thought. Although, as I have said above, I agree with Bbb23 that most probably "compromising admin accounts" means resetting the account passwords, it could be that the person has been trying to hack into accounts by trying to log in with possible passwords. If that is so then it could potentially be more serious, as that has been known to succeed a number of times. I also evidence as to a possible identification of the real life identity of Bigshowandkane64, and if it is correct then he is likely to have sufficient technical knowledge to have a reasonable chance of being able to do it. However, the evidence is weak and far from conclusive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  I had assumed from the block notice that the user was attacking admin accounts in a more sophisticated manner, like a brute-force attack or using a leaked list, and was at least somewhat successful. If they were just spamming reset notices, a method known to be completely ineffective, I doubt the dire block log entries would have been warranted, nor resetting the block every few years when it was close to expiry. But as Elockid seems to have retired since the last block extension, I guess all there is to do is let the block expire. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 12:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Учхљёная

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

This user has been making disruptive changes and edit warring for quite some time now. There are several warnings on their user page and for the most part, they have seemed to ignore the warnings. Most recently, the user has been moving pages without consensus against the naming convention. The user has previously been blocked for creating inappropriate pages. - CHAMPION 00:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Champion. Can you provide diffs to exemplify the edit warring and conduct that you feel is disruptive? Diffs of the moves and a fuller description of why you feel they violate conventions would also be helpful. Additionally, other than on the user's talk page, have you reached out in any talk space associated with the content in question to attempt to discuss particular matters? Snow 04:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I have very little involvement, I must confess, however I decided to bring the matter here because it has not been brought up before and I thought it was reasonable to do. I did not know of this editor until a couple of days ago. Regards. - CHAMPION 05:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: FYI, this user is the subject of an SPI, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Diabedia. - CHAMPION 06:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case, this matter may resolve itself without the need for action here. But this thread should be left open in the meantime, until we know for sure. Snow 06:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll just interject a quick CU comment here and leave the SPI open for now. I've looked at this user before and dealt with a fair number of Diabedia socks, however I've been unable to confirm a match. I'm unable to rule it out, but I can't rule it in either. I won't make any firm predictions about the SPI, but I think it's probably going to have to go on behavioural stuff. -- zzuuzz 18:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Here are a few diffs: , (this one to dubious transcription with zero Google results as the original language does not use Latin script) (same issue). The user's edit history abounds with fights over transcription/transliteration of several Central Asian languages and took toll even on the name of the famous 19th century Indian poet Ghalib. — kashmīrī  11:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit-warring by Учхљёная is sometimes multiple times in a 36 hour period, at other times "slow" (over several days or weeks). He adds lyrics to anthems in horrifically-coloured tables, with empty columns, and unsourced and possibly copyvio translations – example here. Examples of edit-warring can be found at Khakassia, Anthem of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, Die Wacht am Rhein, Song of the Khmer Republic, State Anthem of Kabardino-Balkaria, State Anthem of the Republic of Dagestan, Oh, Arkansas, etc., etc.. His user talk page at Commons is a morass of copyvio notices. Today, he has re-uploaded several more files there with what appear to be spurious licenses. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this history page, I definitely see move warring and what may become edit warring if things continue. I've applied move protection to this article to stop the disruption. I also took a look at the history of Die Wacht am Rhein - and I see what's clearly an edit war going on. I've applied a 24 hour block to this user as a result and have fully protected the article as well. I'm looking at the other listed articles as well... ~Oshwah~ 17:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I believe I've found and applied the appropriate actions where needed... I hope that Учхљёная learns positively from this and that they commit to engaging in dispute resolution and proper communication and collaboration in order to resolve their future disputes. ~Oshwah~ 18:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: It looks like you protected State Anthem of the Republic of Khakassia shortly after Учхљёная moved it (again) to "Xakas gįmn". No need to mention that the later has no place as article title on en-wiki (violates WP:COMMONNAME, zero Google results, etc.). Would you mind reverting her rename? Thanks. — kashmīrī  23:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Kashmiri - Ohhhhhhh... let me check the policy on that first. I don't believe I can perform the page move since it's under a dispute / move war (the whole "playing favorites" or picking a favored revision thing)... ~Oshwah~ 23:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, Oshwah. Please note that there is also a copyright problem here – the user has been adding the words to some of the anthem articles without any clear consensus that these are copyright-free (e.g., at Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic, where I've just removed them), and sometimes against an established consensus that they are not, e.g., at Tiến Quân Ca (already dealt with). Perhaps the outcome of the SPI will make it easier to clean all this up ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers - Hey, good to talk to you again! No problem; always happy to help. Yeah, I did see the reverted edits on these pages citing copyright issues... that's another issue we're gonna have to tackle as well... I felt that the appropriate starting place here was the edit and page move warring that was occurring, which was clearly disruptive and needed the brakes set pronto ;-). Hopefully the SPI comes to a conclusive close either way (whether or not violations of WP:SOCK is determined) and that this report here is what begins the process of putting the disruption and the policy / copyright violations to an end. I'm also going to hold off on performing the page move requested above (sorry, Kashmiri... it's the rules). I agree that the reason for moving it back to the original title is justified, but as I said... I cannot as the protecting admin perform a page move to the article that's in an active move war / dispute. It must be discussed and performed by a different administrator after the proper requests and discussions have been completed. It would be seen as taking a side if I did that, and I'd risk jeopardizing my actions being seen as anything other than neutral and impartial which is something I don't want to do. I hope you understand....... :-/ ~Oshwah~ 00:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I understand the policy. That said, I still wonder how Учхљёная was able to move pages over redirect without having pagemover right... — kashmīrī  08:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: When moving a page, if the new title is a redirect to the old title with a single line in the page history, then any autoconfirmed editor can perform the move over the redirect without the page mover right – see WP:MOR. Mz7 (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mz7, I wasn't aware of this, I guess this possibility was introduced only in the last few years. MediaWiki keeps evolving and surprising! — kashmīrī  08:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

15 still barely qualifies as "a few", I guess, though it might be older than that too. Earliest documentation I can find for it is from September 2003. Before I started editing, in any case. —Cryptic 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The user uses a name/alias "Elliott Wheeler"]. I faintly recall seeing an account by a similar name that was later renamed to something else during SPI indeffing. This was when I browsed the Diabedia case and related links/articles a few days ago but can't locate it now. Can an admin check whether User:Elliott Wheeler has any hidden history? — kashmīrī  12:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no "Elliott Wheeler" user account on enwiki. In the links you provided, the hyperlinked text "Elliott Wheeler" is wikilinked to Учхљёная's user page. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

User Digijio

• Digijio (talk · contribs)

Digijio started editing last month, and was quickly warned about the multiple copyright violations from his initial edits. While there's been some attempts to reword rather than copy, I stopped looking for subsequent copyright violations after finding Kanan Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Sangram Chougule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Ratan Tata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Some of the English from this account is very poor , the choice of sources is sometimes extremely poor , and the content is often highly promotional . --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ronz - I took a look through the user's contributions and I agree that there are issues with many of his/her edits - the biggest being the violations of copyright. However, the edits seem to be somewhat typical of a new user whose trying to add content and at too quick of a pace and where they're not stopping to read first before they walk. Have you tried reaching out to the user to welcome him/her to the project and try and offer some tutorials and assistance? You should encourage the user to go through Misplaced Pages's new user tutorial so that they can have the opportunity to start again and from the right point and give him/her a chance to improve themselves :-) ~Oshwah~ 06:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I support Oshwah's advice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I provided the editor with a detailed welcome, and a notice of this discussion.

No, this is not a typical new editor. It's a typical undeclared paid editor. Look at the large edits, wide range of unrelated topics, and promotional editing. The slow pace and variation in command of English is strange, like someone trying to prove that they can do a job rather than someone learning. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Plausible. Certainly a spammer. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Lole484

As you can see at User talk:Lole484, this editor has been warned ten times over the last couple of months by me for persisting creating articles with no clear sources, and has been contacted by several other editors over a period of time for the same issue. They were blocked temporarily ni 2017 by Canterbury Tail, but I'm unsure what the exact reason for that block was. They have been editing for two years but have never responded to any messages left for them and have continued to edit in a problematic manner. Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I blocked them as they were gone no through articles and deleting them all one section at a time without explanation and including references. Canterbury Tail talk 18:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This user ought to read WP:ENGAGE in order to avoid a lengthier block, imo. Erpert 18:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know what the last block was for, Canterbury Tail. Lole484, I can see you've been continuing editing since this began - please engage in this discussion. Boleyn (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Very similar to another editor of late (you seem to attract them @Boleyn:) ). After reviewing their edits I've blocked the user to force communication. Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Lighting Thundercat

This account should be blocked and locked immediately as a sock of Leucosticte/Tisane/Nathan Larson. Not only is the name incredibly similar to the confirmed sock "Lightning Thundercat", it was created the same day as that account, and its interests directly follow those of most of his accounts (Virginian elections and different kinds of government). His typing style in the last edit by him also follows his usual style. It was even brought up here: but somehow they never blocked it. Editorzszs (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That CU report is from ten years ago; do you have any recent evidence? Erpert 18:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Can an admin please look at the original reporter's contributions? They only started editing a few days ago, go to the 10 edits needed to be autoconfirmed by making dummy edits, and now they're moving pages in a WP:NOTHERE way. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's like waving a red cape at a bull. I guess if you have an ax to grind, and jump around waving it at people, the blade can boomerang and hit you in the head.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Quite the visual. EEng 02:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspicious editing at Biduino

I know I'm going WP:ABF here, but I'm suspicious about the actions of MariamNasr25 (talk · contribs) at this article. They've made around 117 edits to the page, clogging up the history, and it appears that every time it's only adding or removing periods. They've also edited and self-reverted several times here. I left them a message on their talk page which was apparently ignored, so I'm getting the idea this is an attempt to improperly gain extended-confirmed editing status. Home Lander (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure of the normal protocol here, but I've blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. Of course, if they come up with an explanation, they can be unblocked, but it better be a pretty damn good one. ansh666 19:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Good block - Only an assumption but I assume the editor was trying to become autoconfirmed hence the useless edits?, I can't really see why else they'd make those pointless edits. –Davey2010 19:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitely fits the pattern of someone trying to quickly become autoconfirmed. I've seen this pattern from those wanting to establish a sock, either to evade a block or avoid accountability with their main account. Support the block. - CorbieV ☼ 20:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Jmills16

Jmills16 (talk · contribs) has received multiple warnings about adding or changing genres to anime and manga related articles without citing reliable sources, over the two years since they created their account. the most recent instance has been at Date A Live which resulted in this personal attack on my talk page and an attempt to cite a website that not only contains user generated content, but also engages in copyright infringement. The editor was previously blocked twice in 2016 for repeatedly adding unsourced genres and other content, but other than the personal attack on my talk page and the unblock request when they were first blocked, they have not participated in any discussion. This is a clear competence case. —Farix (t | c) 22:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Since Jmills16 deleted this section, I have restored it and blocked them for a week. If anyone thinks this was too lenient, feel free to extend it without consulting me. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Based on this recent comment on his talk page, he is simply refusing to get it when it comes to verifiability with reliable sources. And that is ignoring the second personal attack in that comment as well. —Farix (t | c) 02:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thus combining two of my favorite candidates for TNT: Japanese animation and genres. EEng 17:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:LaserLegs at WP:ITN

User:LaserLegs is an editor is very active at WP:ITN, notably WP:ITN/C. Indeed, pretty much every single one of their recent edits have been to the Candidates page, other sub-pages, and related pages - some 250 edits stretching back over a month. In their total editing career, including their previous accounts User:CosmicAdventure and User:IP98, they have made 1,759 edits to ITN/C, but just 237 to articlespace in its entirety (and indeed some of those edits related to issues at ITN). Recently, they have been arguing forcefully that ITN is biased against posting US-related stories, and biased towards posting stories from other countries. Now, that's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but they are now starting to cross the line from "disagreement" to "disruption". Some examples;

• "If you want to amend WP:ITN#Purpose to include fighting bias or diversity or an international world view or whatever other lame fucking excuse you want to use to denigrate the USA go ahead and open an RFC so it can go down in flames. I'm digging out my laptop to close this trash." (I reverted this close).
• "It's a worthless bullshit objection which serves no purpose other than to push an anti American agenda" (edit summary - "STFU")
• Compares a hot-dog eating contest to be as equally newsworthy as the World Cup
• Edit summary - "unless someone didn't die anywhere other than America then omfg post"
• Another "STFU" as edit summary
• Another rant
• "Would you kindly move along, you're adding no value"

All of these are just from the last 50 edits, along with various snark of the "Oh this won't get posted it's in the US / Oh this will get posted because it's not in the USA" type in numerous other comments at ITN. I'm not looking for LL to be blocked, just for someone to come along and tell him to knock it off. It's getting very boring, and I'm sure there are plenty of articles that need improving instead. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As someone else fairly involved in the situation, and who also believes that the striving to end systemic bias has turned into too much of a shunning of U.S.-centric news at ITN/C, I can chime in to say that I agree that the tone LaserLegs is using is not helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

. I looked over their postings and I suggest that the user is prohibited from posting at ITN/C for a short period of time - and that when they return they must engage in civil discourse with civil edit summaries - basing their comments upon the merits of the article only.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm on vacation so you can either ban me till July 9, or hold this over till July 9. Can someone open an AN/I for WaltCip ignoring NOTFORUM and using the talk page for needless America bashing? And maybe investigate the obvious IP sock puppets that came to oppose that Baltimore shooting? Or Walt picking at @The Rambling Man: about Russians at ITN/C? Or any number of Walt's other unhelpful edits? Anyway I'll keep reading articles wether I can comment on them or not, which is more than most of the POV warriors there are doing. Back on the 9th. Take a look at Walt's edit history, also almost entirely itn. Pot - kettle? Also if this is an npa vio let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

How is this US bashing? As Waltcip posted later the comment wasn't meant to be taken that way, and was meant to be praise. There's far too many editors at ITN that are not assuming good faith in how people !vote or discuss the situation. --Masem (t) 01:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the guidelines: It sounds to me like the issue is WP:UNCIVIL, which includes WP:ESDOS, and can result in Blocking for incivility, depending upon the extent of the issue. Can you see yourself, LaserLegs, responding on ITN/C based only on the merits of each article? And, follow WP:ESDOS, so that the edit summaries are civil?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen ITN/C? Most of BlackKites "evidence" above is from a discussion where people were congratulating themselves for suppressing US-centric stories and ignoring the merits. Come on. I support posting articles which are "in the news" and have advocated for removing the silly "notability" guidelines. PS: Whats disruptive about comparing Klausses goals with Chestnuts hotdogs? At least Nathans isn't objectively corrupt. Hold this over till the 9th please so I can properly defend myself against these accusations. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course I did. I went and searched for your comments myself. I am sensing from your response that 1) you don't see anything wrong with your comments or edit summaries and 2) you don't think you need to make a change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

See below, I concede that swearing at WaltCip was too far, inflamed by an unnecessary WP:NOTFORUM at WT:ITN congratulating themselves for suppressing US-centric stories. I won't concede that it's wrong to compare hotdog eating to soccer ... because it isn't. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As someone feeling a bit put-off by LaserLegs' abusive language right now, I think the sentence in that comment saying "Whats disruptive about comparing Klausses goals with Chestnuts hotdogs?" is very telling. I for one do not want hot dog eating contests on the front page of Misplaced Pages. If LaserLegs really does, we have a perspective problem. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok then wander on over to WT:ITN and propose a change to WP:ITN#Purpose because right now it doesn't say anything about a soccer ticker or banning hotdogs. It has some pretty clear guidelines. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That response is just as telling. It is aggressive. And still shows a very different perspective from what I see as reasonable for a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Whats aggressive about it? You consider my comparison of Klausses arbitrary soccer goal record to a hot dog eating contest "very telling" (whatever that means) and went on to insist "I for one do not want hot dog eating contests on the front page of Misplaced Pages.". The thing is, that doesn't at all align with the WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN, so I suggested you head over to WT:ITN and propose a change, like I successfully did to fix the dumpster fire that was WP:ITN/DC. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, if you want to T-ban me for swearing at WaltCip and comparing arbitrary goal records at a corrupt FIFA event to hotdog eating, without even a warning, that's your prerogative as an admin. I'll even concede that swearing is not acceptable and apologize. If you want to tell me that noms at ITN/C can ONLY be considered on their "merits" and not consider the fake !rules of ITN, then I'll need to drag the bulk of the regulars through AN/I so you can T-ban every one of them. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I really wish LaserLegs would convey his views in a collegial manner. He has some valid points about the exclusion of US-centric stories, and he's not the only who is tired of the America bashing at ITN, but he's only hurting his own cause with his abrasive attitude. Lepricavark (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your wish. I am concerned about this claim of America bashing. Can condemning the hot dog proposal really be described as America bashing? If that's the kind of American nomination we get, it is going to be bashed, but that's not the same as bashing America. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm speaking of other instances when I've seen editors thumb their noses at the US in one way or another. In the case of the hot dog contest, that was not an item that should have been posted. Lepricavark (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was ok with the hotdog contest but the articles weren't up to scratch. The vitriol poured on the Miami Bridge Collapse, the SCOTUS noms, and that Baltimore shooting are whats "telling" here. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think the term 'vitriol' is too strong. In fact, your use of words that are too strong is part of the problem. You've been trying to fight fire with fire and that's not going to work. Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the key issue is civility... and diving back into a specific issue could take this conversation sideways. I agree with the points above about perspective, attitude, abrasiveness... and I'd add a failure to "get it", but I am afraid that getting into specific issues gives little chance of resolving this well. Just my two cents, for what little it may be worth.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok well what actions do you want from me? I've already offered to refrain from swearing and apologize to WaltCip for it. I've also pointed on that only considering nominations on their "merits" is something I largely do, and MANY other contributors at ITN just ignore (including the ITN discussion that kicked this off) so I won't be held to a standard that others aren't held to. Let me know what I need to do to make this go away. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What actions? Please stop telling me where to go....

"...wander on over to WT:ITN and propose a change..."

"...head over to WT:ITN and propose a change"

Neither of those seems likely to make things more collegial. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

HiLo, I'm just pointing out where the policies around ITN are, and how to amend them. --LaserLegs (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, look at the Scott Pruitt nomination down in flames in hours because of "systemic bias" (whatever that means). Quite a few people there failed to consider the "merits" of that article, maybe they need to get dragged in to AN/I too? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Only one editor out of seven who opposed it mentioned systemic bias. Others gave a wide range of other reasons. You are misrepresenting the situation. That is never helpful. And it certainly wasn't America bashing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Your comments obviously are seen as inflammatory and a bit overwhelming. I saw your comments and I agree that you "largely" evaluate the nominations based upon their merits. You can only control your behavior, so perhaps instead of "largely" it could be "only" discuss the merits of the case without editorial comments and follow WP:ESDOS for edit summaries. Dialing it back a bit could help a LOT.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, but am I facing a T-ban because I compare nominations which were/were not posted at ITN like the majority of the other contributors there, am I facing a T-ban for pointing out the obvious double standard when us-centric noms are closed in hours and EU-centric noms for legislation that wasn't passed are STILL open, or am I facing a t-ban for swearing at WaltCip? If it's the last one, I'll gladly apologize and even endeavor to dial it back. If it's the other two, I don't know what to tell you. --LaserLegs (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was going by Black Kite's comment: "I'm not looking for LL to be blocked, just for someone to come along and tell him to knock it off..." and that related to the manner of communication, which included the comments in edit summaries, including swearing. Black Kite didn't even recommend a topic ban for a short period of time, that was my suggestion. I don't think I really have anything new to add or say at this point. This conversation is getting long.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

But, I am very interested in your response... and that of others that may weigh in.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was quite a simple request, really. Simply knock off the incivility and "STFU"s, knock off the snark, and stop making ridiculous comparisons between things (you know that a hot-dog eating contest and the biggest sporting event in the world aren't comparable, so that's just WP:POINT). Quite apart from anything else, you make your own arguments look weaker, and you get to the point where people start to thing "Oh, it's only LaserLegs with his usual stuff" and start to ignore you. At other times you often make good points - can we just stick to doing that? Black Kite (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you could have left a comment on my talk page about that, AN/I is a heavy handed tool. Edit summaries? Sure, no problem. Snark? I'm not sure but ok. Lots of "snark" at ITN/C. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There was absolutely no difference, none whatsoever, between a record number of hot dogs eaten and a record number of goals kicked in a silly FIFA soccer pageant. None. Absolutely none. Know why? They were both "in the news" which happens to be he topic of that main page feature. The only difference there is you've convinced yourself on the significance of FIFAs corrupt officiating, arbitrary extra time and fake injuries, AND have convinced yourself of the triviality of that hot dog contest. Is that why I'm here? Is that the last straw? That I compared the sacred cow of ITN sports "association soccer" to hot dogs? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't stand soccer, but I know it's more important than hot dogs. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All I care about, HiLo, is if a story is "In The News" and if the article has a quality update. That's it. "Importance", "global coverage", "most popular sport", whatever, all of those fake requirements are simply used by ITN regulars to push a POV agenda, which culminates occasionally in a discussion at WT:ITN where people actually congratulate themselves on suppressing US-centric stories. I was curious, so I looked, way back in 2012 I was comparing walking across Niagara Falls on a tightrope to soccer -- you opposed that nom too, actually. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine. If you're deliberately going to go down the road of not seeing what you're doing wrong, feel free to choose it. I wouldn't advise it, but it's your choice. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed above that LaserLegs is naming me as a party to this ANI, saying one should be opened up about me for my edits, and has neither notified me nor posted anything on my talk page about this. I would have appreciated the heads-up.--WaltCip (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry @WaltCip:, you're right. I was on mobile when this came up and didn't loop back around to tag your talk page. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, regarding a comment you made above - "Can someone open an AN/I for WaltCip ignoring NOTFORUM and using the talk page for needless America bashing? And maybe investigate the obvious IP sock puppets that came to oppose that Baltimore shooting?" Are you suggesting that I use sockpuppets? Please clarify.--WaltCip (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, separate incidents, the IP socks, I'm not suggesting they are you. I stand by the NOTFORUM comment, there was no reason for you to head over to WT:ITN and celebrate suppressing US-centric stories without a clear call to action. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's this inverted logic which is why you're here LaserLegs. I saw the thread as a celebration of the fact that in spite of systemic bias, the ITN section was as diverse as it's ever been. It felt to me that you and a few other pro-US users leapt all over it and utterly derailed its original meaning to suit your position. And once complete, everyone screamed about it being more heat than light. And now you're here. Personally, I find all the pointy bollocks to be mildly amusing, sometimes interwoven with some reasonable notes, but that's just because I have that sort of a sense of humour and you've usually been pointy but fair to me. I think others struggle with these kinds of communication to be honest. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with TRM) Your assertion that I am attempting to suppress US-centric stories from ITN is troubling. As you probably know, the highest plurality of editors on the English Misplaced Pages comes from the United States. Inevitably as a result of this, there will be a systemic bias. My post on the ITN talk page was not intended for, as you say, "America bashing" or celebrating American items not being posted on ITN. It was intended to celebrate the internationally diverse selection of stories that we have on there despite the systemic bias that exists. I have not been in favor of deliberately suppressing US items from ITN in order to achieve this, but I am in favor of posting items that are of significance and newsworthiness. That a large number of items that get turned down that do not meet that newsworthiness standard happen to be from the US is just an artifact of the process, I think. Anyway, I apologize if you construed my comment as being "anti-American" in any way; I assure you that was not its intent.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash the arguments which correctly refuted your thesis in that now closed WP:NOTFORUM WP:SOAP discussion, I'll just remind you that WP:ITN#Purpose doesn't say anything about fighting bias, or "international coverage" or any such thing, and if you want to propose a change, that is the correct use of WT:ITN and I'd evaluate the merits of such a proposal and comment accordingly. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions. This has nothing to do with discrimination merely for the sake of international coverage, or "America-bashing" as you call it. This has everything to do with applying significance standards consistently so that we don't have an over-representation of stories from a single country. What about this do you not understand?--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a made up requirement Walt, there is nothing in WP:ITN or in any main page feature about "an over-representation of stories from a single country". That's the whole point here, and that's what you do not understand. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

LaserLegs After all of this discussion, I hope it's clear that when you make comparisons, talk about the ratio of US stories, and are uncivil to others — you are being disruptive. So, I'll ask my question again, can you operate on the ITN/C in such a way that you:

• just talk about the merits of the candidates
• don't make snarky comments about whether or not it's a US story
• don't make comparisons
• be civil in your comments to others and in your edit summaries?

If not, I go back to my original suggestion for a short-term ban of the ITN, with the comment that when you return you must be more civil and not disruptive.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely will not be held to a different standard at ITN/C where many contributors compare noms to previous noms, including the perennial objection to us-centric stories "we'd not post this from another country". If you want to impose a fundamental change to the discourse at ITN/C, I'm all for it, but it needs to be universal, not as a punitive tool against me. Regarding civility, I'll refrain from "snarky" edit summaries like "hate" and "hateful" and anything else objectionable, and if I fall off the wagon, I'd appreciate a note on my talk page that isn't an AN/I notice. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

My personal guidelines are simple: support stories which are in the news and have quality updates. There is a whole culture there of editorializing and content filtering based upon policies which do not exist. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't (think I) comment on other editors comments unless there is some inaccuracy that needs to be corrected, and I certainly don't accuse other editors of "hating" "evil Russians". I just READ the articles first and support as many as I can. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this so "chronic, intractable" that it needed to come to AN/I? Reading the comments at IT/C, I'll concede that I have crossed the WP:CIVIL line, but I'm certainly not alone there. It seems I'm here because because I compared association fake injuries to hotdog eating, a point dragged up over and over in this long running thread. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The others aren't here, you are. You downplay your behavior. Did you read your comments above from Black Kite's original post?

The others ARE here, comically enough. HiLo48 literally reopened a closed discussion just to comment on me. Can I refer that to AN/I without it being considered pointy? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Black Kite reopened the conversation before HiLo48 made that comment. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This could be an opportunity for you to be an example for others of how to move conversations forward and not get bogged down in comparisons and finger-pointing. You can either recognize that you are part of the problem and try to fix it, or move on. That's my personal opinion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Strike out sentence, we posted about the same time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never once, since I retired IP98, opposed an article because of comparisons. I oppose for quality or because it simply isn't in the news. Sometimes I point out the discrepancy in !votes between soccer and any other sport, or Europe and any other region of the world. I'm not going to pretend the pro-Europe pro-soccer pro-disaster bias at ITN doesn't exist. If that's a problem, maybe an RFC at WT:ITN about the discourse and support/oppose rationales is needed. Yes, I realize I was being snarky in my edit summaries and I can see how some (who are themselves snarky in their edit summaries) would be offended, and since it adds no value, I'll work harder to not do it. The heat has finally broken here in Niagara, I'm missing vacation time. I was keeping an eye on ITN, and if T-banning someone who actually READS articles, checks the refs and adheres to the actual published guidelines at WP:ITN is what's best for the project, so be it. I'm out. Thanks CaroleHenson for a cool head. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I truly believe what you say about your intention and the approach you take when evaluating candidates.

The problem is that you let what seems to be long-standing anger cloud your communication. And you are not getting it. That is clear by the diff you posted above, which in my opinion doesn't shine a lovely light on you. You are saying you're out. I go back to a suggestion for a short time-out. Get through your vacation, have a lovely breather. Come back in a week or so with a fresh mind-set. You may see things differently and choose to be a model of civil and constructive discourse. In other words, I vote for a one week ITN ban to hit the reset button.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A bit heavy handed, when I get back I'll be sure to refer others who behave the same way to AN/I, but you're an admin, just do it. I won't go screaming to ARBCOM or anything because you're involved. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I posted my first comment saying . But, I am someone who has been around for awhile and have a sense of how to be productive and effective (but like everyone I have had my moments where I haven't been the proudest of myself, too).–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call sending people you disagree with to ANI/N right off the bat as a model of constructive discourse. Others tried to talk to you about the issue before coming here, and others would deserve the same courtesy from you. For instance, you blind-sided WaltCip (and yes, I know you apologized for that, just saying not the best approach to ready, shoot, aim).

We'll have to see how an admin chooses to close this out. My guess is that it wouldn't be for a week.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've occasionally popped into ITN but not regularly, if you want an admin experienced in that area I would recommend 331dot (though I see you've crossed swords with him already). Anyway, LaserLegs, I think the point is you are starting to sound like a broken record; everyone is fully aware you think ITN is biased, but as Black Kite says above, the more you keep saying it (with sarcastic and snarky comments), the more people are going to look at what you say, think "aww jeez here goes LaserLegs again with his systemic bias rehtoric" and ignore you. (I personally find some of your comments amusing, but my sense of humour is not shared by too many people around here). That means you aren't going to get the results you want. I'm not looking at bans or blocks, but yeah, just, you know dial it back a bit and work on something else. If you want to try something different, put WP:ERRORS on your watchlist and go and help take care of ITN problems that are on the main page right now instead of just whining about bias on the nomination pages. Or, to not too fine a point on it, you've made one mainspace edit in the past month. The more you contribute to actual articles, the more respect you will get. Ritchie333 15:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to close this as we have had extensive conversations with each other, but I would encourage LaserLegs to take at least some of the advice in this discussion, especially that of Ritchie above. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki LL

The user Iñaki LL filed a complaint against me in the ANI, asking me to be blocked, which was rejected and he was warned: "Inaki, please keep it on the talk page, quit making personal attacks, address specific points of contention or do not revert at all, and employ dispute resolution measures if and when they are needed. Getting your opponent blocked is not an option.",

Despite this, he has continued with his behavior, questioning my edits and commenting on me in the articles talk pages .

EDITED Notice how the first thing he did after after the closing of the incident in the ANI on 22:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC) by Swarm and the rejection of his blocking request on me was to question the decision of the administrators, returning to accuse me on my talk page on 11:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC) of clear "POV overtones" and saying "Where is going the EN WP? Who knows. WP:BUREAUCRACY Very sad really" .BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

He accused me several times without proof of "You removed verified information 'in your information re-arrangement", "removing 'unpleasant' information" in a talk page , , in his talk page and in my talk page . I replied in his talk page , asking him to provide evidence of his accusations, or if not, that he apologizes or strikes his accusations . He has not done it, he has circumvent the answer and he has erased my messages from his talk page , claiming that I have not right to answer there , even though I explained that the policies do allow it . See the full discussions here .

I think if Iñaki LL did not want me to respond, he should have thought before writing me (notice the tone and content of his message, with which he started the discussion ). I am posting this here because he has erased my messages and I'm still waiting for him to provide specific evidence to corroborate his accusations.

IMHO this seems Misplaced Pages:WikiBullying. I feel harassed, despite my attempts to dialogue with him showing my good faith .

I want him to stop once and for all his attitude towards me and just discuss how to improve the content of the pages from a neutral point of view, calmly, politely and respecting the Misplaced Pages policies. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This dispute originated in Catalan independence referendum, 2017, where Iñaki LL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) attempted to clarify some of the details of the events but was reverted in a series of edits by BallenaBlanca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), for example BB removed "A man was hit in the eye by a rubber ball during a police charge, severely injuring him." (properly cited to the The Independent) and glossed over it by re-writing an earlier sentence to "four people were hospitalised by the emergency health service and of those, two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the eye in the protests". This is typical of the grip that BB has on the article, as a glance at the page history and the article talk page, where he has wikilawyered away many edits from multiple other editors, will show. This particular complaint from BB is nothing more than an attempt to remove a dissenting editor from the article. BB's conduct is classic: Inaki complains on BB's talk page about BB's behaviour, so BB immediately takes that post over to Inaki's talk page and makes an entire wall of text blaming Inaki for his response to BB's behaviour. When Inaki objected to BB moving the thread to Inaki's talk page and removed it, BB re-added the wall of text twice more, , in complete contravention of WP:TPG, and tantamount to harassment. This only ceased when another editor MPS1992 reminded BB of WP:OWNTALK. That is enough to attract sanctions on BB.

What adds to this however, is that BB then went back to a previous dispute with Inaki from May, on around 10 articles about people who are or were well known as Basques where BB had added a "Spanish" qualifier, for example, BB changed "a ska punk band from the Basque Country" to "a Spanish ska punk band from the Basque Autonomous Community". Inaki had restored the original wording in each case, which had remained stable since then, until BB reverted again in retaliation for this dispute. He has since edit warred the same information back twice more, and against another editor, Theklan who agreed with the original wording.

BallenaBlanca has an obvious anti-Basque and anti-Catalan agenda and comes here with unclean hands. i strongly suggest that there is a case to apply WP:BOOMERANG. --RexxS (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: You are not providing diffs from the page nor from the discussion on it in the talk page for your claimings on the injured in the eye, nor the rest of the information about that edit of mine, so you are only giving a partial view of the situation, distorting it. This is explained here in detail "Iñaki, with this new edit you repeated information already present, causing confusion in the information. There was only one injured by a rubber ball and with what you wrote, it seems that there were two. Notice: ... (I do not quote everything, so as not to overload this discussion). And the page already contained detailed information about the injured in the eye just below for months. Let's see for example this version of 11 January 2018: "Of those injured, most were minor, but four people were hospitalised by the emergency health service and of those two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the protests, the other for unrelated causes. The man injured by a rubber ball lost the vision of an eye and he sued 3 members of the Spanish National Police.". And a picture and a footage.

Theklan and other editors are trying to apply the RfC of Carles Puigdemont in many articles on Spaniards from the autonomous communities of Catalonia and the Basque Country to eliminate the Spanish nationality, ignoring the policies Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, but have been warned by their incorrect behavior in several talk pages by an administrator, as for example here: "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles.". The administrator himself had to make several reversions for this reason , , , , , , , , , , , , , ...

RexxS, you said "BallenaBlanca has an obvious anti-Basque and anti-Catalan agenda" You are violating WP:AGF. I do not have any political positioning, I just want to improve the encyclopedia and I look for neutrality. On the other hand, both Iñaki and Theklan openly declare their POV. See:

• Theklan Wikilari honek Euskal Herriaren independentzia aldarrikatzen du (This wikipedian proclaims the independence of the Basque Country)
• Iñaki LL This user opposes the policies and views of Mariano Rajoy.

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 16:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All three are Spanish users with strong views on a subject many Spaniards have strong views on. RexxS mischaracterises the dispute by asserting only Ballena Blanca has strong politiical opinions on the matter, as Iñaki LL and Theklan have equally strong views that oppose those of Ballena Blanca. Is this general Spanish political issue a case for arbcom? Which would of course require dispute mediation first. There are no simple ANI solutions, IMO. I don't think there are any excuses for edit-warring across multiple articles but it is clearly coming from both camps. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Spanish. -Theklan (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Only the first of TWO threads on the board RIGHT NOW related to Catalan separatism. Jesus. EEng 17:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not see this as a matter of strong view from my part but to comply with Misplaced Pages policies and neutrality.

What worries me is that Misplaced Pages's policies are violated by writing freely without adjusting to the sources and distorting the information.

For example, claiming that "rubber ball" does not exist in English , insisting on using a news title “A reasonable title in a reliable source is good enough” when the actual content of the news and several other sources contradict it and so I had explained it , etc.

I would like you to read this complete thread , motivated by numerous edits that a user has made in the last month and that included various irregularities. I would like you to see the discussion, how I have been arguing in detail, listening to other users, trying to dialogue with Iñaki and reach consensus, thanking his signs of goodwill , accepting his proposals , proposing solutions and seeking consensus , recognizing my mistakes ... But I feel that as much as I try, it seems that he does not see my good faith.

A suggestive fact: Iñaki LL expanded the information about the injured in the eye and added statements of four witnesses about the pacifism of the demonstrators, but when I included the other version, with sources that include footages that contradict those statements and that pacifism of at least part of them (including the man injured himself), Iñaki LL was outraged and protested . Is this a matter of a view opposed to Iñaki's? I do not think so, I think it's a matter of WP:NPOV, which I complied with.

In that same message we see how he tries to impose rules on me on where I can edit and how the length of the discussions on the talk page should be, violating WP:No-edit orders.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: I have some advice for you, but it may not help you very much. First, if you feel that someone who is not an administrator, is trying to impose rules on you, then feel free to ignore them. They cannot force you to do anything. But, you might like to think about their advice anyway. And one thing they can insist on, is that you do not keep repeatedly posting the same thing on their talk page. Especially if what you are adding is a dissertation. And also, I am guessing that both you and the person you are reporting both write English as a second language -- this if fine, but, in English we do not say that a police officer shot someone in the eye "with a rubber ball". That's not English. MPS1992 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Slow edit war and SPA by Wkretz86

• Wkretz86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wkretz86 appears to have some grudge with the Anti-Defamation League. They have repeatedly removed a specific passage in the article for hate groups, with edit summaries claiming that the Anti-Defamation League is racist. See , , and past edits on hate groups , , , , , , . Also these two edits: and

Doug Weller warned the user not to slow edit war after their block from NeilN for edit warring on hate groups expired. Today they continued that same edit war. Requesting block. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Their response to my warning on their talk page was posted this morning. It included " The ADL are themselves a foreign hate group". I find that hard to interpret as anything but an anti-Semitic comment and have blocked them indefinitely. I have no objection to anyone rescinding or changing the block if an adequate explanation is forthcoming. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly

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

Good evening, I am requesting the attention of an Administrator, as I am repeatedly incurring issues with Marchjuly, as they have consistently followed me around Misplaced Pages as I edit and create, citing all manner of virtually irrelevant standards and protocols, and I have tried mitigating their concerns, however they just seem to raise more and more, and such is why I've been forced to semi-retire, as I can't take the mental strain and anguish that has stemmed from the acrimonious debates he has caused. Prime examples include Talk:Vancouver Police Department, Talk:List of British Columbia provincial highways, as well as a litany of deletion requests he's filed against me in the Wikimedia Commons, ignoring rules as he went. I have tried to explain things to him, and sadly much of that was lost when I purged my talk page prior to my short-lived retirement, which ended when I decided that I still wanted to be a part of Misplaced Pages, and thus transitioned to a semi-retirement, as explained above. I truly need him dealt with, as I have worked my fingers to the bone in attempts to satisfy him, however he has been nothing but uncooperative, and has made no efforts to help the community in his actions. He has only torn it down, created hostilities, and made my life here hell. Please address this ASAP!

Thank you, Fhsig13 (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please cite specific diffs, showing edits where Marchjuly has violated specific policies. Vague accusations such as this can and have been taken as personal attacks, and the result if you fail to do so could be sanctions against you, Fhsig13. The fact that MJ is only one of multiple editors that have reverted you on the articles you mentioned does not speak well for your filing here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have given specifics above that show that he is guilty of Misplaced Pages:WikiBullying, and I will ask that you withdraw you involvement here, as you are involved in these incidents, and your ruling on the matter would therefore constitute a conflict-of-interest. Fhsig13 (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

One problem everyone who has dealt with you on Misplaced Pages has had, Fhsig13 is your tendency to engage in WP:IDHT behavior. You'll likely see a flying aboriginal weapon if you do that here. You are REQUIRED to post WP:DIFFs to back your claim of harrassment, or bullying, or whatever it is you are claiming. Also, by coming here, your behavior is open to scrutiny too. Further, content disputes are not settled here, so the fact that I am editing on one of the two articles you've mentioned is irrelevant. I'm here, whether it suits you or not. You've made an unsubstantiated claim about another editor's behavior. How does the fact that we've edited on the same article effect that? John from Idegon (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

. I took a look at the Talk:List of British Columbia provincial highways and if I understand correctly, the signs cannot be used because they do not meet the criteria for non-free fair-use rationale. You could, though, use {{External media}} or the External links section to provide links to the signs from elsewhere on the web.

Regarding the table of fallen soldiers that you want to add, it is not standard to have such a section in articles about police departments. And, there was a legitimate reason given for removing the list. I don't see what the issue is here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure how to repsond other than to ask Fhsig13 to please provide WP:DIFFs in support of the specific claims he's making, particularly the ones about me "ignoring rules" and about me Wikibullying. Also, while WP:BLANKING his user talk page is permitted, whatever inappropriate things I am supposed to have posted there can be found in the page's history. I am more than happy to try and explain/clarify them if specific examples can be cited. Same goes for any comments I might've made on any article talk pages or even Commons. Finally, since Fhsig13 has started this discussion here, he should be aware of WP:BOOMERANG, WP:HARASS#NOT and WP:CRYBULLYING. Anyway, that's all I have to say on this unless there are questions about specific edits or specific behavior which need to be answered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fhsig13, just in case you don't understand what a "diff" is, here is the diff of the personal attack you just made on Marchjuly. John from Idegon (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Fhsig13, did you really just come here to ANI to complain about another editor's conduct while almost simultaneously calling the other editor an "asswipe"? Do you have any idea how bad that makes you look? Cullen Let's discuss it 07:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:, you've some experience with this editor. Any comments? I also note that this use of personal attacks has a long history, see the attempt at an ArbCom case and their comment at the bottom (under our vote)".I urge you to please reconsider your verdict on hearing the matter, as these two despicable gentlemen insist on having everything THEIR petty way,". Frankly I have little hope that this editor will or can reform and am considering an indefinite block. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocking indefinitely. Misplaced Pages is not therapy; nor should this longstanding problematic editing behaviour in addition to unsubstantiated attacks remained unaddressed. Alex Shih (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Post closing comment Apologies, I am a bit late to this discussion. This is a newish user that I spent some time trying to help grasp the way we do tings here. Unfortunately I think I failed. Their behavior in this situation and refusal to engage in the discussion they opened appears to be part of a pattern of problematic editing. Some of that can be chalked up to the sort of stuff we see in newbies. And some might well be behavioral issues that signal deeper problems such as the already mentioned IDONTHEARYOU behavior and a general inability to function in a collaborative project. Given that I specifically warned them about the perils of the drama boards and they seem to have chosen to ignore that warning I support a BOOMERANG block. This editor needs some time away from here and their behavior has in fact reached the point of being disruptive. I'm not sure if I would have started with an indef but I leave that to the judgement of the blocking admin. Courtesy ping Doug Weller -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible former indeffed's newest identities for LTA

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

l hope this is the right pIace for me to report a proxy-and-sock abuser.

• There's a proxy ("AS6939 HURRlCANE - Hurricane EIectric, lnc., US") providing different lP ranges: the main is 66.160.0.0/16, the others are 64.71.128.0/18, 72.52.64.0/18 and 74.82.0.0/18.
• ln en.wikipedia some of these ranges and some of their subranges were bIocked a few months ago, whiIe a subrange of the main lP, 66.160.188.0/24, was gIobaIIy bIocked in February; on the bases of simiIar edits and CU checks, users Baka Líte and Myeuurn were bIocked immediateIy after this lP range.
• The admin who bIocked them gIobaIIy didn't know that another checkuser had detected one more sock beIonging to the same user, FuIgencio Kokomeci, as you can read here, that's why this sock wasn't bIocked.
• After a Iong time, he reappeared Iast month, in the same period when aIso other lPs from that proxy reappeared.
• He made this edit just 2 minutes before an lP from the proxy range made this edit: this time there wasn't disruption, but it's cIear it's the same person, this isn't a coincidence.
• And there's an overwheIming evidence this isn't a coinciedence: both edits are identicaI to 2 edits (this and this) made by a "Iong-term muItipIe sockpuppeteer, using numerous lP addresses and accounts", as wrote the admin who bIocked the 193.204.194.0/24 lP range IocaIIy for "Persistent disruptive editing".
• l think this is shouId be enough to prove that this is just the umpteenth sock by the same user hiding behind the other 2 socks and countIess lPs from those ranges, and this shouId aIso be worth enough a check over those 4 proxy ranges to verify whether there're other socks of his, created or editing using such lP ranges.
• l have aIready a IittIe suspect about a recent account, MbretiBasha, since the Iong-term abuser l'm taIking about was known for having aIso a sort of obsession with phonetic and Iinguistic issues, but this is just a IittIe suspect and may be just a coincidence, however a check on those proxies couId prove his invoIvement or not-invoIvement.

l hope l didn't write too much, and l hope this report was convincing enough. Let me know in case you need more information or have any questions, but l think it's far too cIear these users are aII just different identities used by the same person to "disguise" 162.212.130.35 (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Socking of Simon 1996

User:Simon 1996 is abusing multiple accounts, see User:Alex Shih's CU status and also meta's CU results. --B dash (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

B dash, stop posting everywhere about this. There is a reason why I did not block the main account here on enwp; they are actively evading their block on Chinese Misplaced Pages, which is why both accounts needed to be blocked over there. Over here, their main account is not under any sanctions, but the second account was editing concurrently with the first account as essentially undisclosed alternate account, which could be turned legitimate if they disclose them properly (instead of continuing to deny any connection) as according to WP:VALIDALT. There is no need to block their main account here on English Misplaced Pages at this moment, as every project across Wikimedia is different. Alex Shih (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

View on Catalonia seem to be spoiling for a fight

Hunig3 (talk · contribs) seems to be an WP:SPA and his recent contribs, however valid some of the points may be, are far from being consensual. Not sure what the best route forward is? I will notify him now that I have opened this discussion. Fob.schools (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• - Fob.schools, unless I am missing it, I am not seeing that you had any conversation with this user about what you perceive as a problem. See WP:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party. Why not post something with the user and try to resolve the issue that way first? What is the problem?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I started a conversation at Talk:Catalonia national football team#Editing about "national" team and pinged the parties involved. It seems that discussion should take place before getting into an ANI posting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

TBH, it’s not my forte at all. I just noticed a whole bunch of page moves and I can see arguments on both sides. I’m not sure who is in the right, but I think it’s obvious that Hunig3 is an SPA. I was hoping someone with more experience (you!) would know what to do next. You did. Thank you. Fob.schools (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• The second of two threads on the board RIGHT NOW related to Catalan separatism. Jesus. EEng 17:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • To be fair, the topic is more suitable for an encyclopedia than beauty pageants or WWE... –FlyingAce 20:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed

This has also been posted at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content, but I don't know how active that talk page is. Two non-free images I recently used have been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. He's doing a lot of that today, not just mine, so this must be his area of concentration, at least for today.

I, for one, am not overjoyed by the method of deleting without talk page discussion explanation, but whatever . I need explicit information, not just linking of the policy. One was the album cover art used in the infobox at Emma Veary. The other was a newspaper clilpping used at Charles K.L. Davis. Can you give me a detailed explanation on what governs this?

— Maile (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Aye. A non-free image should be increasing the reader's knowledge of the subject of that article. A non-free album cover is absolutely fine in an article about that album, but is spurious in an article about the artist - a cover tells us nothing about that person (there have been a very few exceptions). In the other article, we already have a non-free image of that person, the clipping adds nothing else to that and is thus excessive. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

IP Editor 94.66.144.210

94.66.144.210 has been repeatedly blanking COI and other templates on Alexis Marcou. See Special:Contributions/94.66.144.210/24 for that IP history. I and TheEpTic have reverted this edit a total of 5 times now. They were warned, and yet they continued to blank the pages. They are not responding to any communication. I posted on AIV, but nothing seemed to happen, and the unconstructive edits continued so I'm bringing it here. --Theredproject (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The IP hasn't touched the article for four days and there is no discussion on the talk page over the tags. Why not start one? I'm not surprised your AIV report was thrown out - see WP:DOLT. The tag says "This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject" - the principal contributor to the article is Mike1582 who hasn't edited in three years. Sounds to me like the tags have expired. Ritchie333 14:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Theredproject: I agree with one of you the former the latter. Even an IP can be right most / some of the time  :) I've removed the tags. My semi-literate edit-summary should suffice as to why. Thank goodness no-one ended up at WP:ANEW, that's all I say. That would have been most unexpected. Have a good weekend everybody! —SerialNumber54129 19:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The article was actually started by 311080marc and earlier by them at Draft:ALEXIS MARCOU. Based on other edits like this it seems very likely that Mike1582 was then recruited as an undisclosed paid editor to "fix" the article. It is still riddled with unreliable sources and is highly promotional. I'd hazard a guess that much of the content will fail verification as well. Since when did tags expire? @Serial Number 54129: Please deal with the issues rather than removing the tags. I'm replacing them, and if the IP removes them again will block. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers

Over at AR-15 style rifle There is an ongoing dispute over the use of the word lethal (well lethality, but much the same thing).

User:72bikers has added this a couple of time and been reverted, however their latest attempt was this ], adding (more or less) the same material as this edit ] ](with some additions) and marked this as a minor edit.

Now I did not see this as a minor edit, and in fact see it as POV pushing by a back door rout to try and circumvent consensus (which they have not achieved.

Their response to my undoing their edit (as not minor and against consensus was this) ].

I believe this was an attempt to POV push by a back door route. I do think calling it a minor edit was a massive misrepresentation, as well as a breach of the spirit(and maybe the letter, after all he must have known this material was contested already) of wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor Slatersteven from his AR-15 talk page statements only issue with this word, has stated that the inclusion of this should only be allowed if in turn "wound characteristics" which consensus rejected, be allowed into the article. He has made statement like this "It does not matter if one side are "experts" and one side are not", which appears to not follow policy. He has made repeated statement misinterpreting the use of this word "lethality". This statement, Gun experts told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity. Clearly the statement neither states the weapons is lethal nor that it lacks lethality. They are merely stating the gun choice is not based on any form of lethality. They go on to state they believe they are copying what others have used "copycat" and explaining why. He for some reason believes this states the weapon lacks lethality , , . The content in the article currently after Slatersteven started tampering with it, then Admin Drmies left this Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.

The recognized experts

Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator.

But I digress, that all is the context of the issue here. There has not been no repeated attempts to include content and he is taking things out of context. If you look at the talk page it was all supported and altered for that support. Editor Slatersteven would seem to be the only editor who is hung up on the word and its inclusion only if the non consensus wound content is included. I would like to not cast aspersions, but I belive he removed the quotes because he saw the word lethality. But not only did he remove the quotes from that citation but also 2 other citations as well. He removed quotes from the citations () and claims "NOt minor and no consensus, ad you know both of these things)", I believe adding the quotes to the citations was minor. I also do not believe policy states there needs to be consensus for adding quotes to citation already in the article. I believe the quotes taken directly from the references help the reader with context. As allowed by policy and like other (not left by me but bundled by me to help the reader) citations in the article . So he reverted my edit and came here to have me sanctioned, which is fine by me as I think this needs to be flushed out.

I believe his behavior is verging on disruptive and seems to follow a patern. He appears to have no interest in the AR-15 article other than reverting editors, all this is his reverts of me and other editors at this one article , , , , , , , , , , , , . -72bikers (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Smith, Aaron (June 21, 2016). "Why the AR-15 is the mass shooter's go-to weapon". CNN. Retrieved February 15, 2018. The AR-15, the type of rifle used in the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, is the weapon of choice for mass killers.
   Picchi, Aimee (June 15, 2016), "America's rifle: The marketing of assault-style weapons", CBS MoneyWatch, CBS News, retrieved February 23, 2018, America has grown accustomed to military-style semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. It's not hard to see why: These firearms have been heavily marketed to gun owners. But at the same time, they're often the weapons of choice for mass murderers.
   Zhang, Sarah (June 17, 2016), "What an AR-15 Can Do to the Human Body", Wired, retrieved March 3, 2018, The AR-15 is America's most popular rifle. It has also been the weapon of choice in mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Aurora to San Bernardino.
   Williams, Joseph P. (November 7, 2017). "How the AR-15 Became One of the Most Popular Guns in America, A brief history of the guns that have become the weapons of choice for mass shootings". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved February 15, 2018. They're lightweight, relatively cheap and extremely lethal, inspired by Nazi infantrymen on the Eastern Front during World War II. They're so user-friendly some retailers recommend them for children, yet their design is so aggressive one marketer compared them to carrying a "man card" -- although ladies who dare can get theirs in pink. And if the last few mass shootings are any indication, guns modeled after the AR-15 assault rifle -- arguably the most popular, most enduring and most profitable firearm in the U.S. -- have become the weapon of choice for unstable, homicidal men who want to kill a lot of people very, very quickly.
   Jansen, Bart; Cummings, William (November 6, 2017), "Why mass shooters are increasingly using AR-15s", USA Today, retrieved February 15, 2018, AR-15 style rifles have been the weapon of choice in many recent mass shootings, including the Texas church shooting Sunday, the Las Vegas concert last month, the Orlando nightclub last year and Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.
   Oppel Jr., Richard A. (February 15, 2018), "In Florida, an AR-15 Is Easier to Buy Than a Handgun", The New York Times, retrieved February 15, 2018, The N.R.A. calls the AR-15 the most popular rifle in America. The carnage in Florida on Wednesday that left at least 17 dead seemed to confirm that the rifle and its variants have also become the weapons of choice for mass killers.
   Lloyd, Whitney (February 16, 2018), Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters, retrieved March 2, 2018, AR-15-style rifles have become something of a weapon of choice for mass shooters. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |agency= ignored (help)
   Beckett, Lois (February 16, 2018), "Most Americans can buy an AR-15 rifle before they can buy beer", The Guardian, retrieved March 2, 2018, While AR-15 style rifles have become the weapon of choice for some of America's most recent and deadly mass shootings, these military-style guns are still comparatively rarely used in everyday gun violence.
   Samis, Max (April 22, 2018), "Brady Campaign Responds to Developments in Nashville Waffle House Shooting", Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, retrieved May 4, 2018, Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, stated, 'It adds insult to the literal injuries and loss of life suffered by today's victims that even though the killer was known to be too dangerous to have guns, his father chose to rearm him including, reportedly, with the AR-15 used this morning, a weapon of war that now happens to be the weapon of choice in far too many mass killings in America.'

Requesting block

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

User:Fyunck(click) committed edit-warring that an administrator actually confirmed was blockable. On top of this, Fyunck made an egregious assumption of gender (no, I am not male), and has clearly not reformed their character after two previous blocks for the same edit warring and personal attacks seen today. 113.29.230.186 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

IP, your behavior is markedly worse than Fyunck(click)'s. Coming in, edit warring, and accusing everyone of harassment and blatant misogyny is a good way to get yourself blocked. I suggest you resume participating in talk page discussion. --NeilN 20:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked for socking. --NeilN 20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

If I were to get as worked up for being misgendered as the IP did, I would have left the internet a loooooooooooong time ago... –FlyingAce 20:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Serious Truth

The article Serious Truth and the AFD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Serious Truth could probably use the attention of administrator(s). There is disruptive editing with possible BLP violations at the article and the AFD by IPs and new users (single-purpose accounts). There is a request for page protection that's been awaiting admin action for a bit and there's also an SPI filed at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chg1990. Thanks in advance, Deli nk (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Article semied. More experienced editors participating in the AFD would be welcomed. --NeilN 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: Wow! That AfD is getting seriously out of control. I think it is clear that the main troublemaker there is also the subject of the article. He is making wild accusations about other people who I have never heard of but who presumably have reputations to defend. I think the time has come to block the author and all his socks, delete and salt the article and to redact any portions of the AfD which make accusations against people who, for all we know, have absolutely nothing to do with any of this nonsense. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added some words at the bottom of the AfD, which is basically a manifesto of things I will block for if people continue doing them. I think Chg1990 has now said his departing piece and will hopefully not be disrupting the AfD any more, but if he does, I think he has had fair warning that a block is imminent. Ritchie333 21:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Persistent pleas for help from Wikia user on my talk page on Misplaced Pages

About a week ago, I was contacted on my talk page by a user seeking help. He was blocked on Wikia for a TOS violation and was trying to find someone who could help. He had tried contacting a few other Wikipedians, one of whom is an admin, but was ignored or quickly shut down by them. I politely told him that I am not involved at Wikia but would look around to see if there was someone I could contact on his behalf. Based on the block details that he gave me, I was not optimistic that I would be able to do much if anything. My conclusion was that his best recourse was to file an appeal through Wikia's block appeal forms and to be patient in waiting for a response; I noted that if I messaged one or more admins or staff members there, it could be taken as meatpuppetry and would not help his appeal. This user is still messaging me trying to push his case. I think I have done as much as I can for him. I reminded him to remain civil and be patient, but his frustration level over the block is leading to him still leaving me more messages. I need another admin to take a look at this. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 21:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Slambo - It's good that you're at least trying to see what you can do to help this user. The WMF and Wikia, though they are both operated by Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley Starling - are completely different from one another. I don't know much nor do I participate in the "Wikia world", but all things from the ground up (and maybe with some similar Terms of Service) are completely different. Wikia is for-profit, the WMF obviously isn't. Unless ther's someone here who happens to know Wikia very well, there isn't anything we can do at all that would be helpful to him except to point him to where he can appeal his grievances with them :-/ ~Oshwah~ 21:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah -- did you mis-type when you said that WMF and Wikia are both operated by Wales and Starling? Our article about Wikia says that Starling left involvement with it a few years ago; and I'm not sure that she still has any role in the WMF at the present time either? I could be wrong...?

Hi Slambo, I agree with what Oshwah said, you have been very patient here. Unfortunately the dispute is about some editor of some other website who was banned for a year on that website for uploading some porn pictures to something or other, and admits that they think the staff of that website do not care about their complaint. (All that from your talk page!) No-one here can help, so the kindest thing would be to ask someone to semi-protect your talkpage for a while if necessary, assuming a rangeblock would be more disruptive than that. MPS1992 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course, you could also suggest that they register an account here instead, if they are really sure that they want to edit an encyclopedia instead of a fansite or whatever Wikia is, and that they do not want to upload porn pictures as their main activity. They probably won't be interested in that opportunity -- which might be just as well -- since they seem to be counting every single hour until they can get back to whatever they were doing with "stories" on their site on Wikia. MPS1992 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to provide further help to this IP who got blocked for uploading porn to a website that has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages or the Wikimedia Foundation. This person has shown zero interest in contributing to this encyclopedia, and their "persistent pleas" are disruptive. Accordingly, I have blocked the IP for a month. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, Slambo was very kind and patient, but it is a crazy scenario - particularly as the IP user seems to feel entitled to insist on having someone go out of their way to fix an issue of their own making.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:MHS1976 on Western Kentucky Hilltoppers football

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football has created a general template for ~300 CFB team articles inclusive of a "History" section (Ex. Miami Hurricanes football#History, Akron Zips football#History, etc see List of NCAA Division I FBS football programs) formatted with multiple "Coach Name era (19YY–19YY)" subsections, ala:

History

• Early History (19AA-19BB)
• Coach Name era (19CC–19DD)
• Coach Name era (19EE–19FF)
• Coach Name era (19GG–19HH)
• etc

In the Western Kentucky Hilltoppers football article, the comprehensive use of coach/"era" subsections is stable to 2014 and even earlier when the History section was smaller and contained fewer subsections.

User:MHS1976 is now engaged in WP:DE of the CFB project's "era" naming convention in this article's History section, having repeatedly removed "era" (and occasionally substituting "Tenure" with associated MOS:HEAD issues) from the History section. While the edits and edit summaries change over time, the editor's general view seems to be that use of "era" is inconsistent with shorter tenures -which is inconsistent with the CFB project's view and global usage. PP occurs 18:28, 5 July 2018 19:49, 6 July 2018 20:39, 6 July 2018

Recent pings to User:MHS1976 to engage on the WKU article's Talk page around these non-consensus edits:

20:25, 25 June 2018 19:46, 5 July 2018 20:30, 6 July 2018

User talk:MHS1976: Revision history shows multiple editors and one admin flagging these DE/3R edits, but failing to elicit much response. Recent examples:

May June 22:06, 13 June 2018 prior ANI notice 15 June 2018 Admin warning re edit warring 05:28, 15 June 2018 DE3 warning 19:48, 5 July 2018 DE4 warning 20:34, 6 July 2018

While litigating of the use of "era" is not part of this notice, here is a good-faith offering from an AP story dating before the current WKU's coach first game as coach, "Western Kentucky starts new era with Mike Sanford as coach".AP story on USA Today This aligns with the project's global view that use of "era" is appropriate regardless of the duration of a coach's tenure. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There now seems to be SOCK behavior as well.9AVia9, 67.134.58.222 I can escalate that independently, pending this outcome.UW Dawgs (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruption to Aszure Barton

• 2600:1700:C850:9CB0:8596:75D4:2D36:EEE1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) &ndash
• 2600:1700:C850:9CB0:CDDA:B28D:EFEA:4C62 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) &ndash

This article has been heavily edited the last few days by similar IPs to include promotional material. The IPs involved are listed above. The material added seems to be poorly sourced. The revisions are also very badly written. The edits are clearly made to promote the subject in question. Funplussmart (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

G6

Could someone delete Angela Ponce? Its been G6'd for seven hours. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: Done. --NeilN 02:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Could someone patrol the page too? I'm getting a shit ton of errors all the time about invalid CSRF tokens and stuff like that. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't even see my notifications of load xtools or anything like that. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

L293D, I don't do page patrol, so I'm not clear where to go to get the link. Is it still giving you issues? I re-deleted it and undeleted it; probably that won't help, but I figured I could try. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Lovemankind83

Taking this here from ARV on the advice of IanDBeacon (talk · contribs).

My initial report was: "Vandalism after final warning; Significant amount of vandalistic edits after an indefinite block was undone and final warning for vandalism. In these edits, user removes sources and content; some edits have no edit summary. Here is just a few I have seen, all of which are within the past 2 days. User also appears to be using sockpuppets and jokes about it.

User blatantly removes an alternative title for an article."

User who told me to bring this here also notified me that the block was not for vandalism, and instead for the previous username of the account. However, Looking past 7 days this user has dozens, if not scores of similar edits which add bad grammar, remove sources, and delete content, and are generally disruptive. Many of these edits have been undone but no warnings left for them. R9tgokunks ⯃ 03:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This recent edit is less than good, taking out ref and substituting a redlink. When is a joking editor not a joking matter? Shenme (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hohes Gericht, Supreme Judges: If I may defend myself against those vicious claims, please Do Note, that I am not a native speaker. Following is the case: There is no vandalism ((which is by the way a trigger wording who discriminates the German tribe of the vandals) in my editing, but a restraint fight for the truth against commerical and political Marketing, which you can see here Ieuan Wyn Jones. I am full of hope that you (or the history) will speak me free!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemankind83 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm tempted to endorse an indef simply because any editor complaining that the word "vandalism" needs a trigger warning is participating in bad faith. Looking just at the editor's edit history, they do need to generally calm down, but I don't see enough for an indef block. A CheckUser may want to look at the confessed love of sockpuppetry, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

. It seems to me that your other edits are problematic, Lovemankind83, but I agree with the edits you made to Ieuan Wyn Jones, you were removing non-encyclopedic content in that case.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:, you need to look at that diff again. The entire bottom paragraph was removed and it held a named BBC source that was used in other places in the article, thus rendering it unusable. ("Speaking about moderation at the British-Irish Council at Stormont on 16 July 2007, Jones said "We in Wales have also seen a coming together of parties with different traditions, on the basis of a shared programme for government, and a shared commitment to improve the lives of all our people in all parts of Wales.."<ref name="stormont">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6900349.stm |title=Jones and Brown meet at Stormont |publisher=BBC News |date=16 July 2007 |accessdate=27 April 2010}}</ref>") R9tgokunks ⯃ 06:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been an SPI filled as a result of the aforementioned possibility of this person using sock-puppets. See here ]. IanDBeacon (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi

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

The editor Winkelvi exhibits a pattern of repeated bullying of the participants in the Misplaced Pages talk pages. For reference, please see this editor's talk page where multiple users have complained about Winkelvi's behavior. I am not extremely adept at how to handle these issues, but I felt that this needed to be reported in some format. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The editor Westwind273 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be something of an SPA about what African ancestry means recently, particularly regarding Rachel Dolezal and Barack Obama. I don't have the time or energy to determine if their complaint has merit, or if a WP:BOOMERANG is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It does not have any merit. Looks like a competency issue or at least a IDNHT one on the part of Westwing273.--MONGO (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, if I knew that this was the reaction I would get, I wouldn't have complained in the first place. Sorry I posted anything. I won't come here again. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like your complaint is in regards to this discussion. An uninvolved admin can check that out but does not appear anyone is bullying anyone to me. All I see is some fringe stuff being promoted by Westwind273.--MONGO (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have had a few disputes with Winkelvi. But in this case, Winkelvi is entirely correct. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG beyond shadow of doubt. Westwind begun by posting forum style messages on Talk:Rachel_Dolezal, adopted a combative posture to requests for specific article adjustments and sources and followed it up by spraying the talk page with accusations of PA/bullying off-wiki links to rant threads on quora. The actual content of the article in question (a minor sourcing discrepancy) took five minutes to edit and consisted of modifying a single sentence, all of which could have been done by Westwind in the first place. WP:BOLD! Edaham (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I checked out Westwind's edit history and he/she hasn't made one edit to an article in a year. Over the years, 80% of the edits have been to article talk pages. Ten-twelve years ago there were some edits to articles And, the contributions definitely seem to be forum type kinds of conversations rather than clear communication of proposed language, backed up by reliable sources. So, people understandably get frustrated and try to get him/her to understand the need for clarity and sources. But I have not seen bullying.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to delete this, but it was reverted. If I had known this would be the reaction, I never would have posted here in the first place. Isn't it rather vindictive for people to keep commenting on this when I clearly stated that I wanted it taken down? I would suggest that you do some self-reflection on the vindictiveness and mean-spiritedness of throwing around the WP:BOOMERANG threat so casually, especially toward someone who made use of this complaint format for the first time. Frankly, I had thought of my participation in only the talk pages as a sign of admirable reticence. But I have learned that you people who are highly proficient in Misplaced Pages really live in your own world. So we will go our separate ways, but as we do, I would ask you to reflect on the virtue of kindness. It seems to be in short supply around here. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

When you file a report on AN/I, the behavior of all the involved parties is subject to examination. Because your behavior appears to be sub-optimal, the discussion has moved from your initial complaint about Winkelvi, to a discussion about whether you should be sanctioned in some manner. Because of this, you can withdraw your complaint about Winkelvi, but you cannot delete this discussion. (Besides, AN/I discussions are rarely deleted, except for vandalism. Instead they are marked in place as archived ("closed"), and then, eventually, moved to a Archive file.) Please do not attempt to delete this discussion again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

How do I withdraw my complaint? I have come to realize that this is not a kind environment, and I just want out. (And by the way, isn't putting words in italics and bold considered poor etiquette?) Just get me out of here. --Westwind273 (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

NguyeQuanTie

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

This user was blocked 48 hours by GiantSnowman due to adding unsourced content. Since his block is expired, he undid some of GiantSnowman edits and did this on GiantSnowman user page, and tells us he is an admin on his user page but actually he is not an admin. GiantSnowman is taking break now, so I post here Hhkohh (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest block NguyeQuanTie indef, but leave other people comment Hhkohh (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards