Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive978

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Peter Thiel and User:MaxBrowne[edit]

The comment was redacted, so we'll hold off on blocking for now, but MaxBrowne is warned that that personal attack was very blockable and that any future personal attacks, BLP violations, or disruption of any kind on that article will lead to a block without further warning. Swarm 19:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Last June I blocked MaxBrowne for various BLP violations on the Peter Thiel article - stuff like the edit summary here. He then "retired" after complaining about his treatment by admins (mostly me). Now he's back annd edit warring on the article again; I did engage him on his talkpage about this, and for a while did actually manage to start a discussion on the article talk. However, we now have this. An uninvolved admin may want to consider what action to take, if any. Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

He repeatedly personalised it. "You" is never a good word to use on talk pages, and repeatedly bringing up past incidents is never going to lead to good results. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The alleged BLP violations did not relate to article content. I actually stand by the edits themselves. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
So? Your previous comments make it very hard to trust you around any BLPs, but particular that BLP. If you'd shown some good editing on BLPs since then, maybe your previous problems could be put aside but it's difficult to do that here where you basically disappeared until now. The fact that you're now using the same sort of attacks you used before albeit as personal attacks against editors rather than against article subjects doesn't exactly inspire confidence either. But in any case, it seems clear that the discussion has reached an impasse. If you do want to demonstrate that we should trust you around BLPs, try engaging some form of WP:Dispute resolution to solve it since one of you has to. Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I consider that a slur. I'm actually quite careful about BLP's e.g. [2], [3]. Where have I introduced bad material into BLP's? MaxBrowne (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@MaxBrowne: Review your June 2017 block. BLP applies everywhere, not just with article content. --NeilN talk to me 22:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
He implied that I am a frequent violator of BLP's, without providing any evidence. The claim is false and I take offence at it. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I never implied that you were a frequent violator. My point was that you did clearly violate BLP, and have shown zero indication that you understand it should not be repeated, in fact your comments seem to strongly indicate you consider it acceptable to violate BLP in that manner and will do so again in the future. It is therefore very difficult to trust you around BLPs, and particularly the BLP where you made that violation. And I stand by this point.

BLP is important so we don't need repeated BLP violations but simply an unwillingness to accept our BLP policy to indicate your editing is a serious concern. If you think that taking care what content you put in articles while also calling the subjects creeps or other such stuff in edit summaries (or talk pages, or anywhere else on wikipedia) means your BLP editing is okay, you're seriously mistaken. One thing with your BLPvio is while it was outside article space, it served no purpose. People sometimes say questionable things about LPs when mentioning them where they feel it's relevant to the point, I'm generally not happy about that but we tend to let it slide if it's not too extreme since at least there was a reason why it came up, but randomly calling people creeps does not serve such a purpose amongst other things since frankly calling someone a creep is never useful.

If you have shown since then that despite your apparent unwillingness to accept our BLP policy, you are still able to edit BLPs without raising concerns (which as said, include avoiding BLPvios anywhere on wikipedia) then as I said, my concerns would be greatly lessened, but this didn't happen since you disappeared. An indication that you finally accept BLP policy and would not continue to make BLPvios would also help, but by this stage, given you are still willing to call editors at least creeps and also given your follow up comments here (which appear to downplay the seriousness of your BLPvio and make it sound like you don't think it's something serious enough to raise significant concerns) means it's frankly not enough for me to trust you editing BLPs.

This doesn't mean I'm saying you should be topic banned, but you should understand how at least some people are going to feel about your editing given your history. (If you had repeatedly made BLP vios in articles themselves, I would probably be calling for a topic ban or a cban.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User:AdamDeanHall misusing warning templates[edit]

Alright, well since the OP clearly wants to use this thread as their own personal forum for ranting rather than let us conduct our investigation, and Adam wants to give non-answers to our questions, I'm just going to go ahead and shut this down. AdamDeanHall is warned that reverting good faith edits as vandalism, or templating good faith editors for vandalism, is considered disruptive editing and that continued violations may lead to a block. Swarm 19:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AdamDeanHall (talk · contribs · logs) AdamDeanHall has started to misuse a warning templates and reverting good-faith edits. This user is known to adding useless information into articles.

Misuse of warning template diffs:

Good-faith edits reverts diffs:

Also, this user did adding useless information, as seen in diffs:

Given the history of misusing of Level 3/4 and self-made warning templates and putting information that not part of article, a block could be helpful but i don't know. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • The last two diffs are nothing actionable, but the misused warning templates for vandalism are truly puzzling. @AdamDeanHall: what's going on with this? Swarm 12:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This user is at 4th and last warning. AdamDeanHall is going to get blocked soon. This user is also known to upload non-free images and wasted it. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
AdamDeanHall falsely removed some good-faith edits as "vandalism" and misusing warning templates. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This user is blocked 3 times for edit warring and misusing these warning template is a violation of Wikipedia policy, so it anyone want to block or...? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
We can wait for them to respond here. --NeilN talk to me 17:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocked users can still edit the user own talk page. @NeilN:, AdamDeanHall won't go there at all. AdamDeanHall likes to abuse Wikipedia policy by misusing these warning template. Such violation of Wikipedia policy could lead to a blocks. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Could lead to blocks. Stop badgering. --NeilN talk to me 18:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, there are people that just put warning into talk page without reading the Wikipedia guidelines. Some people marks good-faith edits as vandalism. Why? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Seriously, stop it. Your report is being handled, and further commentary from you is not required. Adam is an established editor in good standing. As things stand right now, we're not going to block him over this. So if that's what you're expecting, you're going to be disappointed. It's not going to happen. If we don't get a good explanation, he will likely recieve a warning. Swarm 19:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The user you are referring to, 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:704B:CC11:484A:BF3, mistakenly put "spin-off" on the Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney page instead of "spun off". That's why I had to correct it. And not only that, he also replaced "and" with the hyphen. AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
and you misused warning templates and you did revert good-faith edits. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:9959:5111:7048:CE3C (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@AdamDeanHall: Please explain how these edits [4], [5] merited harsh warnings of vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 13:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
AdamDeanHall wants to put it back into own version. AdamDeanHall won't tell at all. These edit linked below is not vandalism. AdamDeanHall will or not get blocked. What AdamDeanHall has done is they revert good faith edits, use self-created/Level 4 warning. AdamDeanHall is a edit warrior, trying to put it back into what it wanted it. AdamDeanHall needs to learn about what is or not vandalism. The top 3 diffs are misuses of warning template. The first 2 diffs uses the one that read "If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did at Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.". The 3rd diffs uses the Level 4 warning. All of is is a misuse of warning template. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:E1A2:C4C8:6BA3:4376 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eagles hard rock genre warrior[edit]

Let's try protection before range blocking. All pages involved in the list below have been semi-protected. Let me know if there are any more that come up. Swarm 19:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Especially targeting music articles about the Eagles band, a bunch of IPs has been persistently genre-warring, frequently seen to add the hard rock genre where it is not appropriate. Can we get a pair of rangeblocks on Special:Contributions/2600:1:F514:55CF:0:0:0:0/43 and Special:Contributions/2600:1:F553:58F4:0:0:0:0/43? There will be collateral damage, but some of the other edits from these ranges look like vandalism, so the damage will be minimal. The disruption comes from a person who uses IPs in Rhode Island, Connecticut and nearby Massachusetts, including Boston. NinjaRobotPirate has been keeping track of this case, for instance blocking Special:Contributions/2600:8805:AA03::/48 for three months. Recently involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating to deal with, but I've been trying to avoid doing a massive range block on this wireless range. I've mostly isolated the editor to this one wireless Sprint IP range, and I've begun semi-protecting the articles. If that's not enough, yeah, I could do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks[edit]

Blocked, block upheld upon review. Please direct any feedback on the original block to the blocking admin. Any block reviews will occur on the user's talk page. Swarm 19:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From fairly new user:

Two edit notes:

  • diff ...Your paid shilling is getting out of hand
  • diff ...your employers don't like their names showing up on Wikipedia?

Talk page, after I warned them:

  • diff ...Yet, you feel as if you are the gatekeeper of anything that is added (which is ironic, considering a paid editor like you should maintain it properly). There is word for people like you: shills.

And then they pasted my warnings to them, onto my talk page.

This person needs a timeout. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure that they are really new? Literally their first ever edit shows that they knew how to use {{plainlist}} correctly, which I certainly did not when I first came here. Now it is certainly not impossible that there are innocent explanations for this level of wiki skill in a first edit, but it might merit a look. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@DanielRigal: I agree. There are some similarities to the accounts I listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rachel123s/Archive but given that came back inconclusive and is stale that's not much help. @Bri: This also reminds me of those editors we were discussing who suddenly appear and make loads of updates to company articles. I can't find our emails but maybe you are more organised than I am. SmartSE (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • New or not, WP:NOTHERE. Blocked. The attacks were enough. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I can't see why WP:NOTHERE should apply - the editor has over 150 edits adding details to infoboxes, with no prior warnings until this episode. This doesn't seem like someone who wasn't here to improve the encyclopaedia. An indef as a result of a brief edit war and some harsh words seems like a disproportionate response. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
        • @Bilby: I don't know you but I've seen your username enough that my note may be an imposition. Indef blocks aren't necessarily harsh. Indef could translate into ten minutes. Just saying. Tiderolls 06:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
While that may be true, it isn't how people on the receiving end of an indef block see them. - Bilby (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocking is fine, the PAs were ridiculous. I don't have it in me to assume good faith about whatever else the person was up to, even though the content part of the couple of edits I checked looked ok taken in isolation. I can't look at any more right now but I think it's worth at least a wider spot check, to see if any agendas make themselves obvious. I do think it's fine to use actual numbers from RS (like 473 employees if that number came from an SEC report) without having to round them. Just note the report date along with the number. So Jytdog's revert of that edit did come across as gatekeeper-like. (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm ok with blocking - just not indef for a first offence on a productive editor using the incorrect grounds of NOTHERE. - Bilby (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
He seems to be primarily interested in adding, among other things, financial information, employee numbers, executive data, and inbox changes to articles - not necessarily not here to build an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The info added to the infoboxes in those diffs looks ok to me (maybe I missed something) but I do get a sense of RGW from that editor, besides the obnoxious affect. (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor spreading a virus[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This guy seems to be spreading links to potentially compromised websites in Wikipedia articles that may infect our readers with viruses. I'd recommend blocking him as it seems he's here to do harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks to be on the safe side. Feel free to reverse me if you feel I went overboard.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Wakari07, you and Wingwraith both violated WP:3RR. Feel better now?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have a classic here, here and here. After the second revert, I started the talk here. But of course I may be wrong on WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Thank you for your opinion. Wakari07 (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if there is anything to do here as both are discussing at relevant talk page. I could protect to stimulate the discussion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Please tell me, does the above example qualify for 3RR? Wakari07 (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Stop trying to game the system. I reverted you so you/we need to discuss it on the talkpage first instead of your just trying to unilaterally override my edits by appealing to 3RR. Wingwraith (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
After I was bold a fourth time, you reverted a fourth time, and I don't see a real discussion... I think that you think that the economy of China is irrelevant, non-notable or insignificant. I obviously think that's wrong. Wakari07 (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That's not what I think as I was very clear in laying out what my objection was. There is a discussion but you just went ahead and unilaterally restored your version of the article that I reverted without gaining consensus on the talkpage first because you thought that you could game the system. Wingwraith (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Now also the Wall Street Journal chimes in: "Chinese Premier’s Economy Speech Offers Plenty for Critics to Dislike". Wakari07 (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That belongs in the talkpage; @Dlohcierekim: I think that you can close this thread now as we are discussing the issue on the talkpage. Wingwraith (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
There are 4 "discussions": here, the day's events' talk, their talk and my talk page. All four are useful threads for the later study of violent ignorance anyway. Wakari07 (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Allow me to ask my question again: does Wikipedia consider the above example as WP:3RR? I saw it as a simple yes-or-no question. Thanks. Wakari07 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

can someone help me? east germany article[edit]

Being discussed on the article's talk page. ansh666 00:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

, ok i made a mistake its Obsessive–compulsive disorder i did not mean any vandalism, and there is no RS for that partially recognised label, so ok please have it removed, it was added by Teddy.Coughlin who is is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've never read or heard about East Germany being partially recognized from 1949 to 1972. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I replied on the article's talk page. For me, it's a no-no too. Wakari07 (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Having lived though part of the Cold War but not knowing the sourcing, I'm pretty sure US did not recognize East German government?--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User perhaps suppressing additions and giving unreasonable justifications for reverting[edit]

OP blocked as a sock, principally due to the remarkable efforts of Dekimasu.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user is Deacon Vorbis. > (is the reverted content)

23h112e (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  • He's quite right. Why are you copying and pasting huge chunks of text into the talkpage when you could just link to (a) the AfD, and (b) the revision of the AfD'd article with that content in? Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • See also User talk:23h112e#English issues (and some of the previous sections) for some context here. I guess the best way to head off an ANI discussion about yourself (which I've been really hoping to avoid), is to bring one up about the other person first. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is with regards to why Deacon Vorbis has reverted the the section. That is the defined opening description to this section thanks Black kite. Perhaps you would like to pass your eyes over the opening words of this section and re-focus on the reason why I opened the discussion. Whether or not I made an error in the over-adding of content at the section - isn't the current topic of the ANI discussion. I want to know why Deacon Vorbis thinks reverting the content, but not re-adding the discussion is acceptable. This is with regards to how it is possible the discussed School massacres was forked in any case, when I already added the massacres content to List of school shootings in the United States, to find the content unacceptable there, then subsequently deleted via suggestion by Deacon Vorbis from an article I had no choice other than to make, then a discussion of the fact of the massacres content in the List of school shootings reverted. 23h112e (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the word "massacre" (and the relevant definition by the FBI) and the word "shooting" refers to the same thing. 23h112e (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite. And 23h112e, you don't get to tell other people what they may or may not bring up at a discussion here. Anything relevant can be considered. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
There are a variety of significant issues here, since this is part of an ongoing pattern of trouble, but I only have time to deal with one at the moment. 23h112e, it is not necessary to paste 15K sections of article text to the talk page after your additions there have been repeatedly reverted. You can use a diff to link to a version of the page that included the deleted text. The way you are presenting your argument on the talk page makes it seem like you are trying to avoid consensus that the text should not be in the article by making sure it continues to appear prominently on the talk page. Do you understand this? As I mentioned on your talk page last month, I think you need to review WP:LISTEN and WP:CONSENSUS. Dekimasuよ! 20:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm the user who opened the discussion here with - User perhaps suppressing additions and giving unreasonable justifications for reverting. As I've already explained, the content I added at the Talk page was added so editors might see the content immediately and navigate the content, another formatting of the same content, is simply a different formatting. The formatting of the content is not the actual topic I wanted to indicate. I could simply re-add the Talk page content as Deacon Vorbis prefers, but I want to know why the article content, "List of school massacres in the United States" isn't already included in the article. The conclusion was - content fork, to the redirect discussion. Deacon Vorbis doesn't think the content needs to be re-included in the "List of school shootings in the United States", he didn't re-add the content - WP:CFORK > WP:REDUNDANTFORK - "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." - The result was redirect to List of school shootings in the United States. Consensus is that this article is a WP:CFORK of List of school shootings in the United States (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 18:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC) 23h112e (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • comment from a non-administrator contributor - Firstly, 23h112e is fairly new to wiki and not fully appreciative of how things are done. This should not mean bringing the person to AN/I, but taking the person off to the side and working with them. I've just become aware of this misunderstanding and have only just begun to deal with them on their TP, but this will take both some time and understanding. 23h112e is attempting to make the point (however poorly) that massacres should not be lumped in with small shootings. I'm trying to get them to understand that the article does not even yet have a clear definition of the term and they need to start with that issue, first. Please, can everyone climb out of the trees. This person doesn't even know how to indent on TPs, so speak to them nicely on their TP as a starting point, not here. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is all an admirable response on your part, and I agree that 23h112e should be presented the opportunity to improve. However, this has been going on for a while without much sign of progress, and most of the respondents here have been speaking with 23h112e on talk pages. 23h112e was the one who brought this to ANI. Dekimasuよ! 20:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
comment from a non-administrator contributor - If all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spring Hill, Tennessee[edit]

Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone please semi protect the above. I already posted at RPP, but the vandalism level is nuts. John from Idegon (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN talk to me 01:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User does not understand what fascism is[edit]

User given final warning. I'm a bit surprised they were not called out earlier for this completely unacceptable behavior. However the requisite warning has now been given and any further abuse of this sort will be met with a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user did not understand that fascism is really more about political and industrial control when they suggested "Up yours fascist Pig. I know you Gestapo types don't listen to reason" at AfD. (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

IP has hit the nail on the head. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
indeed... [6] [7] [8] [9] EvergreenFir (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Support the inevitable indef block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
A sampling of recent edit summaries by Jjhantsch, the editor in question, makes it clear that, whether or not they understand the meaning of various geopolitical terms, they are not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia: "Fixed ambiguity caused by British anti-religion hatred","Fixed fuckin Brit Nazis bigotry.","F off British Nazis.",""Up yours Wiki Nazis.","Up yours Wiki Nazis!","F off Nazi. Walked it both years.","up yours English Nazis.","F off British Wiki Nazis.","improved texts to avoid Wiki Nazis." General Ization Talk 04:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This is clearly disruptive behavior. However we do not block w/o warning except in very unusual circumstances. I have issued a final warning. If there is anymore of this nonsense just ping me and I will drop the hammer. Or alternatively you may report it to WP:AIV. Just reference this discussion. (It's getting late here and I am off to bed shortly.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for talking to them. I do think they deserve a permanent block-- what organization in real life would allow someone to run around for years calling their colleagues fascists and Nazis? "hey Jack, nice to see you, you F Nazi!" This is actually a serious problem in Wikipedia, in that editors (in this case someone who has called other editors "Fucking brit Nazis" over a half dozen times) are allowed to go on about their way being very nasty bullies. That's why I am in IP editor, since when I get bullied I can just reset the router. Anyway, it's sad situation when this kind of obvious nastiness only deserves a warning. (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately no one seems to have called them out for their behavior until now. I can't find any evidence of earlier warnings on their talk page. In any event the requisite warning has now been given. And I do agree that many (not all) of their edit summaries are just flatly unacceptable and this will no longer be tolerated. Thank you for bringing this to ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
< 500 edits over 2 years, I guess they've flown under the radar till now. Might be a while before they see the ANI notice.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
And Godwin's law wins once again. A stern warning is needed here, but not a block unless the user persists in being uncivil.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please redact edit summary for OSI model revision[edit]

May we please redact the obscenity in the edit summary for this change on OSI model? Peaceray (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Fish+Karate 09:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Attack account, conflict of interest[edit]

I called a user on account of conflict of interest, and she made an attack account, a play on my username. She has also violated WP:MULTIPLE, using her IP and her attack account on the same article. Can the attack account be blocked? The IP has also attacked me.[10] Any help here would be appreciated. Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Registered account blocked, IPs given a 48 hour timeout. --NeilN talk to me 00:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User KingAttack! has added material to several Wikipedia pages without proper referencing[edit]

KingAttack! has added material to several Wikipedia pages without proper referencing [11]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 72 hours.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User:他删之石 on Deaths in 2018[edit]

他删之石 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a regular contributor to the Deaths in 2018 page. This user has been told several times that he needs to include the headings of the articles that are used as reference, see User talk:他删之石. Still, the user continues to add references without headlines. This is getting very tiresome to have to correct all the time. The user doesn't seem to understand the issue at hand, and might need to be addressed in Chinese, which Alex Shih previously offered to do. --Marbe166 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I live in China and some web I can't open. I have no VPN, so I can't see the title.--他删之石 (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

We can all sympathise with the problems accessing resources in China. But I don't quite understand how this stops you adding titles for pages. If you are able to access pages you should be able to see the titles. If you are not able to access the pages, then there is no way you should be using them as references, since you need to actual read references to confirm they actually say what you claim they are saying. If you don't have references then often, and particularly in cases of "Deaths in", you shouldn't be adding content. An unfortunate problem for sure, I suggest you propose the content on the talk page and if you think a reference confirms it, you can provide it and wait for someone else to confirm and add. Or are you saying the Great Firewall removes only the titles but still lets you see the text? Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not the user above, but The Great Firewall very well might do just that, as headlines are more often than not either a separate document or a graphic; this is an extremely common issue with special browsers designed for the blind. The user might not have any way of knowing that there is a headline! (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
You're missing my point. I never said that it's not possible. I simply asked the editor if this is what they are claiming happened. I asked because I knew that it was possible, but the fact that it's possible doesn't mean it is actually happening. The editor has said nothing to really suggest it is happening other than some vague mention of needing a VPN. However they proceeded that with "some web I can't open" which sort of suggests it's probably a simple case of the page being blocked. (As I said below, there's no point getting into detail about what is and isn't theoretically possible.) Also you're mistaken about what headlines are. They are not a seperate document. They are part of the same HTML file. (Well unless the page does some very weird shit likely embedding the content as a seperate page, but thankfully really few pages especially RS do that shit anymore.) Because of the way a the HTML file is structured, they may or may not cause problems with screen readers but that does not mean they are a seperate document. (Very often the headline will be somewhere in the HTML TITLE anyway.) If the headlines are graphical then they may be a separate graphic but except perhaps for uncommon language pages, most of which I presume the OP doesn't speak so are irrelevant, any normal webpage which uses graphics for their text is probably not an RS. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)04:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you should seriously ease up on the criticisms of our fellow Chinese colleague. The Great firewall of china is a serious piece of software and hardware and meatware, which the government devotes no doubt hundreds of millions of dollars to, if not billions. You might not be realizing the scope of the control of information, and the possibility of pages being rewritten dynamically. The Chinese leader just decided to scrap democratic term limits. We're not talking about a normal situation where you can ream out an editor who is living on an equal playing field. (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
If there is any concern about pages being re-written in a way beyond the removal of headlines then my point stands even more. The editor should not be editing these pages, but at most proposing them on the talk page. While we may have sympathy for the problems editor faces, we cannot compromise our standards because of them. If an editor is adding content, they should be resonably sure any sources they are using actually say what they are claiming. If the source may have been modified by a third party, then they cannot be sure. This has nothing to do with reaming anyone out, but remininding an editor they need to meet our standards. Worse comes to worse, we may have to enforce it but I think everyone here is hoping it doesn't come to that and the editor voluntarily restricts their edits so they meet our standards. Also as with the other editor, I think you're missing an important issue here. I'm sure many of us are aware that the firewall could do that. The question is, is it happening? The editor has said that they cannot add headlines because of censorship but has offered no explanation why. There is no point talking a great deal about what theoretically could happen. After all, if it's not HTTPS even those living in progressive democractic pages could still nominally be served a different page if it's specifically targeted. This doesn't actually require software that is particularly sophisticated, especially if they are using their ISP's DNS. The fact that it could happen doesn't mean it is happening. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that IP user, please note that the English Wikipedia is not a soap box, so please avoid political references; the Great Firewall of China, which can be easily bypassed from experience, is a red herring as we are talking about the user not adding references properly. If they are adding sources without being able to view the source, then that's a problem. Alex Shih (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The behaviour continues. 他删之石, you have to understand that this behaviour cannot continue! If you can't read the headline, then the Great Firewall must be blocking the whole article. In that case you can't use it if you can't read it. It's as simple as that. What the IP user says above is simply not true, I've never seen an article that has a headline as a graphic or a separate document. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Political agenda editor[edit]

User:INDICATOR2018 is another user who is only here to push the viewpoint of the Chinese government, contrary to WP:NOT. Edit warring over Japanese, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao stuff; censorship of content referenced to reliable sources simply because it might not reflect well on China, THE USUAL. Admitted to being the same person as a slew of IPs that had been edit warring over the exact same content for weeks previously. Yet never any action against this sort of disruptive editing. The intent of these kinds of "patriotic editors", who are becoming an increasing problem, is completely incompatible with the spirit of a free encyclopedia created through consensus. Citobun (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I support this accusation — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of your continuous accusations, I am only curious about how "the spirit of a free encyclopedia" is "created through consensus". --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Just out of interest, how would it not be? Britmax (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, the "free" here refers to free content, a technical term which is unlikely to be related to "a spirit".--INDICATOR2018 (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
for "spirit" read "aims" or "philosophy behind", nothing to do with things that go bump in the night. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It would assist the admins greatly if you could provide some unambiguous examples of pushing PRC propaganda onto articles in a manner that is disruptive. Otherwise this just looks like a content dispute. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC).
A few examples... IPs that follow are owned by the above user (already admitted by him/her). Here, this user removes the word "prominent" from a description of a jailed Chinese columnist, then edit wars over it for a few days. Here is an example of several edits where the user seeks to downplay Tibetan autonomy. Here, there is a long-term edit war where the same user keeps moving the "Censorship" section lower down the WeChat page. WeChat is a censored chat app in China, similar to WhatsApp – but WhatsApp is blocked because it's not censored. After this user got an account, he/she kept edit warring over the same thing. One of many edits where this user seeks to downplay any autonomy of Hong Kong, Macao, Tibet, or Taiwan – instead going around underlining PRC sovereignty. Here he/she has been edit warring for ages at "Battle of Toungoo", changing the result from "Japanese victory" to "Japanese tactical victory/Successful Chinese retreat". Downplaying ROC sovreignty. Stamping out any scent of HK autonomy. Going about advocating that the viewpoint of the Chinese government ought to be expanded, like here. Pushing pinyin, the Chinese government-approved system of romanisation, even on Hong Kong articles. Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong. Adding POV tag to coverage of sexual harassment in China with no explanation, and edit warring over it.
Etc etc... the usual low-level political agenda editing and a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. And the above comment by INDICATOR2018 lacks understanding of key Wikipedia policies, like WP:CENSOR. Citobun (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. Resorting to ad hominem simply doesn't justify your politically-motivated accusations. (the usual low-level political agenda editing, lacks understanding of key Wikipedia policies)
  2. In terms of the word "prominent", prior to the editing war(this version), there is no source cited to verify the rather assertive word "Prominent ". So I boldly removed it based on what MOS:PUFF states. Currently, due to this edit made by "Rolf h nelson", this word has been verified. Therefore, I wouldn't argue over it.
  3. For your second accusation, it simply baffles me. Please elaborate to me how I ″downplay(ed) Tibetan autonomy″. I made this edit to both make this article in correspondence with Gyaincain Norbu which states Chökyi Gyalpo, also referred to by secular name Gyaincain Norbu, is the 11th Panchen Lama selected by the government of People's Republic of China and state necessary facts. Is that wrong?
  4. As for Wechat, please check out my explanation at Talk:WeChat#Edit_explanation before making your accusation.
  5. For the ″downplay any autonomy″, I was making these edits to do necessary corrections that Tibet, Macao, Hong Kong are all provincial-level administrations of China.(see Administrative divisions of China) which clearly don't have the same status as China, a sovereign state.
  6. Concerning Battle of Toungoo, I would like you to reassess my edits where I restored the deleted content. Plus, the result of this battle also cannot be verified. So both versions are arguably acceptable.
  7. For the Downplaying ROC sovreignty [sic], please tell me if I am wrong to say that ROC is a partially recognised state as what List of states with limited recognition states. How could a simple edit of stating facts become dowplaying sovereignty. I cannot understand.
  8. In terms of what happens in Category:Hong Kong, please see a third opinion made by Zanhe (talk · contribs):

    "city state" generally refers to sovereign states, see and other dictionaries.

Based on your logic, isn't Zanhe also a political agenda editor?

  1. Regarding the Talk:Baren Township riot, my rationales have been quite clear. Also, please check out what "Sassmouth" conveys

    I agree with with INDICATOR2018 At first glance i think paragraph 3 and 4 of of the uygher pov section should be deleted i would like to hear other editors opinions on the matter??? Thanks

in this edit.

  1. For my Pinyin edit, I totally know Pinyin is not used in Hong Kong. Yet we should know that this is English Wikipedia, not HKpedia. At present, Pinyin Guangdong is more prevalent Canton in English.
Finally, I strongly suggest that you verify these edits both personally and thoroughly before making extremely MISLEADING accusations. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
"Low-level" means "not explicit". It's not an insult. In other words, while many of the edits are defensible on an individual basis, together they amount to a campaign of political agenda editing, contrary to the policy at WP:NOT. The WeChat edit warring illustrates well the overall intent of these editing patterns – your proposed change serves absolutely zero functional purpose except to downplay censorship of WeChat. As despite objections from several users, you rammed it through through blunt force edit warring (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, then the page got protected, then you made an account and reverted again). No consensus and no rationale rooted in any Wikipedia policy. It is clear you are WP:NOTHERE to help build a free and informative encyclopedia, but subtly push content to align with the viewpoint of the Chinese government. Citobun (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to add that this user's actions have so far mainly been reverted by well-meaning editors, but could hurt peoples' ability to find damaging information about the Chinese government in the future. Not acting to stop this user now would only encourage further action by this user and others who wish to twist the encyclopedia for their own ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. Since my editing wars can be well explained, why do you insist on making your own assertions that those wars are of "political agenda"? Apparently you are too assertive on this issue.
  2. For the Wechat stuff, I would like to add that those so-called several users are very likely to belong to the same person given that those users (all of whom are IPs) are all SPAs whose very first edits were to undo mine. Also, my edits are definitely not of "absolutely zero functional purpose". Making such assertions can only demonstrate your non-objectivity. Lastly, not all the edits made on Wikipedia have to root in WP policies. My rationales have been quite clear that my edits on Wechat were based on the establishments set by other similar articles. You, however, have been accusing me with all kinds of labels that you could think of instead of discussing the actual content of the articles. --INDICATOR2018 (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Still edit warring at WeChat I see. That's eight or nine reverts now? This is blatant disruptive editing for political purposes, not sure why an admin hasn't taken any action. Citobun (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I fail to see how moving criticism/controversy after features and descriptions indicates "political agenda". This is merely the standard format for articles of commercial products and services, see Google, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. The shifting IPs INDICATOR2018 was edit warring with are obviously a single person, possibly a sockpuppet using mobile IPs to avoid detection. And the article was previously protected because of this user. -Zanhe (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that every single change this user makes that isn't insignificant somehow subtlety pushes the views of the Chinese government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Issue of WP:OWN and WP:IDHT[edit]

Rhatsa26X is firmly reminded that WP:Verifiability is policy and ignoring it will lead to blocks. --NeilN talk to me 17:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rhatsa26X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Rhatsa26X seems to think that school articles in Southern Indiana are his alone to edit and has just told me quite directly to stop editing them here.

This stems from this diff. The dispute is the school colors and his assertion is that his personal observations trump the definitive secondary source, the Indiana High School Athletic Association's yearbook. This isn't just a simple content dispute and after this from a couple months ago, I don't see how dialogue will be fruitful.

Rhatsa26X has a long history of adding poorly (usually non) sourced material on high school sports in Indiana and indeed brags of creating most of the article's in Category:Indiana high school athletic conferences. A quick perusal of that catagory will indicate the depth of the problem.

I'm here to ask the community to clearly show Rhatsa26X that he cannot order an editor off an article and that WP:V is really a thing. John from Idegon (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking the community to ask John from Idegon to stop reverting the page. He's being rather rude about it too. Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There are wikipedians in the area that have had their edits removed by this John from Idegon too. He seems to think he knows EVERYTHING about all the schools in the area, even those he's most likely never seen. He seems to think that any school article is HIS personal fiefdom.

From his talk page, I KNOW he's been rude with other editors in other parts of the country too, even coming across to them like they are not worthy.

Bottom line; just because you're with wikiproject schools, you are not an all knowing god.

There ARE those who know more than you do. And if you want to simply allow content about rural schools that is WP:V, you won't have any page at all. Do you honestly think I haven't tried? Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rhatsa26X: WP:V is policy and it doesn't say, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors (unless there is no previously published information in which case adding personal knowledge is okay)." --NeilN talk to me 03:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Personal Beliefs seem to be at the heart of the issue here. He has already stated the I "have a long history of adding poorly (usually non) sourced material on high school sports in Indiana". If this is truly the case, why then did WikiProject Illinois adopt the same format on their sports as well a couple of years later and others in WikiProject Indiana have long since took the mantle of keeping the project up to date since I finished it in 2010. That's right. I have made very few edits to those pages in almost 8 years, others have. Unfortunately as I just said, most information about rural schools in Indiana, or any other state for that matter is usually not compliant with WP:V but that does nor mean it's not true either. That's where outside of general information, it should be left to locals to fill in the blanks.
That being said, I DO NOT mean creating trivia or anything like that, but every single school, be they Elementary, Middle, or High School has something about it that only a local or an alumnus might know. and to remove that content, even, and especially in this case, if there is a legitimate picture to prove it, is not acceptable. There is a saying; A picture is worth a thousand facts and I took that picture of Gibson Southern's softball team myself. Rhatsa26X (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I think "A picture is worth a thousand words" is the more common version, but maybe "a thousand facts" is a variation. I think there are WP:V and WP:OR issue with pictures, and any picture taken by you would technically be user-generated or self-published: things which are not typically considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. It would be better to find another source which discusses the school's colors. My high shcool had a handbook which explained things like school colors, mascots, logos ,etc., but that was way before the Internet age. I'd imagine most schools have official websites now, which perhaps contains such information, not only for current students and their parents, but also for future students and their parents. Or, maybe there's a local newspaper or something which can be used; even a school newpspaper might be OK. These are things which you can and should hash out through discusison on the article's talk page. Now, if you really believe your picture is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, you should post at WP:RSN and see if you can establish a consensus that it is. What you shouldn't really be doing is just expecting others to accept it as reliable because you took the picture and you are an alumnus of the school. Two people can look at the same painting and interpret it differently and both interpretations may be correct in some way. Is it possible that you're mistaking someone questioning the reliablitly of a source for Wikipedia's purposes as them questioning you're reliability as a person. When someone says that a source is not reliable, they are not necessarily saying that the article content is not true; they are just saying a better source is needeed. My high school has an article written about it on Wikipedia. I know lots of true things about my high school, but I don't add them to the article because of WP:VNT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • While this discussion takes place, Rhatsa26X has continued to edit war in order to restore unsourced content and non notable persons. I've reverted and issued a level four warning. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • You guys are totally impossible! You guys are warring against me! I am the one who is BEING BULLIED and Harassed over content. I am about tempted to ask for a complete deletion and start over from scratch AGAIN! Rhatsa26X (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Rhatsa26X: Stop reverting back in unsourced content, especially about living people. Full stop. Do so again and you're looking at a block. --NeilN talk to me 04:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Rhatsa26X: I've also removed some material from your user page per WP:BLP. I'll leave it to other editors to decide if the "My View on Issues" section violates WP:POLEMIC or WP:UP#GOALS. --NeilN talk to me 04:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've had it with all this. This situation has become as dumb as national politics. John from Indegon has been bullying me and others for a while now and needs to be stopped and yet you guys seem to be willing to bully and even blacklist ME instead over this rather pointless issue. His behavior is one of the most trollish I've seen in a decade. He doesn't listen. He doesn't collaborate. He only mindlessly reverts, then when someone tells him to stop, he becomes extremely defensive and Administration has to get involved. So rather than continue with this never-ending stupidity, I have added the page to WikiProject Indiana's list of articles needing attention. Maybe someone else in Indiana will have better success in creating a page that meets the critiques of John from Indegon and those who seem to still think there's a website for everything. I have seen THOUSANDS of articles with such issues and have tried to clean them up.
I am taking a sabbatical from the cesspool of stupidity Wikipedia has become. I USED to actually be proud to be myself a Wikipedian but trolls like John that have clearly taken to acting hatefully towards me have stolen that pride from me. Rhatsa26X (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Nobody owns an article per WP:OWN, which means nobody can decide who should or shouldn't edit an article. Moreover, editors come from all over the world so there's no geographical restrictions placed on who may edit an article. Someone living in Europe can edit an article about an American high school just like someone living in Asia can edit an article about a European high school. All that matters is whether the edits are in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. If they are, there shouldn't be any major issues; if they are not, they there are likely going to create problems. Being an alumnus of a particular school does not mean an final say or ultimate editorial control over article content. What to leave in and what to take out is still determined by consensus and when there are disagreements it WP:DR, not WP:EW, which should be followed. Everything I just posted are things that the Wikipedia Community might expect a new inexperienced editor to not really understand, but more is certainly to be expected from someone who has been (regularly) editing since 2007.
My suggestion to you (=Rhatsa26X) would be to take a step back and let things cool down for a bit because if you continue to post things and cast aspersions like you're doing above , then you're likely going to find your account blocked for quite a long time. It's pretty much never a good idea to post when you're angry because there's a tendency to lash out, which only makes things worse. If you're involved in a content dispute, find the reliable sources you need, get your arguments ready, and post them on the article's talk page when things have setteled down. Telling someone to come see things with their own eyes is not going to help because even if I went to school in question and saw things with my own eyes, it would still be WP:OR. If you're truly interested in being WP:HERE you will figure out a civil way to resolve things and find common ground where all sides can agree. If you insist on being WP:NOTHERE, well you probably won't be "not here" for much longer. If you want total control over articles about Indiana high schools where you can post all of your personal knowledge, and decide who can or cannot post, then you should create your own website or try something like Wikia. If you want to edit on Wikipedia, you're going to need to play by Wikipedia's rules, which includes WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that (a sabbatical) is a good idea--there's a willful and long term disregard for a basic premise of constructive editing here--supporting all content with reliable sources. I'm sorry that trying to put the brakes on this--after apparently a decade--is perceived as trolling. To insist that unsourced trivia belongs here, over a rapidly formed consensus, and call other editors bullies and trolls partaking of stupidity is nearly a WP:COMPETENCE issue. And WP:BOOMERANG. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I have rarely seen such a flagrant and overt rejection of our core content policy verifiability as Rhatsa26X displayed above. This person cannot be allowed to edit unless they recommit to our core content policies. Please do so, Rhatsa26X. I think that John from Idegon deserves some kind of medallion or certificate of appreciation for trying to clean up non-compliant garbage from our school articles. Indiana enjoys no special exemption from our policies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Template:Naac I removed the message on your talk page, but the diff is still there.  Anchorvale T@lk | Contributions  09:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This report can be widened in scope. The concerns involve more accounts that are interested in Indiana high schools, adding unsourced and promotional content, original research and charts--oh so many charts--of dubious value. One of dozens of examples of poor sourcing and aforementioned chart porn: Southern Indiana Athletic Conference. See edit histories for Mtndrums (talk · contribs) and Jmajor2013 (talk · contribs). I've only begun to peruse these, and have tagged several articles for lack of sources. Have a look at PAC Spring Titles--can anyone determine the credibility of its only source, or offer thoughts as to whether this is notable to begin with? 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You know, I just noticed (two months later) that on the talk page conference referenced from my archive above, Rhatsa changed my signature to his in an edit doing only that here. John from Idegon (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Close please[edit]

This is not going to go any further, that much is clear. I would ask that an administrator please close this and make clear the obvious consensus that utter disregard for pillar policies is not going to be tolerated going forward. John from Idegon (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban[edit]

The opinions are literally all over the place here.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We suffer these kinds of editors far too much. People come here with their regional, ideological, and cultural bias' and then try to run us over. I propose that Rhatsa26X is indefinitely topic banned from all Indiana related articles broadly construed. It seems that this topic area is stressful for us and stressful enough for them that they need to take a break. If such time that they want to abide by wp:v then they can appeal to the community to have their ban lifted. --Adamfinmo (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to distract, but why are all topic bans reflexively "broadly construed"? Surely a "ban from Indiana-related articles" is clear enough. Can we save the construing for when it's really needed? EEng 19:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Surely a "ban from Indiana-related articles" is clear enough. I take it you're new around here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Now, now, Boris, don't bite the newbies! (Although how a newbie can accumulate a talk page large enough to see from space in such a short period of time I'll never know!) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Can either of you give me an example of an article which would not clearly fall under this topic ban without "broadly construed", but would with it? Because if no, then I'm with EEng on this one. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The idea is to short circuit wiki lawyering. Is John Green (author) an Indiana related article? What about Indianapolis 500? Wha bout Madge Oberholtzer? The idea of the "broadly construed" phrasing is to avoid tediously defining the scope of topic bans.--Adamfinmo (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
In this case, I think a ban from articles related to schools in Indiana would be sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose in favor of Block and let him explain in an unblock request. I know that seems harsh, but look at what we've got here. He edit wars over the exact same issue in late December, when faced with complete opposition, he simply stops editing. Until this. It's my feeling this qualifies as ongoing disruption. His behavior here, and in both instances on my talk, indicate WP:CIR. Please let's get an assurance that he's going to accept obvious community standards such as V prior to letting him loose on the community again. John from Idegon (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I fall in with John from Idegon on this. After more than a decade of being given free rein, when finally called out on these edits he attacks several of us, throwing around the troll word and playing the victim. The damage, as I indicated above, is widespread. There are dozens of Indiana high school articles, some of dubious import and many with few or no sources, that have been created and maintained by a few accounts. After a decision is made re: this editor, attention to a laundry list of related articles will be inevitable. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rhatsa26X has 30k edits, but this appears to be his first trip to ANI. He started contributing a decade ago when WP:V was not as important as it is today. I'm willing to give Rhatsa26X the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware of this gradual change. I think a final warning is appropriate, with further sanctions if there are subsequent violations. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I think "all Indiana related articles broadly construed" is a bit too far as, from what I see presented here, the issue is with schools. However, a topic ban is appropriate. It gives Rhatsa26X the "benefit of the doubt" Billhpike mentions while also upholding Wikipedia's policies. If Rhatsa26X moves to other areas and disruptively edits, then a block maybe justified. 2601:401:500:5D25:1C79:DCFF:DBE3:9D25 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Block and let him explain in an unblock request - for these [12][13] unexplained reverts and above arguments against WP:VERIFY. Capitals00 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


matter resolved. No further need for comments about editors rather than content.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User (perceived as unconstructive) wants me to review a non-existing argument on yesterday's Current events talk page. I also denounce its apparent need of "amalgamation" which i don't understand and think is its burden, not mine. I got discussed and supported by consensus the topic of notability (as testified by User:Icarosaurvus, the only user or IP who weighed in in the content of this "feud"). After questioning my interpretation of the previous (3RR) ANI notice, user now awaits my "intervention". Please help. Wakari07 (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

While I was hoping to avoid this particular conflict, my opinion is that the matter is indeed notable. However, I do feel that Wingwraith has a point in that a broader summary of the expected outcomes might be advisable. To be clear, I mean a summary that includes China's economic plans; perhaps something similar to what was used in the BBC article. While I'd definitely prefer not to get in the middle of a disagreement between two other editors, I will state that the majority of my edits, over the past several years, involve gnoming in the area of the current events page, and in this time I have noted that Wakari07 generally has a good sense of what is notable and helps keep the page presentable. If it is desired, I could attempt my own summary of the event in question. Icarosaurvus (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Icarosaurvus: Please do (on the talkpage). Wingwraith (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
@Icarosaurvus: Sorry for the bother. Wakari07 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've full-protected Portal:Current events/2018 March 5 for 2 days (Twinkle default), since we're probably at about 10RR by now. No opinion on the content dispute. Pinging the two outsiders who participated in the last AN/I report: Dlohcierekim, Bbb23. ansh666 09:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • comment I've no opinion on the content dispute. In retrospect, I should have followed my first instinct and PP'd the thing. @Icarosaurvus: That might save some wading. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Apparently, neither editor heeded my warning. Had I not been asleep, I would have blocked them both.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've posted my suggestion to to the talk page, if anyone wishes to take a look. Wakari07 has already encountered it, and made some constructive suggestions. I am not fully sure that the two day protected status is needed, but those of us who regularly edit current events do tend to feel things are a bit more urgent than is necessarily the case. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Icarosaurvus: Thank you for your time and effort.
ansh: I understand the page was blocked for WP:Protection policy#Content disputes and WP:Edit_warring. Wakari07 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Wakari07 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, I should have mentioned this before: once there's consensus on the talk page, the protection can be removed by any admin. No need to wait for it to expire. Thanks, ansh666 21:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe consensus has been established; either an Admin can post it, or I can do so once it has been unlocked. Icarosaurvus (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Icarosaurvus, Wakari07, and Wingwraith: Unprotected, thanks for taking the time to talk it out. ansh666 08:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Life goes on. Sorry for your waste of time. Wakari07 (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe one more question. Did you read the summary on this edit? "rv notifications for useless ANI requests". I'm unsure on how to handle the point of view that ANI requests would somehow be useless by definition. Wakari07 (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a lot more common opinion than you may think. In any case, there's nothing wrong with that edit. ansh666 01:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ansh666: yes.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Miserable recidivist Sinophobia also. Wakari07 (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for desysop of Fram[edit]

This isn't going to go anywhere. If you're really serious about this, WP:ARBCOM is thataway. ansh666 22:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This has been a long time coming as I and many others believe that Fram has been the biggest bully on English Wikipedia for a time now. While Fram has no doubt contributed to articles and does appear to care about content, I consider him to be an overall hindrance to Wikipedia because of the negative effects he has on other editors. This is not an editor purely going about improving the site, but an editor who appears to systematically target individuals (which over the years have included Cwmhiraeth, Laura Hale, Ritchie, Ymblanter, Rich Farmbrough, Nvvchar, myself and dozens of others) and bullies them often overzealously to the point of submission from editing the site by humilating and harassing them in the guise of cleansing Wikipedia of inaccuracies, copyright violations, DYK errors and lacking GAs. Fram's misconduct of late I think is a prime example of why he should no longer hold admin tools in the way he treated Mathsci who had suffered a stroke and the way in which he has tried to generate drama by starting a sensationalist thread on Dr. Blofeld and copyright here rather than deal with it quietly. He became very abusive when challenged and then proceeded to open another arbcom case, one of several which have been rejected in recent months alone. He is causing a nuisance to ArbCom and his behaviour has been brought into question currently by many others. His temperament and social understanding is severely lacking to the point I believe that it is in the best interest of the site that he is stripped of his administrative powers.