Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015

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

Noticeboard archives


Numbering British Prime Ministers[edit]

Situation resolved. Please re-report if this activity resumes contrary to their promise. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:04, 27 July 2019 (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 don't number British Prime Ministers in the way that we do American Presidents. I am sure I can recall threads here about it, with users being blocked/banned in relation to this. Can anyone help remember which users or threads? It's started again, Willwal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) going through them all. DuncanHill (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Also in the last few days TobiasRagg2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been doing it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Willwal for twelve hours to put a stop to the immediate disruption (though since it seems this was done with an automated tool of some sort, it's probably too late). It's improbable that this is being done manually (at a rate of more than one every three seconds) but whatever tool they're using doesn't leave an edit summary. Either that, or they deliberately lined up dozens of tabs and published them all as fast as they could, presumably to avoid someone stopping them. Either way, this is not on. GoldenRing (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I've since unblocked again on their assurance this won't happen again. GoldenRing (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know what editing subculture this is from, but this stunt is periodically performed by others on Greek prime ministers as well. Dr. K. 17:49, 26 July 2019 (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.

Suspected undisclosed paid editing/COI[edit]

User blocked indef and articles tagged. (non-admin closure) --MrClog (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2019 (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 has since the creation of their account created the following pages (in chronological order):

These pages are all books written by Vijay Nahar and one page is about the author himself. In addition, the user has created Global Institute of Technology, which seems unrelated to the rest.

The user's username not just explicitely mentions "nahar", but what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samrat Mihir Bhoj Evam Unka Yug seems to quite clearly show they have some COI. Power~enwiki said: "If the ISBN has not been entered into databases, it may be too soon for an article". Less than 24 hours later, Tapanvnahar shares a picture of the letter in which the ISBN was shared with the publishing company, saying that it will soon be added to the online database. Power~enwiki said that time was probably not the solution because the book was published 4 years ago. Then, the user said: "The letter issued for publisher is already attached. Still we are trying to process for updation in online database" (emphasis mine). The "we" seems to mean "we" as in, "we, the author and publisher". I then asked: "Are you the author of the book or in any other way afflifiated with the book/publishing company?". They replied: I am not author and not affiliated with the book/publishing company in any way." I then asked: "Then how do you have the letter in which the ISBN is assigned?". They then said: "I mailed and asked for ISBN evidence regarding this purpose."

This would be possible, but I am not convinced. The user's use of words, combined with their very narrow interest and the fact they had this letter, seem to impy to me that this is undislosed paid editing/COI. --MrClog (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what MrClog said. However, it would help to have a Hindi reader to check the (scanned) Hindi-language references before taking action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I am going to indef the user since this is blatant COI and promotional editing, which the user was told about back in December 2018. That, along with the responses at the AFD, show that the continued COI editing is not an honest mistake. See also this deleted draft, which shows that the problem stretches back to 2012. In fact, I have yet to find a single mainspace/draftspace edit by the user that doesn't involve a COI.
Side note: I haven't looked into this at depth but the IPs commenting at the current AFD appear to be the user's sock/meatpuppets. Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Articles tagged or quarantined as appropriate. MER-C 16:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It perhaps doesn't make much of a difference in how we handle the issue but, for various reasons that I won't spell out, I believe this is a case of COI editing rather than UPE. Abecedare (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2019 (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.

Likely block evasion by Faruk danyaya through[edit]

Resolved. IP blocked for 31 hours. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:15, 27 July 2019 (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.

I noticed the ip is adding images uploaded by Faruk danyaya. There's also the problem of copyright violations with the images. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: Blocked for 31 hours and logged at SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faruk danyaya). --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:15, 27 July 2019 (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:Göbbelschen Gabriel Schnee and possible antisemitic edits[edit]

User indeffed by Dlohcierekim. Abecedare (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2019 (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.

Gabriel Schnee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

  • Note globally renamed Göbbelschen to Gabriel Schnee.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I recently blocked Göbbelschen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for an inappropriate username (this user has been blocked on Commons and Italian Wikipedia for the username as well). For explanation, I'm going to take the liberty of quoting User:elcobbola's report at UAA:

Name is German for "Little Göbbels" (and that doesn't quite catch it: adding "chen" to a noun makes it not only diminutive, but adds the connotation of cuteness. For example, Hase (rabbit) becomes Häschen (bunny - not just a little rabbit, a cute little rabbit)). User has edited Francis Parker Yockey (a neo-facist), Death in June ("neofolk" band considered hate music by the SPLC), Johannes Stark (Hitler supporter and main figure in movement to remove Jewish scientists from German physics), Expulsions and exoduses of Jews (name speaks for itself), etc., suggesting the reference to Göbbels is deliberate--indeed, see edit of this sort to Henry Ford.

I would like other editors to please review (and revert where appropriate) Göbbelschen's contributions, which are focused on Nazi, fascist, and Jewish topics. Also, I would like admins to review whether the username soft block should be changed to a hard block. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me this about says it all. Also worth mentioning the user has been warned about attempts "to emphasis Jewishness" and warned about the unsourced additions of expulsions of Jews. User falsely claimed to be an admin. For sister project context: every last one of the user's uploads were copyvios with false attribution. In aggregate: something is amiss - WP:NOTHERE? Эlcobbola talk 18:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
This user appears not here to build an encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this. I have no problem with someone only editing fascist/far-right articles, as long as it's all done for the good of WP. However, this editor does look like a textbook WP:NOTHERE. On the plus side, they enjoy Sudoku... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Welp I unblocked them. Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing. Perhaps they can now explain themselves here.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Per his user page, he is a fan of Death in June. For an 18yo, he's quite a polyglot and world traveler.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Gabriel is also an angel responsible for the acts of destruction of people God wants to be annihilated. Schnee (German for "snow") was a Nazi known for writing a colonial revisionist encyclopedia called Deutsches Kolonial-Lexikon [1] [2]. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich 22:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Why are we being so hesistant about this? A username change and related block/unblock shouldn't launder edits such as this one from just yesterday. @Dlohcierekim and Edgar181: any objections to me applying a not here block? Abecedare (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. I unblocked him. Based on the above dif, I reblocked him.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Abecedare: That edit is all one needs-- the quintessence of not here. And now we have the resulting state change to blocked.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks. By the way, your username unblock was reasonable given the information that had been brought to light at that point. But given the other details mentioned above... whew. Abecedare (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2019 (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.

Legal threat on Tuff TV[edit]

IP blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2019 (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.

On the article Tuff TV, we've been dealing with the television network's parent company continuing to insist it's returning the network (which went off the air about a year ago and insists was a 'pre-planned hiatus') to the air, although there is no proof of that at all to speak of, and they've been trying to add WP:COI edits to change the page to their narrative, through IPs and a few months ago, a user account which was blocked on sight. I reverted their newest COI edits last wake up to an IP legal threat (and of course, reversion), which obviously will chill me from editing the page any further, so I don't know what else to do here besides cease and ask for admin action, along with a RFP (I am not notifying the IP out of fear of retaliation). Thank you Nate (chatter) 19:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: First of all, I feel sorry that you have received such a threat. I have warned the user, admins should feel free to block if needed. Please note that the IP is registered to The Connection, Inc. ([3]), and that organisations seems to have nothing to do with the article's subject (right?). I am going to check the rest of the article history for now. --MrClog (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that sucks, sorry you had to experience that. It happens to the best of us. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
If necessary, an email can be sent to The Connection, Inc., informing them that their IP is used to make legal threats in the name of another seemingly unrelated company. Mrschimpf: if you would like to discuss the legal threat with legal experts, you should feel free to email about the situation, they may be able to advise you. --MrClog (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2019 (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.
(non-admin closure) Page protected by Black Kite. Amaury • 19:20, 26 July 2019 (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.

  • Thank you for the quick action MrClog...I seem to run into this every couple years because I'm intent on keeping neutrality on network articles, so hopefully this is all that needs to be done. I appreciate the help here. Nate (chatter) 20:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Looks like they continued to persist @MrClog: and @Liz:; a new IP identifying themselves as 'director of marketing Jonathan Horvath' posted this to my talk page (coding it in black and orange to make it look like a warning), then re-reverted the edits. That was enough for Black Kite, who put one month of protection on the page, so hopefully this is now over. Nate (chatter) 19:18, 26 July 2019 (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.
  • This looks to me like a sock. "I don't know who that was", who? If you're a new editor, how do you know that someone posted such a legal threat when I removed that message from Nate's talk the day it was posted there? Makes no sense. (pinging Bbb23, who may want to block this IP as they blocked the previous one) --MrClog (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

IP vandalism - genocide denial[edit]

The users involved and reported have been blocked, the article has been temporarily semi-protected, and I don't see that any further action is required at this time. If disruption continues after the protection and/or blocks expire, please file a new report here and we'll be happy to take a look and take any necessary actions required. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:40, 27 July 2019 (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.

An IP (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and plus one registered user (from time to time) are deleting references on Serbs of Croatia (without any coherent edit description or adding a section on TP) and denying World War 2 genocide by Ustaše on Serbs, Jews and other minorities... I hope that the article will be protected for some time and those editors dealt with accordingly. The same IP made a number of vandalisms which led to the protection of Ivan Gundulić and other articles. P.S: I'm not sure how to add the info about the ongoing report to the IP adress since it's not a registered user. Mm.srb (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The only international tribunal that made the genocide was the Hague for Srebrenica. These are Serbian lie and propaganda. There are enough people complaining about that user Mm.srb who writes lies against Croats and other peoples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pippopo (talkcontribs) 13:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I have given the user a first and final warning and will request protection of the Serbs of Croatia page. --MrClog (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
IP and their sock (Pippopo) reported to AIV. --MrClog (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I've given a 72 hour block to Pippopo for edit warring. If it should be more or less (or if I blocked the wrong side or should have blocked both, or did anything wrong in general), feel free to fix it. Κσυπ Cyp   14:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry that you had to read and deal with something like this. I can't belive that someone can deny that the murder of several hundreds of men, women and children (with camps for children only!) by local Croatian Nazi puppets is genocide and rule it out on account of verdicts by ICTY tribunal which is in fact dealing with the Yugoslav civil war which took place in the 90s. Thank you for your quick action. Mm.srb (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no Yugoslav civil war. There is only a Greater Serbian aggression with the Yugoslav army to other countries in the region in order to create a Big Serbia. Read the American Civil War and learn what a civil war is. In a civil war, the name of the country and the territory does not change before and after the war and there are no independent states.

POV pushing aside, I think that these 3 days will be just a pause for this sort of disruptive editing. Anyway, we'll see. Mm.srb (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2019 (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.

Possibly Dopenguins IP sock[edit]

IP user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:40, 27 July 2019 (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. (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) has been reinstating edits like this with the reason "revert sock User:TheVicarsCat. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done: blocked and reverted as such. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2019 (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.

Somaliland PoV pushing[edit]

I smell off-wiki coordination. The last user already had blocks for similar PoV edits, hence bring it directly here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what seems to be the issue. I edited the article to indicate the Golis mountain range was in Somaliland, similar to how the Alishan Range article indicates that the mountain range is in Taiwan and not China. As with Taiwan, Somaliland is a de facto independent country. Koodbuur (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. And whether or not you were recruited, your edit was clearly disruptive. Would you care to answer whether you were coordinating off-wiki? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
No. I had the Golis Mountains article in my watchlist, and made my edit without taking into consideration prior edit warring between other editors. I apologize if my edit was disruptive as I did not intend to engage in an edit war. Koodbuur (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

POV-pushing at Serbs[edit]

Obsuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is edit-warring at a fast pace adding unsourced POV about Serbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) not being a nation and unsourced OR about the the terms "Serb" and "Serbian". Characteristically, their last edit-summary is "truth". I think this heavy-handed POV needs to stop and this user needs a block. Dr. K. 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you and Mm.srb or how is he called are pushing POV and not letting others add true content to the page because you don't like it personally. Please learn what is a POV. Content on Wikipedia does not need to be sourced; add {{fact}} if you think it's arguable or controversial but do not edit war and revert with no reason, removing all my additions. You need a block, and everyone who makes edit war with no reason. --Obsuser (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Obsuser has broken 3RR multiple times on Serbs. We need a block asap. I will also open a report at 3RRN. Dr. K. 12:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Dr.K. also broken 3RR on Serbs. We need a block asap. I will also open a report at 3RRN. --Obsuser (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I have not and retaliatory reports will not help your eight (yes, 8) reverts at Serbs. Dr. K. 12:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Mm.srb also broken 3RR on Serbs. We need a block asap. I will also open a report at 3RRN. --Obsuser (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • We are trying to keep the article stable and not let the sort of hate speech go by freely. Denying the existence of a nation and putting up local tabloids and POV nationalistic authors as sources is not the way to go. Mm.srb (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I have just blocked for several reasons. 1) clear edit warring 2) Obsuser clearly acknowledged that they would be blocked the next time they added unsourced information to Wikipedia with I know and immediately proceeded to re-add unsourced information 3) removal of information without providing sources to support 4) refusing to engage with the community and talk but instead continuing to edit war. This being said the other editors in this situation didn't help, but inflammed it. Remember continual reversion of edits is only acceptable in cases of clear vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Upon clearer review of the edits, Mm.srb has also been blocked for extremely clear edit warring also. Dr K has not been blocked on purely technical grounds, despite the fact that they clearly know about the edit warring rules. Every editor involved in this was at fault here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
My only mistake was that I reverted 3 times trying to stop the POV-push. I should have reverted once or twice. But I stopped my revetrs and did not continue them. I opened an ANI report and a 3RRN report after I stopped my reverts. The article is still at the blocked edit-warrior's version and I did not revert because I have stopped the reverting on my part. But you know what? You can have the article at any state. If that is what I get for trying to stop the POV-pushing, I will not edit this article again. It is simply not worth getting involved in such crap and being threatened with blocks. Dr. K. 12:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
That was a clear content dispute that should never have gotten to where it did. 2 people have been blocked over it now. This should have gone to the talk page instead of continual reversions and is clearly a content issue, not obvious vandalism. And as an Admin I will not roll back the article to another state as that would be taking sides in a content dispute and presuming one editor is correct over another. That being said you're more than welcome to continue editing the article, just not to keep reverting other users in an edit war. Just take the disputes to the talk page or ask other neutral parties to intervene instead of continual reversions of other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 12:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
No, it was not a clear content dispute. It was POV-pushing of unsourced content by a WP:TRUTH-quoting user. And I did I take it to the talkpage, but the other editor did not respond. As I said above, my only mistake was that I pushed my reverts to three instead of one or two. And no, I am taking Serbs off my watchlist. It doesn't pay to try to stop POV-pushing zealots if I am going to be threatened with blocks and be given warnings after stopping the reversions. Simply not worth it. Dr. K. 12:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
No, it was not a clear content dispute. It was POV-pushing of unsourced content by a WP:TRUTH-quoting user. That's called a content dispute. And the user that you had the dispute with was present on the talk page. Did they just not respond fast enough for you? AlexEng(TALK) 00:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't get excited. You are defending the insertion of unsourced OR. The material speaks for itself. I assume you understand obnoxious OR POV when you see it. Here it is:

Adjective for the English term Serbs (i.e. Serb in its singular form) is "Serb" and not "Serbian", which is adjective for noun Serbians (i.e. Serbian in its singular form) or for noun Serbia. Note that Serbian language uses inconsistent form of the adjective for denoting national Serbs (Serbians) affiliation, српски / srpski (instead of србијански / srbijanski, per noun for the country Србија / Srbija; adjectives србијански / srbijanski are used with proper meaning in Bosnian language, that of country/national affiliation); thus српски / srpski denotes both national (Serbian) and ethnic (Serb) affiliations, due to Serbian ethnic nationalism.

In addition the edit erased that "Sebs are a nation". Now, if you think this homemade crap classifies as content, let's just agree to disagree. And no, they did not respond to me when I told them on the talkpage to supply sources for their unsourced WP:TRUTH. They rapid-fire edit-warred instead quoting TRUTH, and other nonsense. Dr. K. 02:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I am baffled that a POV pushing on something as absurd and incorrect as nation denial was treated the same way as reverting those edits. The refs given were and are propagandistic garbage. It was not a content dispute but a clear case of POV zealot, who has quite a ban history on Serbian Wikipedia. I'm not pointing fingers here, just stating the facts. This was a nice example of misuse of freedom of speech... Dr. K. neatly explained the rest. Mm.srb (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

TracyMcClark July 2019[edit]

No action is needed here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2019 (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.

TracyMcClark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See previous discussion at AN/I concerning TracyMcClark and see final warning.

After final warning TracyMcClark stated Aha!? Any facts? No? Aha! As a result of that comment, TracyMcClark was topic banned for 6 months.

After being topic banned for 6 months from the e-cigarettes topic area, TracyMcClark stated "Your lack of fact-checking and your aggression (and else) towards me as a result is noted." TracyMcClark is not acknowledging the rude behavior. QuackGuru (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

TracyMcClark just wrote One more thing: You involved your personal feelings and punished me b/c I didn't agree with your personal assessment as a new administrator. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Srsly? Ignore it. Everyone gets grumpy after a block or ban. We allow somewhat more latitude on users' own talk pages. Unwatch it and go about your business, is my recommendation. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

After being given advice from JzG, TracyMcClark stated in the edit summary: "Don't play me for an idiot". QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, just a grumpy user after being blocked. It isn't a personal attack, so just Let It Be. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
TracyMcClark was not blocked. TracyMcClark was banned from e-cigarettes for 6 months. The last time I can remember TracyMcClark directly edited an e-cigarette related article was on 1 March 2017. That edit was reverted. TracyMcClark does not edit this topic area frequently. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2019 (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.

Brazilian date vandal[edit]

User (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be exclusively vandalizing dates in numerous articles. They also seem to have done this from (talk · contribs · WHOIS) where they received a block for persistent unsourced edits in January, and probably from other IPs that I haven't found yet. The changes are mainly to terms of office of politicians, and often to dates that are unsourced in the article. All their edits are at the least unsourced, but so far I've verfied that that they're actually false in the articles Zalmay Khalilzad, Robert Finn (diplomat), Phil Gordon (politician), Joe E. Kernan, Paul H. O'Neill, and Berlusconi II Cabinet. I've reverted those to the correct dates that had already been in the articles, and added reliable sources for them. The change to Estelle Getty was already reverted as unsourced; it also contradicts multiple sources, though I haven't yet found one reliable enough to add to the article. Since the date-changing seems to be all they do, and all the ones I've verified have been wrong, I'm convinced that this is a pattern of deliberate vandalism. Some of the dates in the other articles are a bit obscure and hard to find sources for, but I think the changes should be reverted anyway, as it seems very likely that they're all fake. --IamNotU (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like this is probably the same person as the IP that was previously blocked, but I gave a warning. I guess ping me if they continue to change dates (or report to WP:AIV). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll report back if they keep doing it, and probably revert their other edits as unsourced [looks like MarnetteD beat me to it - thanks]. I also looked further back in 189.47.* and found (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who received warnings and a block for the same kind of numerous improbable date changes. That's all I could find. I thought maybe someone would recognize them - since those three IPs each did many date changes a day, but only for a couple of days each, I'm guessing there must be a bunch more IPs, but I don't know where to look. Not that I have time for another project right now, but I thought I should point it out... --IamNotU (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Personnal attacks[edit]

Denniss try to accuse me to be a sockpûppet. After Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Regice2020, he continue [4] [5] to accuse me to be a sockpuppet. It's not acceptable. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you edit-warring with them on their talk page using different IPs?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Denniss modify my messages many times. He give me warning whithout reason. I ask him to stop accusation of sockpuppet, but he clears my message and continue. I ask him to don't modify my messages, but he clears my message and continue. I don't want to be registred and i can't do anything for my moving IP. I don't try to hide. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The SPI was created by me, and I am, as far as I know, not Denniss. You (and other IPs in the same range) seem to be demanding respect. However, respect doesn't imply we have to agree with everything you're saying and doing. I don't think removing excessive indentation from a message is not acceptable, as it certainly doesn't alter the meaning (see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments, it mentions "fixing format errors"). The page Ryzen is definitely not under control of AMD right now (otherwise, you should be able to link to a few edits by AMD employees adding advertising-like content or something). It doesn't appear to be advertisement either to me. Edible Melon (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I have never says Denniss created the SPI. But he knows the result, and continue to accuse me. It's not the place for talking about Ryzen. 2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Why Denniss modify indentation? I talk to Sakkura, i don't speak to Carewolf. I ask to Denniss to don't modify my message. He clears my message from his talk page[6] and modify my message again [7]. It's not acceptable. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
If so, place your message where it should be. Edible Melon (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

How should 'Associated acts' disruption be dealt with?[edit]

Sorry, but I'm at a loss for where to ask this. Looking at pending changes, I came across (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has popped up today making changes to the 'associated acts' section of various rappers' infoboxes. Then I found (talk · contribs · WHOIS) doing the same thing, on some of the same pages. Is this LTA, or just a common form of disruption? Should I go to AIV, SPI, or just assume good faith and revert per BLP? Would I be out of line to rollback all of these changes, or should I let someone more familiar with the topics take a look? In the past I've left these kinds of changes for others to review, but I'd like to get a sense of how I should approach this going forward. Thoughts? —Rutebega (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Same kind of edits also coming from (talk · contribs · WHOIS), though that one does have about 50 edits dating back to 2016, and didn't take an interest in rappers until today. —Rutebega (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
These are both very likely long term abuse. Mass changing of Assosiated acts is a common thing you will see. StaticVapor message me! 22:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
STATicVapor, thanks, I had a feeling. I know I've seen it before a number of times, but never gave it much thought. Reasonable then just to mass-revert, and report at AIV if they're persistent? —Rutebega (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rutebega: many pending changes are inexplicable edits to infoboxes. Most infoboxes have instructions, and the associated manual of style may also help. For example: {{infobox person}} and MOS:DOCTOR both say that you shouldn't include "Dr." as an honorific in a BLP because it's too common. So, what you want to do is look at {{Infobox musical artist}} and see what it says about associated artists. As it happens, it has a list of uses that should be avoided. You can revert edits like that if you want. There isn't really an ideal place to report petty disruption that isn't vandalism, but ANI is fine. By the way, you can check an IP editor's geolocation by clicking on the "geolocate" link near the bottom of Special:Contributions. For some ISPs, this is pure guesswork, and for others it's pretty accurate. Schools are usually described as a business customer or are allocated to a local government. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks NinjaRobotPirate, that's very helpful. It didn't occur to me to check the template documentation for usage guidelines, but I figured it had to have been discussed at some point. Between Static and myself, most of the edits have been reverted, and these IPs have stopped at least for now, so I don't think blocking would gain anything at this point. Appreciate your input. —Rutebega (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Long-term sockpuppetry at AFD[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trasel/Archive points to this as a pattern, where at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse dormant accounts woke up to participate in the AFD discussion, as has happened here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It points out a connection between three people, the subject of this biographical article, James Wesley Rawles, and one Jeff Trasel. The Trasel sockpuppet-farm also edited James Wesley Rawles, not shown with diffs because there's quite a lot of it.

All of the new single-purpose accounts are, once again, failing to discuss sources and whether a biographical subject is properly documented by the world, making it likely that this 2nd AFD discussion will be as de-railed by that as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wesley Rawles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson were.

In retrospect, the "did not materially affect outcome of AFD" conclusion in 2008 at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Trasel seems quite wrong.

Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Proof of not just canvassing but harassment from the author's FB account [8]has been posted to the AfD by an IP. User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång where do you think we should go with this now? Doug Weller talk 15:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm involved at the AfD, but I think a block for User:Mzmadmike is in order for calling User:Fabrictramp a pha66otte and linking to their Wikipedia user page. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, I was just reading through that, even found an interesting source. I have no idea whatsoever, this is new to me, slightly creepy though. Wait and see? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Concur with Doug Weller The behavior of User:Mzmadmike and his toxic followers is so far beyond the pale... note that they also tried to doxx @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Concur with Doug Weller but note that I am now involved at the AFD as well.--Jorm (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Recommending blocking the editor-in-question. I'd post more, but these 'edit conflicts' are annoying. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we want this guy around anyway: "You are proof that Pinochet did nothing wrong". All of his edits to Talk:Nazi Party are, frankly, insane.--Jorm (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I just made the sound my cat makes when he's got a hairball. [9] (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I meant "out of order" and have fixed that. @Fabrictramp: my ping failed. I've had 2nd thoughts about the block, we need to crack down hard on harassment. A community ban seems in order. I'll still vote Keep if the evidence is there. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree and support block/ban. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on this. The AfD is definitely a train wreck, much like the previous one. Sadly, if someone had added the info about being a Hugo nominee prior to the speedy request, I wouldn't have deleted the article.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • this bit of slander created by ( However, if you bother looking at my user page (which, granted, I just got around to updating, not that I'd really given a damn about it otherwise), you'll see that your casual insult is invalid. Unless I've been a sockpuppet since 2006. That your first impulse with "but I don't like what these people are saying!" is to accuse all and sundry of being sockpuppets is insulting. The groupthink that "oh, it MUST be sockpuppeting/canvasing because a group of people disagree with me!" is simply astounding. NB - moved to end of comment stack per request. Do NOT revert my comments again. Edit to add: Folks, your behavior _in these discussion_ is evidence of harassment.

- Speedy deletion for no justifiable reason other than personal preference (note no RfD, and the deletor didn't bother to check to see if there was a prior RfD - just went ahead and deleted the page immediately on their personal choice) - accusations of sockpuppet/meatpuppet against any account that disagrees with this behavior - reversion of comments, de novo - proposed group punishment. From further down this discussion: "and I would go so far as to consider putting in place a "zero-tolerance" policy for everyone he's canvassed so that he can't use his supporters to proxy for him in his ban". Given that the original accusation (canvassing) doesn't hold up, it's an attempt to silence a group because they say things that you don't like. Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment. This is all personally witnessed in the last 18 hours, and is supported by the change logs. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • "[...] the original accusation (canvassing) doesn't hold up" He quite literally rallied his fanbase on Facebook to vote Keep at the AfD in question. If that's not WP:CANVASSING by definition, then I don't know what is. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    • "Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment" as a response to the undeniable evidence of WP:CANVAS violations through the facebook post and the attacks directly on the admin involved in the initial deletion, along with the attempt to classify Uncle G's evidence summation as "slander". This seems to be DARVO as a tactic. (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
      • So how, then DO you classify an attempt to label a dissenting an opinion as a sockpuppet (in the discussion) then refer it here for further action, in a <16 hour window? What's the evidence supporting the assertion (and "hasn't edited a lot in the last 4 months" isn't evidence. If, for example, he'd asked for "what's your background" prior to making the assertion, I could have done _what _ wound up doing_, and documented prior wiki presence. But he pulled the trigger on sockpuppet allegation with essentially no supporting evidence. Given that the use of the term is not just technical, but specifically to denigrate statements in disagreement with his position, it meets the definition of the term slander "1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." Hell, at least I've got a verifiable user ID tied to this discussion. You're posting anon.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
"Posting anon" -- sounds Shakespearean. "Wilt thou be posting anon, milady?" EEng 05:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Alas, we must post post haste.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rumplestiltskin1992: if you were not canvassed, how did you come by the article to post a "KEEP" as a collective within 30 minutes of each other? Did you have this one article on your "watch-list"? Why this article? If your old user account is your only prior editing account, then that also shows limited editing history and certainly no inkling as to why or how this page would end up on your watchlist? Are there are other accounts than Cprael that you haven't revealed you have edited under? It is not slander to suggest that a whole swathe of individuals all joined one conversation thread in order to make an argument in favour of someone that they support. Sockpuppet also does not require you to be a single individual (i.e. Mike himself). You can sock (or meatpuppet) as individuals, but the intent remains the same - an attempt to unduly influence a process, or give the illusion of weight and support. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I have created to compile the evidence of the numerous puppets by Mzmadmike, whether they be socks or meats or meatsocks or sockmeats or bacon socks[10]. I ask that @Koncorde: or @Uncle G: or another experienced individual review it and if they feel necessary, set it to request further attention by the investigators. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Koncorde: @Uncle G: Apparently someone has decided that my attempt to follow the process to collect this information is "vandalism" and deleted it. That's sad. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Imadethisstupidaccount: just use your Sandbox. Koncorde (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
[[re|Koncorde}} I'm going to quote directly from WP:CANVAS "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." Note that there is an explicit requirement of intent _written into the guideline_. At the time that I joined the discussion, the ENTIRE post/thread consisted of the following:

- MZW Post: Deleted because it's not a credible page? + link to his personal page
Down to
-- Michael Z Williamson Well, if anyone can find the archive and restore, please do so.
That was it. I happened to be online at the time, on Facebook, and the post popped on a refresh, which is why I saw it, and responded on Wiki. My browsing history supports that, and I'll post _that_ if necessary. Within 12 hours I'd been labelled a sockpuppet (despite the fact that my prior account dates back to 2006, and with no independent contact). So... in that subset, show me the intention? Because intent is _required_ by the Wiki standard, as cited above. If you can't demonstrate intent, you have no argument. Further, there's the attempt above to further push the "sockpuppet" argument. It's insulting, and as demonstrated above, the entire line of argument (sockpuppeting as slanderous allegation, and yes, I DO use that word within it's definition; allegations of canvassing when intent _can not_ be proven) proceeds from false premises and a refusal to actually read and abide by the published standards.
What I'm especially bothered by is that this is turning into an edit war. Someone has now started an AfD for a second Baen author for, apparently, no other reason than they participated here, found out the other author's name, and decided to delete them too. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipha66otes" and more from his asshatted moron squad.

He makes a claim about predicting something that was proposed on Wikipedia by JayMaynard. And he calls for his supporters to start vandalizing wikipedia. And he says "they're all -ha66ottes" and "burn it to the ground". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, he said it _was_ a predictable action. Given the extensive retaliation that came out of the whole "Sad Puppies" mess, he has a legitimate point.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Link is broken. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

So how do we go around dealing with the meatpuppets? Seeing as a couple of users on Michael's Facebook thread (not necessarily just Michael himself this time) are starting to link to pretty much *any* politics-related BLP that is being nominated for deletion. --letcreate123 (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why every SFF author nominated for AfD has been a midlist Baen author, that every one of them meets the requirement for significance, and that not one other author, from any other publisher or political persuasion, has been so nominated? In this case, I would suggest that (a) correlation _is_ causation, and (b) that the continued assertion of meatpuppetry are an attempt to pre-emptively taint adverse commentary. In the legal community, there's a concept called SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). This smells like the Wiki version of that. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Besides the fact that I can't understand your first sentence (ie how can someone explain "that every one of them meets the requirement for significance"), are you saying you checked all deletion nominations for science fiction authors to know that they've all been midlist Baen authors? Doug Weller talk 10:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Seconding @Letcreate123:, what can be done about the WP:CANVASsed issues going on? The article subject has been continually posting some of the most vile things [11] I've ever seen come out of someone's mouth to encourage people not only to come to wikipedia but to engage in vandalism [12]. There is also apparently a private page where further WP:CANVAS may be happening. [13] "Dovid Steele If they are able to read your posts, come over to FREEHOLD" "Dovid Steele Group. Not so much a fan group as just a place for Mad Mike to hide. if you seek admittance please answer all the vetting questions as they are designed to weed out the leftwing freaks." as well as apparently one Larry Correia has put out to a private WP:CANVAS call at [14], as described [15] "Jeff Paquet Larry C has noted it, also and asked if any of his fans can help" 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

AfD's just been indef semi'd by an admin, that should hopefully cut out any more canvassing in there. Peeps will still prolly talk in the AfD talk page but hopefully it should bear no disruptive effect on the AfD itself. --letcreate123 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Williamson's still sore because his puffy-shirt glam shot didn't make the cover of Women's Wear Daily. EEng 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, this [16] is so far beyond the pale. Written by Williamson: "Prediction: The next author's page the dog-fellators at Wikipee will try to sabotage is Brad Torgersen." Can the prohibition on WP:MEATPUPPET please be extended to his ban? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Also his followers are now making up falsehoods ("Alicia Stockton That's in line with the hierarchy. They apparently tried to go after John Ringo's page yesterday with zero success."). This is something to be aware of as they may themselves be planning something, and I suggest John Ringo and Brad Torgersen both be pre-emptively locked to prevent any bad faith activity. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Huh. I wonder if his friend who uploaded the silk-nightie picture has any pictures illustrating his interest in zoophilia and urolagnia. I was going to label him a "potty mouth" but I have the awful feeling that might turn out to be literally rather than just figuratively true. EEng 15:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
At this point simply deny recognition of any kind to whatever schemes he's executing off-wiki, including (but not limited to) his "predictions". AfD's already been protected, user's already been banned, meats will eventually be dealt with individually, and all will be resolved. --letcreate123 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Letcreate123: FYI, [17] happened right before a commenter on the Facebook thread wrote "Brad R. Torgersen's page has been nominated for Deletion...", and Williamson previously called for his followers to log out and vandalize. I am going to request page protection for John Ringo and Brad Torgersen on this basis. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Pre-emptive protections aren't a thing. That said, there's no harm in pointing them out here so that admins and rollbackers can watchlist the pages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 21:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Propose community ban on User:Mzmadmike for harassment[edit]

Mzmadmike is not here to build the Encyclopedia and is banned by the community. Jonathunder (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2019 (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.

See above. I might reconsider if he deletes his post, apologises there and here and halts the thread, but I don't know if he can do the latter.Doug Weller talk 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm very reluctant to go down the road of blocking people for comments made off-wiki, even when they're about Wikipedia editors, unless they fall into very specific categories like credible death threats. Sure, his fans are being annoying, disruptive and unacceptably rude, but admins get that kind of crap every time they delete an article on anyone with any kind of fan-base. If there's recent evidence of him being problematic on Wikipedia, that's obviously a different matter, but most of his recent edits just seem to be routine and appropriate updates to articles. ‑ Iridescent 17:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Iridescent: there was a time when I would have agreed with you. But I think things have changed and we need to be a lot less tolerant of off-wiki abuse. And in this case he started the thread with the abuse - I don't care about his fans, but it's not surprising that they are being disruptive in a thread where he starts with abuse. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • So, what category does specifically posting a link to the admin's talk page along with screenshots of the userpage, and calling them a "pha66otte" around a group of people to whom abusive behavior and slurs of all sorts are all over the common discussion, fall into? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Because to me that looks like posting a giant sign and saying "sic 'em". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. I don't think we want this person in our playground, and I'm not particularly fussy about how they're kicked out. As long as the actions/comments are legitimately connected to Wikipedia, as they are here, it's certainly within our purview to act. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban - Pointing your Facebook fans at a Wikipedia user and making anti-gay slurs toward that person... you've demonstrated that you aren't interested in being a productive member of our community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban I have a real problem with long term incivility. Should have been dealt with earlier. And if he's aiming fans at Wikipedia or using his reach on social media to cause problems for Wikipedia or its editors, then he is de facto not a member of this community.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    addendum His actions on Wiki are appalling and evident of a battleground, not here attitude. This is in addition to his actions off wiki and would be sufficient if we discount his use of social media to recruit meatpuppets to not only affect a consensus discussion but to harass editors he finds problematic to his his nothere agenda.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban - per p. much everyone else.--Jorm (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban - long term incivility and harassment. --MrClog (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and pace Iridescent. The main difference here is that the fellow's deliberately relying on us ignoring what goes on in the rest of the web to give the site and our members a digital kicking. That kind of makes us enablers, and even if pour encourager les autres is not policy, it still very much applies philosophically. Or it bloody well should, anyhows. ——SerialNumber54129 18:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I wouldn't mind him venting about it on Facebook, even if he did get his fanbase all stirred up. We can't hold that against him. But linking to the admin and calling them a "faggot" can be seen as nothing other than a blatant attempt to incite harassment. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Can't say I've come across this before, but reviewing the above... yeesh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Iridescent. (see below) I don't see the harassment. I see misconduct and canvassing, certainly, that may rise to the level of a block or some other sanction. But complaining about a particular Wikipedia editor off-wiki is not harassment. No matter how upsetting it may be. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Also support indef block per WP:NLT following this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
      •  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Question: Where is this "pha66ot" comment everyone's referring to? Has he edited the Facebook post? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The original comment link is [18]. He may have deleted that particular comment but he left up another one making fun of the admin's user page that was just below it. He seems to have deleted one or two more subthreads on the Facebook post once they were noted to the deletion discussion as evidence, as well. (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. I can now support community ban for disruption. I note that the FB discussion has now been deleted, which is great (I don't know who deleted it, though I'm reasonably sure someone reported it to Facebook). Anyway I still can't support based on harassment because frankly I don't think it rose to the level of harassment, and was rather off-wiki whining for which I'd prefer to deny recognition. That said, the canvassing and disruptive, offensive commentary on-wiki (including the legal threat) rise to the level of sufficiently disruptive to merit a CBAN. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Most likely he got a timeout from Facebook when Facebook deleted it. He has at least three accounts that he uses in alternation on Facebook to avoid bans there already, under the names of "Michael Williamson", "Michael Z Williamson" and "Michael Z. Williamson". The #2 sockpuppet facebook account, which uses a playboy bunny skull-and-crossbones icon, posted this [19] right after leaving a note that "My similarly named friend got a 30 day ban...". Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, per editors' recent actions at the article-in-question & his recent comments at that article's Afd. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww. [20] I think this has taken the cake. (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban, clear indications of WP:NOTHERE including recent comments on the Facebook thread he's posted and recent edits to the AfD. --letcreate123 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban, and I would go so far as to consider putting in place a "zero-tolerance" policy for everyone he's canvassed so that he can't use his supporters to proxy for him in his ban - iff the article doesn't already fall under general/discretionary sanctions of some stripe. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
did you say sneakers?  Dlohcierekim (talk)
It takes a lotta nerve to label someone a pha66otte when you go flouncing about in a getup like this. But then of course his infobox says he's a "bladesmith".-EEng
  • He's already been indef'd under NLT. Comments like this one at the AfD are objectionable / offensive. WP does not need editors who view everyone else here as "vile, fat, basement-dwelling wankers who have appointed themselves the keepers of knowledge." Mzmadmike has made ~1800 edits over more than 10 years and yet knows so little of WP culture that he sees notability questions / an AfD discussion as his "readers [having] to abase, degrade, and humiliate themselves to document that [he, as] a best-selling, award-winning author with over 20 publications and 100 editions in 3 languages is more culturally relevant than a disgusting freak who was fucked to death by a horse" (a reference to this article). He asserts that it is his decision alone whether the article on him stays or not, and he has issued an NLT-violating threat (in comparably objectionable terms) in an attempt to impose his will. He's referred to editors as "fucking pathetic", declared that describing the Nazi Party as of the far-right in "delusional crap" and that the Nazis "were left wing, and claiming otherwise requires mental contortions that indicate insanity". These led to a warning on his user talk page, which was not his first warning about civility (after this comment). He has blogged criticism of WP offsite (which is fine) but also named editors he disagrees with and linked to the on-wiki discussion, which is problematic. I support a community ban as I don't believe that Mzmadmike shares WP's goals and values and doubt that will change. EdChem (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I was going to block for the edit linked by (EEWWW) but found the NLT block there. I'm going to go revdel some of that, so look quick.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Request closure or this is going to turn into another train wreck as the AFD. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to state the words, "This person is banned", and not just "let's stop talking about this because they're blocked now". Here's why: The former makes a statement about expected behaviors and a precedent; the latter shuffles the problem to the future. Saying now, today, "This behavior gets you community banned" can help short-circuit discussions in the future.--Jorm (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The indef can be lifted by any individual admin, but a community ban can only be overturned by the community. That's what we need here. We keep his article, because he is notable, but we don't keep him in the community.
On a personal note, as a science fiction reader, I'm glad that I've never read anything by this (Redacted), and hope to never do so in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Community ban, obviously. EEng 04:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Community ban This person has behaved in an abominable fashion, both off-Wiki and here on Wikipedia. He has chosen his fate as an editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban He's done his dash on WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with users Jorm and Cullen328 above. Rong Qiqi (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • clarification While I am vile and fat, I do not have a basement to dwell in.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    My goodness, I wish I had a basement to dwell in. It'd be like a palace. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    We used to dream of having a basement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    We were evicted from our basement; we had to go and live in a lake. Rong Qiqi (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    Luxury! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    Currently looking for a basement. Willing to share with three Yorkshiremen. Vile/fat optional, but must have own socks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban. Full disclosure: I am one of the fat vile people who voted for "No award" above his book in the 2015 Hugo vote, and I am not going to get involved in the AfD (because of that and also because it makes me feel vaguely unclean.) However, that doesn't disqualify me from evaluating his behaviour as an editor. He is not here to improve Wikipedia, and his attacks are of course completely inappropriate. And like Dlochierekim I have no basement. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban- I as a card-carrying member of the Fat Vile Basement-dwellers' Association agree that this person is not here to constructively edit the encyclopedia. He's a deeply unpleasant and disruptive person. Reyk YO! 11:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban - This Fat Vile Homeowner must show solidarity with his basement dwelling kin by confirming that this sort of comportment is inappropriate in the extreme on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban - Sadly, I have to support this and I'm a pretty avid reader of Williamson and generally support his views. His actions here and on Facebook are not excusable though and especially in the current environment, show willingness to belittle and harass those with differing views. I'm even more disappointed that he apparently deleted the discussion on Facebook without so much as an apology. Take responsibility for your actions, don't try to hide them. I'm also a bit disappointed in some of the comments here that are stooping down to his level. Be better than that. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban An established writer understandably gets a little upset when someone anonymous suddenly declares them not notable. Canvassing, if you can call it that, was done by the writer, not the user. Get over it. I see no legal threat. Almond Plate (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    I will pursue whatever legal remedies are available if this page is not removed. was posted by Williamson, and is unquestionably a legal threat. Canvassing, if you can call it that, was done by the writer, not the user. Wikipedia sees no distinction between a Wikipedia contributor and the person who operates that account. Community bans like these are directed at the person operating the account, namely Williamson himself, and not merely his account. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The diff Mendaliv is referring to can be found here (scroll down a bit) Rong Qiqi (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:CAN pertains to editors, and there is no legal remedy available, so how can that be a threat. It's just words. You know, the tools of a writer. Almond Plate (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of if a legal remedy exists, the mere threat of a lawsuit has a chilling effect, as few people can afford to defend themselves in a civil suit. It doesn't matter if the threat has merit, what matters is the threat to drag you into court to waste your time and money, which exists as a technique to get your way. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Words have meaning, and our community matters. "Get over it" is the cry of those who wish to harass with impunity, because "it's just words." Sorry, that's not how it works. We're empowered to determine whether someone's choice use of words makes them a net negative to our community and, if so, whether or not we want to allow them to continue to participate. As usual, xkcd on point: Free Speech. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    We are supposed to look beyond the heat of the moment. A ban over something this small has a chilling effect on everyone. It will all be over when the AfD ends, which will be any moment now, and then I want to allow him to participate again. Almond Plate (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support community ban - His comments here and on Facebook are beyond the pale, It's one thing letting off steam about someone but to link them and then call them <that word> is on another level of stupid, Get rid. –Davey2010Talk 15:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • reply to Almond Plate And he is free to pursue whatever legal means he pleases. We simply block from editing anyone who makes a legal threat. But that is just one example of his nothere behavior. The incivility alone is a sufficient reason to block or ban him. And his words, his writer's words, are the vehicle of his incivility. Should we shrug those off as well. What an excuse, "I'm a writer, so I should not be blocked or banned for what I have written, regardless of how hurtful." We are all writers here, of a sort. I cannot understand your need to defend him.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why experienced editors waste their time with someone like Almond Plate. AP created their account on September 18, 2018. They have made 184 edits since then. Their first edits to project space are to this dicussion and the AfD, and their comments are ludicrous and will have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think they're assuming good faith of an editor who, so far, has spent 80% of their time in articlespace and so has not proved themselves a net negative. Having said that, I'll bet my shirt—per BEANS—that should anyone dig out that-which-is-not-pixie dust, any issues—apparent or otherwise— would find themselves instantly resolved. Meh. ——SerialNumber54129 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • aside on irony If his writings "violence" motiff is an offshoot of the views of violence in RAH's Starship Troopers, in Johnny's Moral Philosophy class, When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”, then I hope he appreciates the irony of the situation. I'm sure Mr. Heinlein would. Now there is a writer that is notable.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pile on Support User is clearly WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia and is a net negative to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Net negative to the project. Support ban. (it's been 24 hours, I think this is pretty close to closure time). -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


This got closed by a non-admin. I'm not opposed to the closure and think the call is right, but I'm reasonably certain non-admins aren't allowed to conclude someone is banned, though I can't find an explicit statement of policy to that effect. And the fact that this guy is already blocked means an admin doesn't need to do dirty work. Even so, I think an admin should "confirm" the close real quick. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh hold up, Rockstone35, you !voted and then closed. Even if you were an admin that wouldn't be permissible. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Non-admins are allowed to close community discussions, including bans. I've seen it done before, and I'm fairly certain that I have done it at least once in the past. However, like I said in the summary, if this is too soon or if we want to wait for an admin, I have no problem with it being reversed. !voting and then closing is permissible though, see here. An uninvolved user is someone who has no bias or conflict of interest, not someone who has no opinion about the situation. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rockstone35: Per WP:CBAN (my emphasis): If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly and enacts any blocks called for. You are both involved (by supporting the ban) and not an administrator, so you have no business closing this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
+1 - You cannot vote and then close the dicussion, I would suggest Rockstone35 you repoen this and allow an admin to close it - Whilst consensus is blindly obvious IMHO closures like these should be left to admins. –Davey2010Talk 20:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tavix: while I don't disagree with the "uninvolved" part, the rule does not prohibit uninvolved administrators from closing ban discussions, at least how I read it, it only requires them to notify the subject. I think we should update the policies to make it clearer. I promise I'm not wikilawyering, I just thought that closing this was okay. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that sentence. It's obvious (to me) that all of those things need to happen at the same time by the same person, but I can see how someone might have read it differently before. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tavix: You're welcome! Thank you for removing the now-extraneous sentence. The other reason I was confused is because the non-admin closures page only prohibits closures which require an action by an administrator for technical reasons, which in this case, since the user is already indefinitely blocked, it doesn't. I think the page needs to be completely reworked because it really only talks about deletion discussions. But that's another topic. I edited the page on non-admin closures to clarify, feel free to review and revert if not necessary. Edit: was in wrong section, will reevaluate. All the best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I reopened the discussion. Users who voted can not be the closers. This is the original close (with the original timestamp):--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    (non-admin closure) It's been 24 hours (the time required for consensus to form), and the community's consensus is overwhelming to support the community ban. Thus, Mzmadmike is banned indefinitely by the community for harassment and incivility. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:21, 22 July 2019 (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.

An issue has arisen Linked to this [[21]]is claiming that a specific user is linked to a Facebook account. Now I am not up enough on the inns and outs of the SPI to know if this user is in fact the same as the one on the facebook account. But if not it may well be a case of outing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the Freehold Facebook site.[22]