Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive923

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

IP address repeatedly vandalizing pages.[edit]

IP blocked. (non-admin closure) GABHello! 23:53, 9 May 2016 (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.

199.189.61.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly vandalized the Pat McCrory and Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act articles. First they added biased and insufficiently sourced information to these articles. These edits were undone and attention was brought to the user's page. The user once again added similar information, which was removed. The user was warned again and was directed to go to the articles' talk pages, but refused to do so. Instead, they resorted to removing entire sections from the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act article without reason. The series of warnings given to them by other editors can be seen on their talk page. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been reported at WP:AIV and subsequently blocked. Eagleash (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2016 (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.

Request block of User:Caseeart[edit]

I'm closing this one too. Given that the SPI clerk already stated that there would be no block for the sockpuppeting due to its age, I don't see a block for that same conduct as anything other than a WP:OTHERPARENT situation. Now, if people are discussing even a single incident here that was not already discussed at the prior SPI case, then ping me on my talk page and I'll reconsider. If not, then drop the stick about it, both of you two. MShabazz, regardless of the closure, I believe at the very least you have admitted that those were your edits. If so, I think we can have a fair discussion about your incivility and conduct generally, both signed-in and not-signed-in editing. Socking or not, these comments are inappropriate, even if you had used your named doppelganger accounts. However, those edits were from late 2015 and absent any indication that it is ongoing, I don't any punishment as anything but punitive at this point. I suggest both sides take heed to this warning: (1) MShabazz, no more incivilty, either signed-in or not, and do not do any more unsigned in edits, especially when it's clearly related to edits that you are doing while signed, as you were warned in the SPI report and (2) Caseeart, no more insinuations, comments or commentary about MShabazz's prior conduct unless it is continuing today. And yes, I'm aware that EM Gregory being attacked by an IP editor who is linked to MShabazz is related but both sides are advised to move on and find something else to do with your time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2016 (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.

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

For months now, Caseeart has been obsessed with me. They have been accusing me of sockpuppetting since September.[1]][2] Despite being told by many editors that I had done nothing wrong, they filed a sockpuppet report against me. When that didn't go their way, they brought a complaint here. They were told to drop the stick. Instead, they attacked me above—repeating the disproven lie that I had socked—and didn't notify me.[3][4]

Since Caseeart was told they were "about three microns from a WP:BOOMERANG", I request that they be blocked for their recent behavior here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't try to change the story. Every report that I made was valid and well documented and another administrator might even decide to block you now WP:BOOMERANG.
The only reason they did not block Shabbazz was because it was "a few months back". But the purpose of a sockpuppet report is also for the record (as you will see below).
  • DOPPELGÄNGER account The admins also agreed that the account User:MShabazz is not allowed to be a WP:DOPPELGÄNGER account and they asked Shabazz to change it [5] - because it he/she uses it to edit, and "Such accounts should not be used for editing". Shabbazz did not listen until another administrator went onto Shabbazz's page and changed it [6].
  • Previous ANI for "apparent personal attacks by Shabbazz" Let me explain why my ANI was valid. At the sockpuppet investigation - an administrator advised me me about reporting the personal attacks (from the ip's) at ANI which I did. I did not correctly present the case and did not show the list of all the history of personal attacks. -Not everyone bothers looking into all of Shabbazz's history and all the diffs therefore it did not end in a block.

Shabbazz repeatedly laughed at my writing skills:

  • "I'm sorry it took you half an hour...I hope your reading skills improve."[7]
  • "Caseeart demonstrates a disconcerting inability to read"[8]

Here is the list of attacks on other users (I believe that all these were aimed at pro Israeli editors - all within a few days and this brought to Shabbazz's block) See this ANIand this ANI

  • "suck my dick, ass hole"[9][10]
  • "No, you can suck it, sonny boy. What'll you call me next, nigger?"[11]

Shabazz, despite (or in spite of) his block, unrevdels that diff with the summary: "Restoring the truth -- you people can ignore this is [sic] you want, I won't".

After Shabbazz was blocked - it was established by the clerk (because of the valid sockpuppet investigation) that he/she appeared to be editing under these IP's and went on with the attacks:

  • 66.87.114.76 "fucking moron doesn't know what vandalism is or how to leave a warning template"[16]
  • 63.116.31.198 "So shove your threat to block me up your ass." [17][18]
  • Was my ANI really invalid??
  • Above ANI on E.M.Gregory: IP 66.87.114.76 (which was determined to be Shabbazz as mentioned earlier) attacked User:E.M.Gregory and called them a "fucking moron"[19]. This is very relevant to the above discussion since Sean.Hoyland particularly used this diff to report E.M. Gregory calling Hoyland and Shabbaz POV pushers. It was important to show both sides of the story that Shabbazz also attacked E.M. Gregory. But still I deliberately did not name Shabbazz a single time in the ANI in order not to further take the report off track and not to revert the report onto a Shabbazz discussion. (I obviously had no intention at all of reporting Shabbazz - a single diff without name mention - I doubt anyone could even find that diff now).
  • Today's attack Shabbazz just called me a "persistent edit warrior"[20] without providing any evidence. In fact Shabbazz did not respond on the article talk page for a few days [21]. It thus appeared that Shabbazz agreed/left the dispute. I therefore addressed his/her concerns and fixed the edit (to my ability and understanding) and put it back in the article - that is in no way or form edit warring (let me know if I am wrong). (Just now, AFTER Shabbazz again |reverted my edit without responding to our talk page discussion - finally after the revert, another user joined in and responded).


I am finally starting to understand why almost all Pro Israeli editors eventually get banned. I never edited the subject and only recently I was pulled in trying to fix something else. All of the sudden I begin getting warnings and I get reported. Something really needs to be done but this is not the place to discuss.

My Statement: I am not aware of the meaning of "about three microns from a WP:BOOMERANG" I don't understand the words "three microns" and I tried to clarify in this discussion[22] but did not get a response.

I was never blocked and I have no intentions of breaking rules. If an admin determines that I acted inappropriately in any way- please let me know and I will cease to do so, and if necessary will cease to engage in any discussion with Shabbazz for a set period of time and never talk about this issue again.

I will not be available for a while - if any action will be taken (other than closure or warning) please wait until I am back.CaseeArt Talk 16:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a TL;DR acknowledgement that competence is required and you lack competence. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
After this is over I will be taking a short break from editing wikipedia.
Will anyone do anything about the gruesome personal attacks? The first wave of attacks resulted in Blocks for Shabazz and triggered an Arb Comminttee meeting resulting in WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 - very strict rules regarding the Israeli Palistinian articles.
All that did not help, because Shabazz just took it a step further and began Personal attacks against pro Israeli editors using ip addresses (in addition to the attacks on me lately). Does anyone have any solution? CaseeArt (Talk 04:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Caseeart: It is very simple: your last SPI against Malik was closed. Please don't keep alleging that Malik engaged in sock-puppeting. If you want to pursue it, the appropriate venue is SPI. I also don't see why you bring MShabazz into a totally unrelated dispute. You seem to view everything through the lens of "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian". We all have POV, but that does not mean everything we do is determined by our POV. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Kingsindian   05:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kingsindian Contrary to Shabazz's claim, Last sockpuppet report did confirm that Shabbazz was using IP addresses for edit warring and personal attacks. Also read my response - I did not try to bring him into any dispute I presented a mere diff as evidence to the case. CaseeArt Talk 05:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Caseeart: I will not be diverted into a discussion about the merits of the SPI case. It was closed, that's all that matters. If you want to pursue it, open another case at SPI. Or if you want an ANI case against MShabazz, open a separate case here; don't bring him up in a totally unrelated dispute. Keep your allegations about sockpuppeting to yourself in the meantime. Kingsindian   05:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Kingsindian Let me clarify: I was not trying to pursue any case against anyone in any way shape or form, not ANI and not SPI. There is no point of a duplicate SPI - Clerk already warned Shabbaz to stop. I did not metion Shabazz name anywhere, and the Diff was for evidence purposes only. (And if was a mistake on my part to present the "diff" - then let let me be notified (preferably by an admin) that this SPI case is not allowed to be mentioned). CaseeArt Talk 05:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've uncollapsed this discussion and promoted it a level. I thought it was related to the prior discussion, which Caseeart tried to turn into a discussion about me -- despite being told to drop the stick and without notifying me. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 10:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Given that you opened this section accusing them of telling a 'lie' that you socked - when you were using both a doppelganger account and IP's to sock, its a bit rich to complain about them dropping the stick and making it about you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Which parts of WP:SOCK and WP:STICK are unclear to you? I never violated SOCK. Caseeart can say it as often as they'd like, but wishing won't make it so. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph of WP:SOCK actually. "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks or otherwise violate community standards and policies." - you were using multiple accounts and IP addresses for an improper purpose. Specifically logging out and edit warring with IP addresses is covered by the following paragraph where it says "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address". From the sockpuppet investigation I will quote Vanjagenije directly: "Shabazz was using IPs to edit-war and for personal attacks." You were socking by the explicit definition as per WP:SOCK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2016 (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.

FreeatlastChitchat comments and revision need addressing please[edit]

Don't know about storms and tea cups but comments like "the Indian source is just lying" are not blockable and really of no concern. It seems this should be closed before we all start fighting here. All y'all, please cool down, etc etc., use talk pages, etc., keep nationalities and stuff out of it, etc. etc. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2016 (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.

@FreeatlastChitchat: this editor has recently decided to include comments such as this in their reasoning for reverting an entry on the very contentious Talk Page about Yadav, that I have been engaging in the debate on for some weeks. The Masked Man of Mega Might has already warned two (2) other editors to not behave in such a manner, and I feel that even though there is a semi block on the article (which I'm not asking to be fully protected), this sort of language is not conducive to having the debate on content. I request some ANI advice and formal decision, please, on the editors obvious inability to leave POV out of this article. I see that the specific users who have been warned, and involved, do not speak English as a first language and it has become quite problematic in the end to attempt any meaningful debate, though not for a lack of trying by various people. I'm making no requests but some further advice please. I have not informed the user, as I am still working out how to correctly use the 'subt-ANI' above, of which I apologies for. I will put something basic on their talk page though

Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Notified. TimothyJosephWood 00:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

My thanks Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You asked for advice and here is my advice. Try to find a better source, this source has too much POV language in it, for example "Pak of lies", referring to Pakistan as a country. We should not allow such BS sources to begin-with. As for FreeatlastChitchat, he is calling the source what ever he is calling. His description is not intended towards an editor. I suggest closing of thread. FreeatlastChitchat and thread starter has been advised. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
You have misrepresented me in your comments, and you have ignored the language used by the editor, to be blunt.
Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, the language was directed at the source so to be blunt, the source uses harsh, hateful and POV language so he might have put it in milder words but considering that Wikipedia is usually edited by grown ups, the language is not that bad, rather your summary language is not any better than his. Leave him alone please, let him edit in peace. Thank you Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • When did calling a SPADE as a "SPADE" become an offence?

A nationalistic and highly POV Indian source has been used to insert the falsehood(what else do you call a Lie in Politically correct terms I have no idea, I could tone it down if you want but falsehood is the most PC word for lying that I have atm) that However, Rouhani dismissed this report, adding that RAW's involvement in Balochistan is a rumour. However this is the exact opposite of what Rouhani has said. Don't take my word for it, just take the word of the economic times and the Hindu, both of which are India papers. Every paper will give the information that 1)Rouhani was asked if there were any talks between PAkistans Chief of Staff and him about RAW's involvement and 2)He dismissed the idea of internal discussions about RAW as a rumor. There is not a SINGLE newspaper that claims Rouhani was asked about RAW's involvement and he said NO, RAW is not involved. He is talking about the rumour of internal discussions, not the involvement. I would also like to point out that this has already been discussed on TP and a consensus achieved. We can see here that The NOM was also pinged to the discussion but he conveniently choose to ignore the ping and has now edit warred about an issue which was already decided. So to sum up

  1. The nom should learn how to edit wikipedia's controversial topics from a mentor who has experience in dealing with controversial topics. Someone like MShahbaz etc if he is free can take up the task if they are willing. He should be mentored by the said experienced editor who should teach him step by step how to deal with text from nationalistic sources. The mentor should teach him that newspapers like this are prone to "twisting" the words of various international figures in order to "make them say" something which they have not said. The mentor should also teach him that when dealing with such sources it is VITAL that the entire article is read line by line instead of just reading the heading. The nom should learn about fact checking basics too, that when dealing with controversial topics editors must check MULTIPLE sources to make sure that they are putting "facts" in an article and not some POV mumbo jumbo.
  2. As far as the (personal attack) WP:NPA about my and other editor's English is concerned, I am willing to let it go if the nom issues an apology.
  3. The next time the nom is irked by an issue, he should make sure that the issue is NOT one that has already been discussed. Thread necromancy is quite hilarious in forums and whatnot, but here on wikipedia it just creates a hassle, so the next time the nom thinks someone is doing something wrong, just give the TP a quick look, maybe the issue has already been discussed.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - FreeatlastChitchat is filibustering about the source, but this is not about the source, rather about him. After responding here last night, he went and did two more reverts at the page with language like:
In the process, he was edit-warring with three or more editors and reaching 3RR, whereas I understand that he promised to voluntarily keep to 1RR under the terms of his last unblock. Later he went and did a huge revert at Balochistan conflict undoing a month's worth of edits. All this in a good day's work. It seems to me like Freeatlast is testing Wikipedia's patience.
(For the uninitiated, Pakistan claimed to have arrested inside its territory an Indian national based in Iran and accused him of being a spy, whereas India suspects that he was abducted from inside Iran or the Iran-Pakistan border. Iran is the only country that can determine the truth between the two claims and the Iranian investigation is quite the key to the whole episode.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no smoking gun in your comment either. It seems like people are brewing a storm in the tea cup! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dragon Fly is just pushing his POV and dragging Freeatlast because of no valid reason, here's why:
I mean, he fills sections after sections at the talk announcing that sources that make up the current state of article, precisely the New Indian Express is not RS and is (blatantly) nationalistic, and thus should be removed, but when the same source supports his POV, he initiates an edit-war and even report the user at ANI for doubting the source?
This is irrespective of the fact that Dragon Fly has been repeatedly and categorically asked to "prove that the sources are not RS" and to "Point out which precise policy does the article in its current state violates". He has been suggested the same thing by another editor and was also advised by the same editor not to characterize mainstream news sources as "tabloid nationalistic propaganda" and that he needs to check Wikipedia policies. But to no avail. Instead he engages in an edit-war and reports Freeatlast when he challenged him here even though Freeatlast only commented about the source in his edit-summary and not the editor.
I dont know why Dragon Fly is being tendentious and owning the article while saying that he is going to re-write it in its entirety?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment about leniency shown to FreeatlastChitchat[edit]

Already there is an active ANI above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_in_Russian_soldier.27s_article and now this. There is also an WP:AE case going on. I am confused how this user is surviving here. There are many users who had faced harassment from this guy and not limited to one or two. One IP who tried to close the previous discusion two days ago, commented that FreeatalstChitchat is immune to long term sanction. FreeatlastChitchat is not a very good content creator, overall negative to this project. Only those users who like his biased pov support him. No administrator warned him for harassing a new user who created the article about Russian soldier, when he was Wikihounding Mhhossein. 2A03:4A80:7:441:8891:78E4:8E9C:106E (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You are doing nothing but testifying that there is a campaign going on against one editor who I categorize a voice of dissent here on Wikipedia and as every where else in the World, nobody is liking that voice of dissent here as well. People are hell bent to shut that voice. I hope these calls are rejected so that Wikipedia can be edited by people having many different views. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are getting involved, but you consider this as voice of dissent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Prokhorenko. All were wrong with their Keep votes and FreeatlastChitchat was right to check the contributions of Mhhossein and nominated the article for AFD, which harassed the new editor from Sri Lanka who created the article. 2A03:4A80:7:41A:9592:D44A:11A7:480E (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
How about you tell me why I should not get involved and you should? Also, what's wrong with nominating an article for deletion? How about you tell the community what policy he violated in nominating that article for deletion? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have posted my concerns, it is for someone with AN/I rights to make a judgement and any decisions. I'm not going to enter into a commentary on the way SheriffIsInTown, TripWire and the other Pakistani editors are behaving. When asked by someone with authority I will make a statement as to the ENTIRETY of this article and its talk page, as this will be the second time it has been done so by the AN/I. I stand by the full list of my comments as being the basis for my reporting this last effort to the AN/I. If I'm found lacking then so be it, but I think the ENTIRE article needs to be AfD'ed or their needs a long and lengthy ARBCOM by numerous senior editors, and as I feel the latter is something that nobody wants to spend time on, which they should imo, then the former is the best course. I'm at the point of considering this an FA style intervention and with said scrutiny, for anything remotely unbiased to be in the article....
Regards,
Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 03:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - This user (FreeatlastChitchat) attacked me personally by saying that I use "sneaky tactics" in wikipedia. This sort of language is not new from him. He is indeed a habitual offender.Ghatus (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Then, FreeatlastChitchat explains in the same comment that why he thinks that you are applying "sneaky tactics" as you seem to be twisting the facts in the source so no personal attack in that. I don't think words "sneaky tactics" are that harsh. Again, as I explained above, Wikipedia is mostly edited by grown-ups and FreeatlastChitchat might have assumed that he is talking to a grown-up. You are not supposed to report every little thing at ANI. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ghatus, the language you have been using on Wikipedia while addressing almost every user you have encountered isn't very Wikipediash either. If you want, I can spend sometime to find some diffs supporting this.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:25, 8 May 2016 (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.

Spam blacklist is a pain in the arse[edit]

Reverted and blocked. You can always hit edit on a previous version and cut out the blacklisted archives (undo wouldn't cut it here). While the article has gotten some vandalism following, the IPs have been blocked. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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.

Philip DeFranco has been vandalized but I can't revert the vandalism as the last good revision contains archive.is, which is on the spam blacklist. Admin assistance required to remove the vandalism. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the edits and removed the link. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks. It honestly makes no sense to outright block instead of just warn for edits that contain blacklisted links as it's just waiting to be exploited by vandals. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
If you undo instead of reverting you will get an edit window in which you can also make other changes, such as removing blacklisted urls, before saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2016 (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.

Serious Personal Attack and clear dishonesty (or fraud?) on the ANI project page[edit]

Nobody is going to face admin action for a BLP violation that they, themselves, rectified a few hours later based on a reliable source, six days ago. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2016 (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.

Here is the exact text and structure of the users requesting that User:E.M.Gregory be blocked/topic banned for BLP: Diff of vote Diff of vote (Particularly Huldra)

  • This restored a blatant BLP violation, claiming that a named living person advocated violent attacks on Armenians when the source said no such thing. Calling it both well-sourced and significant when reverting a removal that specifically calls out WP:BLP, which I note says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. is a violation of both WP:BLP and basic common sense. This is typical of this users work here. ----------Comment by nableezy
  • I can confirm that it is indeed an outrageous BLP-violation; E.M. Gregory writes "due to his advocacy of violent attacks on Armenians" ...which is absolutely not in the source. However, the source is in Swedish (yes; I can read it), can E.M. Gregory even read the source? (Not that it is any excuse if he cannot.) ------Comment BY Huldra

Making an accusations that the E.M. Gregory restores BLP violations, and purposely leaving out that right afterwards, E.M. Gregory self reverted, by adding a new reliable source and entirely corrected the text that is BLP violation, seems like filing a fraudulent ANI to trick administrators into blocking a user, since not all admins have the capacity to dig and fact check every single comment.

There appears to be a lot more on Huldra's selective reporting/not reporting history but won't go off topic (yet). CaseeArt Talk 07:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Given that E.M.Gregory amended the work to make it BLP compliant the same day (3rd May I might add, 6 days ago): reliable source, wording reflects that used in the source etc. What is the problem *now*? Waiting 6 days to report something as a BLP issue clearly indicates it was not that big of a problem or you would have done it sooner. Leaving out the following diffs where the issue was corrected, as Caseeart points out above, is highly suspect. Firstly it paints Gregory in the light of someone edit-warring to reinstate BLP violating material, secondly its just highly intentionally misleading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is like Blue, the detective in Auster's Ghosts, constructing stories to explain the void that is his subject, Black. If you two are going to construct theories to explain the actions of 2 editors in good standing you could at least make the effort to use more robust reasoning before you cast aspersions. I realize many people enjoy imagining things about other people, but alternative theories should be considered, assumptions examined and Occam's razor deployed before writing things like "Serious Personal Attack and clear dishonesty (or fraud?)" and "just highly intentionally misleading". And what in the name of fuck is this "it paints Gregory in the light of someone edit-warring to reinstate BLP violating material"? They did employ "edit-warring to reinstate BLP violating material" exactly as Nableezy described, edit warring is "typical of this users work here", and it wasn't until several hours later that they noticed that they had, once again, made an 'error' i.e. a very serious BLP violation, one of four, only one of which they acknowledged as an 'error'. Why no theories to explain why it was so hard for E.M.Gregory to see or care about their 'errors', their multiple BLP violations? Why no cognitive dissonance induced by the impossibility of reconciling the blocking reason given by the admin with the statement "a fraudulent ANI to trick administrators into blocking a user, since not all admins have the capacity to dig and fact check every single comment". Anyway, I'm sure Huldra and Nableezy can speak for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Its not anyone elses job to go hunting through EM Gregory's edit history to evidence Nableezy's accusation. If Nableezy wants to demonstrate an ongoing issue with BLP violating edits they need to make that case with diffs. As it stands the complaint *here* is both stale (the problem no longer exists in this case) and has been presented one-sidedly without presenting *all* of the evidence. Asking for a block for one edit that has already been corrected without showing the correction is just iffy on multiple levels. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Re-read the ANI report, specifically, my initial 4th diff, E.M.Gregory's statement starting 'The error I did commit...', my statement starting 'It's good to see that you corrected your errors', Nableezy's statement and consider whether it is true or false and what kind behaviorial non-compliance it explicitly describes, consider the size of the set of alternative explanations for why Nableezy didn't post until yesterday, and consider why Huldra, as a Swedish speaker, might comment on the diff. Then consider whether the 500+ active admins had sufficient information to make a decision about E.M.Gregory's policy violations or whether the "complaint *here*...has been presented one-sidedly without presenting *all* of the evidence." Sean.hoyland - talk 11:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Because it *is* one sided. When you make an accusation that someone made an outrageous BLP violation and dont also include that they corrected it the same day, it is a ridiculously one-sided presentation of the facts. If you dont understand that, I cant really explain it any further to you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Umm, Sherlock, my problem was with that edit, in that it was an explicit violation of WP:BLP's prohibition on simply reverting to restore material that an editor has claimed in good faith is a BLP violation. That BLP specifically requires that if the material is to be reinserted without modification it must be discussed and a consensus for it achieved first. E.M. Gregorys edit violated that prohibition, regardless of what happened after that. E.M. Gregory did not do discuss the material (the talk page for the article remains blank), and for that reason that specific edit was a violation of the policy. Not to mention that the material was initially added to the article by E.M. Gregory himself prior to being removed by me. Toodles, nableezy - 15:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well technically yes that would be a violation of the BLP policy, but since the sourcing was amended 2 minutes later and the wording in the article was amended 3 hours later - before anyone thought to remove it again as a BLP issue - and it has subsequently stayed in the article for the last six days, it is not exactly a pressing incident is it? If you think E.M. Gregory should be banned from BLP's, make a discussion on AN laying out diffs that support your case. Since blocks are (allegedly) not punitive, blocking someone for a past BLP violation that they have since corrected would be punitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2016 (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.
Closing this as well. As the administrator supposedly "tricked", I was not tricked by anything and given that the language was changed from alleging the person was the advocate of said language to the person was "associated with advocates" of said language, there's no misunderstandings here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2016 (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.

@Boing! said Zebedee: Can we re-open the case? I think there was a total misunderstanding here. This thread was (supposed to be) about blocking/banning users Nablezzy and Huldra, for a serious personal attack, and for attempting to trick an administrator into blocking another user.

“Nobody is going to face admin action for a BLP violation that they, themselves, rectified a few hours later based on a reliable source, six days ago.” Thanks for confirming precisely the problem! User Nablezzy and User Huldra intentionally tried tricking an administrator Ricky81682 into ‘’’taking action’’’ and blocking/banning E.M. Gregory. They reported a 6 day old serious BLP violation edit, and they purposely left out that E.M. Gregory already self reverted a few hours later and rectified the problem. Not only is this a personal attack but this shows dishonesty on the ANI page in order to block (pro Israeli) users. It’s like walking into a police station and committing a crime. This is also dishonesty towards administrators, and is disrespectful and not fair to the involved administrators who already volunteer so much their time and effort to resolve other user’s disputes and ANI’s, - because now the admins need to spend extra time digging through every single claim being made, as it may be intentionally false and misleading. CaseeArt Talk 02:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if he rectified that edit. The bigger problem was the nonsense talk page comments of "Why aren't we talking about so-and-so's hatred of the Jews?". Are you seriously going to defend that kind of editing? Double this with the nonsense about you not dropping the Shabbazz attacks, and I'm not seeing anything but a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality from you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, at least there is a confirmation that the actual action had nothing to do with those two last misleading claims - and I will drop it per Ricky81682. Regarding the attacks it was made clear that, that history is only to be brought up if the attacks will persist. CaseeArt Talk 04:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Read the actual close. It was not a one-sentence summary. (A) I was concerned about the talk page comments. (B) EM Gregory changed it from living person advocating something to associating with advocates which is an indication that it was inaccurate and (C) then called it an "error" that should be ignored based on the total scope of his contributions which is absurd. It was clearly inaccurate and that is no mild difference. The fact that, absent a reverting, that BLP attack based on a source that isn't even in English would have continued is not a good habit to be nice about it. And a month-long topic ban in my view is being extraordinarily generous given the absolutely vile and inappropriate talk page comments for an editor who have been here long enough to know what is and what isn't appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Added strikethrough on request for clarification. I also think that it was overly nice when you gave the user a chance to rectify themselves and then waited patiently a very long time. I've never interacted (directly) with EM Gregory but I could discuss with the on their talk page.- CaseeArt Talk 06:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
"The fact that, absent a reverting, that BLP attack based on a source that isn't even in English would have continued is not a good habit to be nice about it." Blocks are not punitive remember. If you are genuinely advocating someone should be blocked for what *might* have happened, that is beyond punitive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
EM Gregory was topic banned and was not blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Anyone can revert a close of mine if they think I have made a mistake or disagree with it in any way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2016 (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.

Ecoboy90[edit]

Withdrawn. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2016 (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 check their edits Ecoboy90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and possibly block them (temporarily) since they seem to be causing various disruption over the long term. Feinoha Talk 17:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw, The user's last edit few edits finally seem to make sense so I don't think there's any need for admin action at the current moment. Feinoha Talk 19:10, 9 May 2016 (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:Pocketthis making legal threats[edit]

Legal threat possibly made in jest and taken as such, and was retracted in spirit and word. Both involved parties are actively de-escalating. No need for everyone to get get bent out of shape over it. DMacks (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2016 (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.

After an image they posted was reverted, Pocketthis (talk · contribs) made this edit, saying in the edit summary Explain "Image Spam" to me Chiswick Chap, and it better be good, or I'll sue you for deformation of character. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) then messaged him about the legal threat and Pocketthis responded with this clarification that it was indeed a legal threat. Aside from Pocketthis's continued aggressive attitude towards others, which is what brought my attention to this initially , this is a clear legal threat. - Aoidh (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

  • This issue was settled before this guy Aoidh (who follows me around just waiting to start one of these investigations, quite childish actually) came here to complain about it. Chriswick Chap and I made our peace, so why this is posted here?... only Aoidh knows. One of my photos was called Spam on the public summary board in an article, and that is a first for me here. I told him to explain himself, or I would sue him for Deformation of Character. He took it as comedy, and then fixed the caption in the article. OVER. Pocketthis (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, not completely over, but mostly over. User:Pocketthis, people around here tend to freak out when legal threats are made, and you need to be really careful not to do that. It's often treated not as a "hey, don't do that" kind of policy violation, but as a "block indef until it's officially retracted" kind of policy violation. Chiswick Chap seems to not be too bothered by it and understands that this was kind of a silly threat made in anger, and as long as you understand that saying you'll "sue for defamation of character" or similar can get you blocked, then yes, I think we're done. But don't take the rule against it lightly, because it can escalate quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • (ec) Considering the exchange is already deescalated, there is zero point to stirring up drama on this board over it. Move along, please, and no other characters will need to be deformed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I had no idea what I said about suing was against policy. I was just trying to get his attention, and to get him to retract or at least explain the word "spam". I thought he was implying that I made a fake photo. He has since apologized on his talk page, and I accepted, and made friends. I assumed it was over. I will not threaten to sue here again. Thanks for the explanation Floquenbeam, and thanks for ending this Laser brain . Pocketthis (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2016 (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.

Harassing phone calls from jayron32[edit]

Deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jayron32 made an harassing phone call last night. I don't know how he got my phone number. He threatened to reveal my personal identity to all of the Wikipedia editors if I ever dare revert his edits. What should be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.255.60 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Block an obvious troll? John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Another IP recently (about April 15) made a similar bogus complaint about another admin "threatening" him offline. Can something be done with that yoyo, or is Wikipedia stuck with him? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I think I blocked that one too. Probably the same yoyo. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find it. Maybe it was rev-del'd. But it would be interesting to try to see if the two are the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

SSTflyer and AWB[edit]

No further admin action is needed. The issue is being resolved at RFD. -- Tavix (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2016 (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.

SSTflyer (talk · contribs) recently began created thousands of controversial and unnecessary redirects in violation of AWB and Bot policy. Checking out his recent contributions, he has created "List of people named x" where x leads to a redirect page. Per WP:AWBRULES: "Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue." Last I checked, there is no consensus to create pages of this nature, in fact, consensus seems to sway in the opposite direction. Per a recent RFD discussion, a list of people named x redirect was headed towards delete before the creator mercifully tagged them for G7. (I'd take this batch to RFD, but with thousands of these, it's too unfeasible.) Another concern I have of these edits is the sheer speed in which they were created. He was editing at a rate of 50 edits per minute at 11:32, 9 May 2016. This is absurd. Per WP:BOTPOL: "bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots doing more urgent tasks may edit approximately once every five seconds." Since this is obviously a non-urgent task, SSTflyer's edits should be limited to about 6 edits/minute. 50 edits per minute is way above these guidelines. With all this in mind, I have two requests: 1) that these controversial redirects be deleted and 2) that SSTflyer be banned from using AWB unless the specific task is approved via WP:BOTREQ. Thank you, -- Tavix (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought WP:MASSCREATION was only limited to articles and categories? Prior to my creation of these redirects, I have already created more than 10,000 redirects using AWB, often at 50 edits per minute, and there has never been any concerns about my speed of editing or my redirect creations. SSTflyer 02:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I am on a mobile device right now, but I should be able to compile a list of redirects I created and place it in my user space later today, to allow an admin to quickly delete all of them using Twinkle. Unless there is consensus to delete these redirects, I do not want to request deletion of them yet. SSTflyer 02:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. At the very least, it'd make an RFD nomination feasible if that's the route we want to take. -- Tavix (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is the list of redirects concerned: User:SSTflyer/hndis. I consider myself to be (somewhat) active at RFD, and I only create redirects if I think they may be useful to readers. In this case, if a reader wanted to look for a list of people with a name, these redirects would aid the reader during searches. None of these redirects meet any reasons for deletion at WP:R#DELETE. These redirects are harmless, and I think that deleting them would cause more trouble than keeping them. I also do not think that I have to actively seek consensus before creating redirects. After all, I do not have to seek consensus to create articles as long as they meet notability guidelines, so why should redirects be different? SSTflyer 03:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the list. Now that a(n) RFD nomination is feasible, I'll take them there as that's the proper place to discuss them. No, you don't need to seek consensus before creating redirects, but per WP:AWBRULES, you need to seek consensus to use AWB to do things that may be controversial. That's a huge difference. -- Tavix (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I have created more than 10,000 redirects using AWB prior to the creation of this batch of redirects, and this is the first time I have been told that redirect creation using AWB is inappropriate. I have also seen other users, including admins, create redirects using AWB. If WP:MASSCREATION of redirects are to be disallowed per community consensus, sure, I will file requests at WP:BRFA and create redirects using a bot account. SSTflyer 04:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • SSTflyer - Just a word of warning - Incase you're not aware this bloke is probably the most disliked person on this place right now due to his creation of over a thousand redirects ..... I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong however if you're creating them at a fast rate like Neelix had then It may be a better idea to perhaps slow down alittle, Just my 2¢. –Davey2010Talk 04:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

After Neelix, I can't believe anyone would do this. Unless it's an approved bot, the mass creation of huge numbers of redirects by an automated process should be blocked on sight. Jonathunder (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Most redirects created by Neelix are nonsense, while I am actually aware of WP:R#CRD guidelines. That is a major difference. SSTflyer 07:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Anyone creating lots of redirects (automated or not) is going to get the Neelix tag thrown at them. I guess the question is how likely is it that someone will type in "List of people named Henry Lopes" when looking for Henry Lopes (for example)? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
These redirects are not intended for readers who want to look for a specific person, but rather a list of people with a specific name. SSTflyer 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Above, SSTflyer says "I have already created more than 10,000 redirects using AWB, often at 50 edits per minute". Being bold is one thing, but creating 17,528 useless pages without a central discussion on the merits is most unhelpful. The rules of AWB access appear to have been severely violated so access should be removed. Given the Neelix situation, my preference would be that people found to be mass-creating anything without extensive prior discussion should be indefinitely topic banned. The community cannot sensibly discuss the merits of 17,528 pointless redirects, so this action is a fait accompli which sets a precedent for anyone wanting to boost their edit count. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
    • What I am saying is that prior to the creation of this batch of "List of people named xyz" redirects, I already created more than 10,000 other redirects using AWB, and this is the first time I have been told that this is inappropriate. I do not consider these redirects to be "pointless", as they serve a purpose to readers. Like it or not, a disambiguation page is a list of topics covered on Wikipedia. There is no rule against the mass creation of redirects. Since this batch of redirects follow a consistent format, it is feasible for the community to discuss whether they should be deleted. If consensus decides so, I am willing to limit my mass (i.e. more than 25 to 50 pages) redirect creations to a separate bot account which has passed through WP:BRFA. As for the accusation that my redirect creations are to boost my edit count, I do not understand how a high edit count benefits me. SSTflyer 12:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac: has (correctly in my view) created a redirect discussion on one of the 17,528 at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_10#List_of_people_named_Henry_Lopes. @Johnuniq: your comment seems correct on AWB access, but I'm just curious, what is the benefit to an editor in boosting their edit count?? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Other than the goal of making the numbers bigger, some areas of the project lend more credibility to editors with higher edit counts, and moreso with higher edit counts in the mainspace. Now, it's trivial to see how many edits are content and how many are redirects, and when/if they came in bursts as with automated editing or what have you. But editcountitis has been a thing as long as edits were counted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I had not seen this discussion, just stumbled on one of them and thought it was a really bad idea, that if applied widely, would result in thousands of not useful redirects. Legacypac (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a mistake not to disclose that you have a bomb-shaped camera in your briefcase at the airport before it goes through the scanners. Doesn't matter if it's a perfectly acceptable carry-on -- someone else abused the system and made everyone jumpy. Granted, this is a silly metaphor as the scourge here is pointlessness and the time-consuming chore of pointlessness-cleanup rather than violence, but in this post-Neelix world mass creating redirects is going to draw attention -- and, really, nobody should be surprised about being scrutinized for mass-doing-anything. That said, (a) apparently nobody had ever brought this up as a problem with SST before, (b) he/she created a complete list to facilitate cleanup, and (c) he/she has already offered to stop mass creating redirects and take it through a bot request instead. So the talk of topic bans, AWB access being revoked, etc. seems completely and totally unnecessary. Suggest this be closed with a trout, a suggestion that SST stick to what he/she is saying here, and the debate of the merit of the redirects continued at the RfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this. It looks pretty obvious (at least to me) that SST was working in good faith creating these redirects. The issue has been brought to their attention and they've done everything to help. There's a consensus that these shouldn't be created at the rate they've been created at. Maybe they're not needed at all, but that's another discusssion. Now if the mass creation re-starts by the same user, then it becomes an issue. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I agree with the above comments. The issue seems to stem from from an inconsistency in the bot policy. I'll start up an RFC later to try to get that resolved. As far as the redirects go, they are being handled at RFD. As long as SSTflyer keeps the edit speed down in the future and knows not to create controversial redirects with AWB, I think this issue can be resolved without further admin action needed at the moment. Thanks, everyone. -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2016 (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.

Disruptive editing by User:Inorap[edit]

Inorap (talk · contribs) has been changing the rating score at hip hop album articles. For example, the user replaced "7/10" with "{{Rating|3.5|5}}" at Surf (Donnie Trumpet & The Social Experiment album) [23]. Although having been warned by other editors at User talk:Inorap multiple times [24] [25] [26], the user keeps doing these things over and over again [27] [28]. I think it is disruptive behavior and has to be stopped as soon as possible. 153.204.104.88 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Please try to discuss this with the user before bringing it here, in future. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Eyes on User:Aurevoirbronny[edit]

Looking for a quick sanity check on this. This is an account that sprung from nowhere to create article Jason Falinski, a biography of an aspiring politician in Australia. The "bronny" in the username is presumably Bronwyn Bishop, a soon-to-be-ex-MP who has essentially been deposed from her seat by Falinski. Falinski's notability for an article is somewhat contested, although that's not what this is about. What I'm a little more concerned about is that the account managed to pop a serviceable looking article out of nowhere, linked it to a few places, and then disappeared until showing up on their AFD discussion so they could defend it and get in a few cracks at editors for wasting their precious time, without a single newbie error anywhere. Perhaps they've just RTFM, or more likely they've had another account that they're not using for whatever reason. I was tempted to block as an obvious sock account, especially as User:AusLondonder evidently came to a similar conclusion here, but I am somewhat peripherally involved so I'm bringing it here for further review. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC).

I think it's obvious this is a WP:SOCK. I have no personal affection for Bronwyn Bishop but this account is WP:NOTHERE - "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia: Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance", "Dishonest and gaming behaviour: gaming the system, socking, and other forms of editorial dishonesty" and "Narrow self-interest or promotion of themselves or their business: Narrow self-interested or promotional activity". The experienced editing including use of templates is shown here and also discussed here AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Proxy IP blocking[edit]

IP's blocked by Ponyo as proxies. (non-admin closure) --Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:02, 12 May 2016 (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.

IP 103.18.58.198 vandalised my userpage for some reason (I have no clue what I did to provoke anyone, aside perhaps from this), and soon afterward, I got more vandalism from IP 185.2.137.220. The two IPs' "Geolocate" links produce radically different results: 103 is from New Zealand, and 185 is from the UK, but it's obviously the same person. Is this sufficient grounds for blocking either one, or both, as proxy servers? And for how long do we generally block them? I remember that we used to block them indefinitely, but (1) that was years before we had ProcseeBot, and (2) we tend to be more hesitant on indefinite blocks than we were ten years ago. No real point in notifying, since I'm not seeking sanctions for petty vandalism at this point; I'm just trying to get the proxy shut down. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

103.18.58.198 reverse DNS's to VPS City and 185.2.137.220.ipaddress.com to gmchosting.com. I believe that's sufficient to ask for a proxy block. --Yamla (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
They're both open proxies. I've blocked them.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:56, 10 May 2016 (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: Radyanskysoldativ[edit]

Editor indeffed for sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) GABHello! 21:17, 10 May 2016 (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.

Does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. Has been blocked previously, possibly a block of indefinite duration needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Editor was blocked for sockpuppetry. Is there evidence that it's continuing and what other problems are there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
    Today they appeared from nowhere and reverted sourced material in at least two pages (repeating a similar reverts of a user whom I blocked earlier today). [29], [30] Besides, they have a talk page full of warnings, and I do not see them ever discussing anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This user is clearly affiliated with User:AnnaRedko89 in some way. They share quite a few articles. Radyanskysoldativ also seems to come to the aid of AnnaRedko89 when they are reverted, and they edit in the same way, i.e removing sourced material claiming it propaganda, etc. Eik Corell (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I blocked earlier today User:AnnaRedko89 for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The two accounts are  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2016 (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.

Abuse By Yamla[edit]

Block evasion fixed by rangeblock. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:55, 10 May 2016 (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.

User:Yamla had been abused me for quite a while. he revert my editing work and He's such a abusive and possessive monster I've have ever interacted with. And therefore I'm absolutely not a sock puppet of my user account Moatassemakmal. He's not a wiki material and not trustworthy to others. Also his behavior became very erratic and aggressive and his anti-vandalism and irrelevant blocking was unsanitary. I regret all of you to remove him from Wikipedia at once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.134.119.214 (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I can see the headline in Wired now: Wikipedia guilty of unsanitary blocking. 15 cases of salmonella reported so far.

John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Moatassemakmal has issued threats of violence as well as a death threat against Yamla just last month. At first, I could have put it down to incompetence, but going over the top in to threats is beyond the pale. I say just drop the site ban and be done with it. Blackmane (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Moatassemakmal (talk · contribs) continues to edit despite his block. Note that his threat was actually issued against Bearcat (talk · contribs) rather than me. Bearcat's actually going out of his way to determine whether leave my reverts in place or whether the edits should be reintroduced. Moatassemakmal has an unfortunate history of mixing valid edits with misinformation, so Bearcat's efforts are non-trivial. For what little my vote counts, I strongly endorse a site ban. Moatassemakmal's vandalism and ban evasion stretch back years. Note that I am not even the original blocking admin. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The OP has a longstanding pattern of being unproductive and uncollaborative in their editing patterns — while certainly some of the edits they make are legitimate ones, many others are not. Even the legitimate edits very often require somebody else to come in after the fact to clean up formatting errors (I once had to spend an entire afternoon repairing the member tables on a whole series of Canadian provincial electoral district articles, where the information Mo had added was legitimate but the formatting of the edits had broken the table coding) — and with the incorrect or unproductive edits, if they're undone then Mo has a habit of ignoring any explanation they're given for why the edit was unhelpful or incorrect, and stubbornly and persistently reinserting the same unproductive edit again.
And if any page they wanted to edit was pageprotected for some reason, then instead of following the proper edit request process — providing the information you want to see changed, so that somebody who can get past the editblock can make the desired edit if it's appropriate — they would stubbornly and persistently misuse the edit request process to demand total unprotection of the page without actually providing any details of the specific edit they actually wanted. And when that request would be inevitably refused by one of several administrators, they would ignore the explanation they were given, and then simply make the same "unprotect please, reason = because I asked" request again two or three days later.
Then, after this had gone on for far too many months they started expanding the unprotection requests to user talk pages, still without actually accommodating anything they'd been told about how the edit request process actually works. The actual protecting admin in one case was an editor who has since resigned the admin function, and thus didn't even have the ability to do anything about the page protection anymore — but no matter how many times that editor explained that they weren't an admin anymore and couldn't do anything, Mo would simply ignore that response and harass that admin again two or three days later. And as already noted by Yamla above, in my case Mo actually escalated the harassment into a full-on death threat (as well as numerous other less consequential but still uncivil insults to my intelligence and integrity.)
In one case, after several months of this I did finally manage to get Mo to provide the specific details of a specific edit they wanted to make — and since the edit was legitimate, I applied it to the article accordingly. But even then, Mo had only given me one detail out of several other changes that they wanted to make to the article — so instead of putting the issue to bed or demonstrating that they had actually learned how to format a proper edit request, they simply started harassing me again with the same "unprotect please, reason = because I asked" requests, still pertaining to the same page and still without actually specifying any of the desired further changes.
This is not the behavior of a person who deserves to be treated as a contributor in good standing — this is the behavior of an unproductive and uncollaborative editor who has very much earned a system ban. So "abuse by Yamla" is not an accurate summary of the situation: Yamla's acting properly in response to the situation, and the OP is simply trying to evade the legitimate consequences of their own behavior. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2016 (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 attack by User:80.245.197.109 on Talk:Synthesizer[edit]

The complaint has no merit, and is dismissed. However, the editor who posted the complaint is warned about disruptive editing of various kinds.JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2016 (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 Talk page of article Synthesizer, an IP user 80.245.197.109 (or similar addresses) secretly substituted the issue of detailed explanation into the English grammar problem, and he is doing a personal attack since one year ago. How to stop this long-term personal attacks by specific IP user ? I'm glad if you suggested me several advices or comments. --Clusternote (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It is customary, nay, obligatory (and for good reason) to notify the user you are complaining about. I have done so for you. It is also customary to include a number of links to (alleged) transgressions and I note a glaring lack thereof. Moreover, a cursory glance at the talk page you reference, does not bring to light any personal attacks, let alone a pattern of personal attacks reaching back a year. I suggest you reconsider this ANI-request, since in my opinion, it's going nowhere, very, very fast. Kleuske (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It is not entirely clear what Clusternote means, as his or her English is in places incomprehensible: for example, what is "substituted the issue of detailed explanation into the English grammar problem" supposed to mean? However, the following two facts are clear: (1) Clusternote accuses an IP editor of making personal attacks in the Talk:Synthesizer page, and (2) he/she claims that the IP editor has done something on that page "secretly". I have looked at every IP edit to that page since the beginning of 2003, and there is no sign of anything that could reasonably be regarded as a personal attack, nor is there anything there which is done in any way which could be regarded as "secret". However, looking not only at that page, but also at related editing in other places, such as on Clusternote's talk page, I see that Clusternote has a long history of disruptive editing, including, but not restricted to, the following: persistently replacing perfectly good English in articles with stuff which is not English, and for some reason refusing to accept being informed by native English speakers that he/she has done so; showing an ownership attitude to certain articles; edit warring; refusal or inability to act collaboratively with other editors when there are disagreements; making unfounded accusations against other editors (this report being a case in point). Clusternote, if you continue to do any or all of the kinds of disruptive editing that you have been doing, you may well find yourself blocked from editing before long. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2016 (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.

Acción de un Global sysop en Nah.wikipedia[edit]

(nonadmin closure) Not a ANI matter. OP is referred to MetaWiki and the Stewards who can (hopefully) help him. Kleuske (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2016 (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.

Hi everyone! I’m looking for a Global sysop that can attend this case, needed speak spanish because all disscusion is in spanish. Thanks.

Offender: {{nah:user:Marrovi}}

Proyect: Nah:wikipedia (few sysops; actually just me)

Presento dos denuncias juntas para que quede todo reunido el caso Marrovi:

1.-Calumnia y agresiones en mi contra.

Después de un proceso desgastante de revisiones y correcciones en Mantenimiento artículos de Marrovi debido a esta resolución donde ha quedado demostrado y confirmado por las actitudes del mismo usuario Marrovi que mi primer comentario CONSENSO PARA EL BORRADO DE DATOS era acertado, donde se describió su manera de proceder y trabajar en el pasado y que lo ha repetido todo durante ese proceso de mantenimiento que aún continúa. Es decir, si así fue en el pasado y continúa siendo ahora, en el futuro no podemos esperar que cambie. Él mismo ha continuado y traído la discusión a la nah.wikipedia, le pedí amablemente que tachara sus cometarios agresivos en contra de mí, lo cual se niega hacer.

Las agresiones y acusaciones en mi contra se dieron desde Consulta de borrado por argumentación:Comarca de Teotlalpan, donde se puede ver tanto mi actuación como la de él. Ahí claramente se ve que en lugar de argumentar por qué debía permanecer el artículo, busco rescatarlo con trucos y comenzó con intrigas diciendo por donde vienen los ataques… porque a un usuario le guste o no su contenido. Durante la misma consulta también señaló esto el acusante parece ser que solo se ha encaprichado en borrar el artículo… tal vez estoy mal pero veo muy negativa su actitud… Esto es lo que en posgrado conocemos como guerra sucia, además en la página de discusión del usuario Strakhov [31] me acusaba de conspirar con el usuario Lin linao, lo que también hizo en la consulta de borrado.

Ante tales calumnias yo le pedí moderación aquí, lo que él tomó como una amenaza, y lo ha difundido así tomando la postura de víctima.

Después de la decisión del borrado de Comarca de Teotlalpan y demostrarse un mal uso y entendimiento de este término, procedí a corregir otras páginas borrando los enlaces (ya innecesarios) que redirigían a esa página. Usuario Marrovi entonces me reporta ante el bibliotecario Taichi acusándome de borrar información a mi antojo, nuevamente esto es una calumnia de su parte contra mí.

Lo anterior me llevó a establecer el precedente y desenmascarar a Marrovi, CONSENSO DEL BORRADO DE DATOS lo que algunos vieron como un foreo era, y es en realidad un marco referencial, donde queda establecido que se puede esperar de él, y como arriba lo digo, él sigue demostrando y confirmando todo lo dicho ahí. En la lectura cuidadosa de mi comentario cualquiera podrá ver que no expreso ni odio ni resentimiento como trata de achacármelo Marrovi, muy por el contrario, él si muestra resentimiento y coraje contra mí en sus comentarios aquí me llama chismoso, aquí dice: lo él no es capaz de dar respeto, y todavía lo exije como si tiviera una larga cola que le pisen y ahora lo hace haciendo uso de su poder. y aquí dice: Eso para mí me llenó de coraje y rabia. Ante tales ofensas ya procedía una denuncia, sin embargo, decido hablar con él para pedirle que se enfoque en corregir sus contribuciones y (a pesar de su insistencia en acusarme) le digo que no tengo interés en denunciarlo, lo cual cumplo en ese momento.

Después de la intervención de varios bibliotecarios para encauzarlo, comienza a despotricar haciendo acusaciones de conspiración en su contra, hablando de circo y teatro y uso de influencias (nuevas calumnias). Ante la exigencia al apego de las normas de etiqueta tacha algunos comentarios insolentes, únicamente los de las personas con cargo que lo amenazaron con denunciarlo en el tablón, en mi caso, nunca dejo de señalarme como el que dirige “una campaña en su contra”: los argumentos de ataque que realizó un usuario en muchos artículos que edité, este tipo se llenó de odio hacia mi persona, buscó todo lo posible en Wikipedia para hacer leña de árbol y promover el desprestigio.

Por la naturaleza del trabajo de mantenimiento, es necesario señalar los errores, cosa que no le agrada en lo personal a Marrovi, este proceso él lo considera como “hacer leña del árbol caído”, él siente que quienes intervenimos lo hacemos con “saña, con burla, con la intención de desprestigiarlo”. En su desesperación se ha enfocado en arrastrarme trayendo la discusión a la nah.wikipedia e intentando provocarme, continuando con señalamientos y acusaciones, lo cual ya no voy a seguir aguantando.

El usuario Marrovi también argumenta contra mí que “ataco a su familia”. Aquí el asunto es que como también se comprobó en el proceso de revisión de sus contribuciones, Marrovi usó la Wikipedia para [promocionarse], como obvia consecuencia, era necesario mencionar aspectos acerca de la persona (no del wikipedista) y corregir la interpretación que él mismo hacia de sus antepasados, que de hecho sigue insistiendo hasta el momento, afirmando que tiene una relevante influencia sefardí (judía) en su región natal y en su familia, aspectos como costumbres, el habla, la gastronomía, cuando en realidad es resultado del mestizaje cultural.

Solicito que detengan al usuario Marrovi en su carrera de calumnias en mi contra, que deje de acusarme por un proceso que es resultado de su propio proceder y cuyas consecuencias tiene que enfrentar. Siento que a estas alturas es necesaria ya una disculpa de su parte. A la vez debe tachar los comentarios que puso en su página de usuario.

2.- Abuso de los recursos de Wikimedia y manipulación de las reglas de wikipedia.

Queda comprobado por las wikis en español, alemán, italiano, catalán y portugués que Marrovi las ha utilizado para auto-promocionarse, a la vez que ha roto las reglas en un par de ellas quedando bloqueada su actividad indefinidamente. La situación con la nah.wikipedia no es muy diferente.

Tres acciones que merecen sanción:

2.1.- Borrado intencional de páginas de discusión para ocultar información, acciones que deben ser revertidas pues afecta la secuencia de las mismas. Ya en la es.wikipedia lo había hecho y se le explicó que esas acciones no eran permitidas y en caso de continuar sería sancionado. Aún mantiene borrado parte de su página de discusión (año 2013) como puede verse aquí.

2.2.- Manipulación de votaciones. Lo mismo hizo en es.wikipedia (29-SEPT-2012) y al comprobarse que utilizó “títeres” para favorecer su decisión, fue bloqueado. En nah.wikipedia quiso cambiar el sistema de escritura establecido por consenso en 2007 (en el cual participó y acepto a regañadientes) esperó pacientemente a no tener oposición para imponer su “ideal de escritura”; a falta de participantes en wikipedia recurrió a la red social Facebook donde lo puso a votación, es decir, que las redes sociales decidan las políticas de wikipedia. Esto no fue más que un engaño pues las personas del Facebook no son especialistas del tema, son gente ordinaria y ninguno de ellos en realidad colabora en la nah.wikipedia. Sin embargo, consiguió otras dos personas que votaran, ahora sí en nah.wikipedia, para establecer su opinión, teniendo un voto en contra. Él dice que esto fue democrático… ¿una votación de cuatro personas para un portal que tiene más de cien miembros? ¿cuál es la decisión de esa mayoría? ¿por qué no votaron? Lo más decepcionante de esta situación es que la resolución ni siquiera la están ejecutando, la estandarización ortográfica que pretendían no se ve por ningún lado, nadie la está realizando, claramente se ven tres sistemas de escritura diferente.

3.2.- Acusaciones, calumnias y agresiones cross-wiki.

A pesar de estar bloqueado en es.wikipedia y nah.wikipedia, ha utilizado espacios de discusión de otros usuarios en varios proyectos para difamar a quienes intervinieron en la corrección de sus errores: En en.wikipedia página de usuario Maunus; en.wikipedia página de usuario Salvador alc; en wikimedia las acusaciones son más fuertes en la página de usuario Marco Aurelio; aún peor todo lo que ha dicho a manera de catarsis en la página de discusión de usuario Nobita.

Esto es sólo un ejemplo de toda una serie de irregularidades en la nah.wikipedia, donde todos pueden escribir lo que quieran y como quieran; no hay revisiones ni coordinación. Este portal necesita urgentemente una auditoria pues da al mundo una imagen mala de Wikimedia; ¿wikimedia sirve de instrumento para un solo usuario (Marrovi)? ¿cómo es que Wikimedia permite que exista una wikipedia tan manipulable?

Mi solicitud es que un Global sysop o Steward revise este caso y si coincide con mi visión, ejercer un bloqueo permanente al usuario Marrovi.

Saludos. --Akapochtli (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it. Since all most of your links are to the Spanish WP, that is where you should take your complaints. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Ummm... I think Akapochtli is a user on a small Wiki and is requesting assistance. I think pointing Akapochtli to meta and it's Stewards may be a better idea. They can actually help him. Kleuske (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2016 (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.

Kleuske was trying to provide a link to the Nahuatl Wkipedia (Nahuatl). David Biddulph (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Harassment, lies, and threat by Ian.thomson[edit]

OP warned by Bishonen.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2016 (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 added valuable and informative content to the article Testament of Solomon, and to a much lesser extent, the article Little Nicky. Like the majority of additions that people make to Wikipedia, I did not include sources with those contributions. The user Ian.thompson deleted a large part of my contributions to Testament of Solomon (quotes from the Koran, in particular), which in itself is not a violation of any rules, but then he wikistalked me to Little Nicky, where he deleted my most important contribution to that article, and stated a falsehood in his edit summary while doing so[32] (the truth is that only Little Nicky and the english translation of the Testament of Solomon use the word "flask" for this purpose; no one else does so). Wikistalking harassment is of course agianst the rules, but that was just the beginning of Ian.thomson's bad behavior.

After I mentioned Ian's wikistalking behavior in an edit summary, Ian lied (in violation of the civility policy) on my talk page by saying that pointing out wikistalking is an "accusation" and that it violates the Assume Good Faith policy.[33] Wikistalking is of course an action, not a motive, so AGF has nothing to do with it, and Ian of course knows that.

Multiple times on my talk page, Ian posted half-truths by mentioning various Wikipedia policies while deliberately omitting any mention of the overriding Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia or Ignore All Rules. My edits to the Testament of Solomon that Ian deleted were major improvements, and could be verified by examining the primary sources, so that is clearly a case where IAR applies. Deleting valuable content is one thing; lying by saying that that content violates the rules is another. But this is a relatively minor offense compared to Ian's other actions.

I attempted to appease Ian by restoring my edit to Little Nicky with the 'citation needed' tag added, and by refraining from restoring the Koran quotes that Ian deleted from Testament of Solomon; but because I added other valuable information to Testament of Solomon without sources,[34] that violated Ian's highly sensitive sense of dominance over me, so he aggressively asserted his dominance by deleting the new and important information that I had added, and by deleting other important information that I had added earlier (namely, the mention of the Koran's verses that are based upon the Testament of Solomon), which he had thus far refrained from deleting, all in one edit[35] (along with some other text that I did not add), which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Ian's motive is personal.

But even deleting all of those valuable contributions was not enough to satisfy Ian's sense of dominance; he followed it up by threatenning to block me on my talk page. [36] He said that if I continue to add content without sources, then I would be blocked. That is despite the fact that making unsourced contributions is not one of the grounds for blocking, and it is something that most edittors do; and Ian, as an admin, must be well aware of that fact, so he is lying about Wikipedia's blocking policy. Furthermore, Ian is involved in a content dispute with me, so it would be a conflict of interest for him to block me anyway- a fact which he deliberately omitted. Ian is thus working under the false assumption that I am completely ignorant of Wikipedia's policies, and that I will believe anything that he tells me about said policies. The fact that Ian is an admin, who is lying about the blocking policy, and threatenning to block a user based upon those lies, means that he should be summarily de-sysopped. The irony is that harassing a person, as Ian is doing, is itself grounds for being blocked.

Normally I would respond to Ian's lies by talking to him one-on-one on my talk page, as per the typical dispute resolution process, but the fact that he has threatenned to block me under false pretenses, simply because I contributed valuable information to Wikipedia, means that I have no idea what he might use as an excuse to block me, so I must play it safe by reporting his actions here first before engaging him directly.

I also noticed on Ian's talk page that he has some hostility toward scholars ("Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars"), and my username makes it clear that I am one, so that could factor into Ian's exceptional hostility toward me. I also saw on Ian's user page that he identifies as a 'wiki badger', which is a person who persistently harasses other users; so apparently he wears his uncivil harassment behavior as a badge of pride. Any edittor who identifies as a wiki badger should be monitored by the admins, so that said admins can intervene against their badgering behavior when it occurs.

Some religion scholar (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You failed to notify @Ian.thomson: with the {{subst:ANI-notice}}Template. I have done so for you --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks like you did right before I clicked save page. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)Reading through this, Ian.Thomson who is an administrator was in line with WP:BLOCKDETERRENT which says blocks should "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; or deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior;" Adding unsourced information repetitively after warning could be sen as disruptive (Personally I see it this way especially after a warning). You also need to provide sources per WP:PROVEIT. As far as WP:IAR it is for as long as you are improving wikipedia. I don't see how unsourced, unverified information is improving an article. And The Fifth Pillar says about Wikipedia policies "their content and interpretation can evolve over time", It could just be Ian's interpretation. Also accusing him of lying is definitely not civil or Assuming Goof Faith. As for Wikistalking you, when administrators or other users see an issue on a page caused by another contributor they will go and look through that contributors edits and check for the same problem, it isn't that unusual. Just be advised wp:boomerang does exist. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You might want to start proving your good faith by renouncing the word lies. Otherwise we might be tempted to conclude that you have a big chip on your shoulder. It's also a little unusual to see a user with 40 edits who is so adept at linking diffs and using wiki-jargon like "desysop" and IAR. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @Some religion scholar: You're a new editor. You also seem to have only one focus at Wikipedia. Ian is a very experienced editor. You're accusing him of all sorts of nefarious motives and actions only because he is trying to get you to comply with Wikipedia policies, one of which is not to add unsourced material to articles. Whether you're right is irrelevant. Unless you have a reliable source to support your material - and putting in a CN tag doesn't help - don't add it. At this point, you're very fortunate you haven't been blocked for your disruptive editing and attitude. But if you persist, it's a fair bet you will be. By the way, a wiki badger doesn't mean at all what you think it does. It's a humorous term and has no sinister implications.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) The order of events as I've seen them:
As for OP's claims here: arguing "Like the majority of additions that people make to Wikipedia, I did not include sources with those contributions" goes against WP:V and WP:BURDEN. By the same logic, we get lots of vandalism and advertising, so WP:VAND and WP:NOTPROMO must not be policies. WP:IAR is not a carte blanche. User's post here fails WP:AGF just as his actions elsewhere fail WP:V. I'm not going to call for a WP:BOOMERANG (though his arguments have been a bit WP:PRECOCIOUS), but someone needs to drill at least those two policies into his head.
Also, @Some religion scholar: the blocking policy lists "breaching the policies or guidelines," under "the Disruption section. You, by your own admission, have repeatedly breached WP:V. Temporary blocks for repeatedly adding the same unsourced content over and over do happen. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) It's obvious to me that this complaint has no merit. Ian.thomson did what may be expected from a experienced wikipedian and is not to blame. The groundless assertions/accusations in the title of this complaint do make me lean towards WP:BOOMERANG for being disruptive. Kleuske (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC) (WikiDragon)
  • User:Some religion scholar misunderstands WP:HOUND. It's perfectly proper to track a user's edits if one sees cause for concern; the "User contributions" button is there for a reason. And they completely misunderstand WP:IAR, as has been pointed out above. Ian Thomson has been patient with them and has given them detailed information about site policies and practices — handcrafted information, not templated — and by way of thanks, they launch accusations of "lying" and other silliness. I've warned the user on their page that if there's any more of this, I'll block. I should think this thread can be closed now. PS, not a very good job giving the report "an informative, neutral title", btw. Bishonen | talk 10:07, 11 May 2016 (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.

RFA ?[edit]

"User blocked, page deleted SQLQuery me! 05:44, 12 May 2016 (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.

Hi, Umm can someone look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Davey2010 ..... I have no idea who the bloke is and have provided no answers (nor was I even asked) ....., Not sure if they're trolling or what ....., Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 05:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Davey2010 - I just noticed that too. I'm tagging it for CSD. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Davey2010 - The page has been deleted. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah brilliant thank you, I've just noticed they were reported at AIV too, Anyway thanks Oshwah & SQL for your help. –Davey2010Talk 05:48, 12 May 2016 (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.

not showing in the source[edit]

Problem fixed by Oshwah Omni Flames let's talk about it 11:00, 12 May 2016 (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.

in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft it said "Markus "Notch" Persson began developing the game as an independent project while working for King.com and later jAlbum." according to this sources http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27719/Interview_Markus_Notch_Persson_Talks_Making_Minecraft.php and https://minecraft.net/en/ which is not showing according to the sources please fix it or give source that supporting this claim. im posting here cuz i made comment on the talk page long time ago which was not answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.138.11 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done (diff). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
the claim is still not found in the source you just delete the part that he develop it while he was working for King.com and later jAlbum but even the part that he developed it alone not showing in the source please fix it or give other source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.136.138 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 Done I have removed the implication that the game was started individually (see diff). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:39, 12 May 2016 (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:159.15.129.71 is on some sort of homicidal mission[edit]

I have it on good authority that Iridescent is not on this planet. We can all therefore breathe a sigh of relief.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2016 (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.

They're replacing race summaries in various Grands Prix of 1975 with rantings about decapitating us and leaving Wikipedia edited by limbless torsos.I would report them to Wikimedia but I don't believe 'I will kill every Wikipedian on the planet by cutting off their heads and hands' is really a credible threat. If someone could block them and send them to the nearest big house with white padded walls,that would be nice. Thank you :) Lemon martini (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverted, blocked, ignored. The IP belongs to Devon Council (probably a library terminal rather than an actual council employee); I've given a longer-than-usual block for a week to give them time to find a new hobby. ‑ Iridescent 10:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't always assume it's not credible... Face-wink.svg GRAPPLE X 10:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll take my chances. ‑ Iridescent 10:52, 11 May 2016 (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.

Attacker of Tim Lincecum[edit]

IP editor 2600:1001:B010:2138:AC44:B2EA:91C5:ACA3 keeps editing Tim Lincecum to change his team from free agent to New York Yankees. According to Google news searches he is still a free agent; the most recent news is now 9 hours old and that he might be under consideration by the Boston Red Sox. Nothing about Yankees. So it is vandalism, five times in less than half an hour. See, e.g. this editAnomalocaris (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is already protected using pending changes and so any edits by the IP would have to be accepted. I think at this stage it's simplest to just revert their edits and not accept them if they are changes that are not supported by reliable sources. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
If it persists, you could ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Googling the subject gives no indication that the Yankees are intending to sign him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
This seems to have stopped for now, so no action is needed at this point. I have seen cases where IP users repeatedly vandalize articles, and their IP addresses get blocked for awhile. Is this the page to request IP blocking, and if not, where is that page? Please be aware that vandalizing protected pages creates a burden on reviewers, so sometimes IP blocking can be an additional tool, and may even help convert the vandal to a beneficial contributor to Wikipedia. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
While you can report IPs or users here, the best thing to do here (where the edits are clearly unsourced) is to use warning templates, and after reaching a level 4 warning, report the offender to WP:AIV. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Godsy/sandbox should be promptly closed per Speedy Keep #2.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the latest edition of Godsy's stalking my edits. No reason he needs a hit list of articles I worked on he wants to kill. For several weeks a remarkable number of pages I touch are promptly touched by Godsy - to the point I believe he checks every edit I make. He has moved many pages back into stale userspace instead of improving them. This is deletion without discussion. The correct action, if one thinks a page needs more refs, is to tag or better yet add the refs, especially on uncontroversal topics like a civil war regiment [37] or a museum page in the middle of an AfD. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The only thing I've done is fix unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and correct related problems on multiple articles. You continually disregard WP:STALEDRAFT, by moving content to the mainspace that is unsuitable for it (e.g. User:Abrsinha/Beohar Rammanohar Sinha, Special:Diff/705686655), and have even went as far as moving pages to the mainspace and subsequently personally nominated them for deletion (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard d'Anjolell). You have also moved pages from the userspace of active users (e.g. User:ONUnicorn/Browning Hill Research, User talk:Legacypac#Browning Hill). Lastly, you fail to do basic cleanup of the content you move to the mainspace (e.g. activating categories, fixing obvious manual of style and format errors, etc.), which I've kindly taken up the task of doing. Your nomination of my sandbox is solely to provide a forum for disruption and to harass me.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
It is Godsy that is harassing me. Bringing up two old moves I AfD'd as clearly stated tests that have already been discussed extensively is pretty dumb. As I've pointed out to Godsy - there are over 200,000 pages tagged as having no sources, yet he only focuses on stale drafts I've moved into mainspace that usually contain uncontroversal info that can be easily sourced. Many other editors are happy to perform tagging and cleanup on new pages, but very few editors are skilled at daylighting stale drafts with potential. If I was responsible to get every article I touch up to Good Article status I'd never make much progress on sifting the good stuff from the crap/blank/attack/prohibited copies/etc in userspace. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
And a page that looks like this [38] when I found it amd responds to multiple Redlinks is not "Unsuitable". Now it turns out another editor found some copyvio and deleted that instead of rewriting it, but that is why we work cooperatively. Someone else could restore and rewrite... Except Godsy has relegated the whole page to stale userspace without notice or XfD. Legacypac (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
For example, User:Admfirepanther/The Genius Files (Special:Diff/706182169) then (not that introducing a copyvio into the mainspace is commendable), un-sourced (except to itself) and seemingly un-notable. The problem is, content fails the criteria by which it can be moved to the mainspace, until it is up to a certain standard (i.e. meeting the core content policies and the notability policy). I simply follow the stale draft guideline and occasionally invoke BRD. If you disagree with the stale draft guideline, feel free to propose a change to it.Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Godsy does not understand the stale draft guideline and sets a standard for mainspace on articles I daylight that other articles are not required to meet. His actions to rebury content do not improve the encyclopedia for the reader. His restoration of deleted pages into stale userspace does not help the encyclopidia. He is simply harrasising me and whenever I pish back, he drags me to ANi. His latest example is a book series by an author with his own page and pages on most of his other books. If the book series is really not notable as he claims, nominate it for deletion already or better redirect the title amd merge the content to the author's page. Sending the page back into stale draft space and deleting the title helps no one. User_talk:Admfirepanther/The_Genius_Files Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Process is important, and I follow it. "whenever I pish back": Wikipedia is not a battleground. The only other time I've "drag[ged]" you to AN/I is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Userspace subpages issue.Godsy(TALKCONT) 10:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Godsy should Find some other user to stalk. Process for the sake of process to acbeive a bad result is not important, it's stupid and disruptive. Godsy has been callimg my page moves "undiscussed" like somehow I'm supposed to discuss moving a stale user draft on it's talk page with myself. Yet he is moving many articles out of mainspace without any discussion. I think Godsy should be required to seek consensus on the article talk page, or run the page through AfD before he moves a page into someone else's (usually long gone editor) userspace. Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) B- Your moves are unquestionably bold R- Bold edits are often reverted D- You asked me on my talk page and I told you I'd gladly discuss any reverted move with you; Bold, Revert, Discuss. "I consider review of Legacypac's edits to be entirely properly, given that he has previously done bold-bad things", part of the opinion of someone at the MfD.