Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive930

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Disclosure of personal information[edit]

Mad666paul blocked indefinitely by Floquenbeam and the edit in question has been deleted. In the future, everyone is advised to email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org for dealing with personal information. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:35, 27 July 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 please take a look at the edit by user:Mad666paul on the Talk page of user:Epipelagic. Although the content is extremely "unusual", my concern is that Mad666paul reveals detailed information about where they live. In the UK, a postcode can sometimes refer to just a few houses. They also give the name of the road on which they live. I think this post needs reverting to protect someone who may be vulnerable at this moment in time. I have not pinged Mad666paul as I fear this might cause them undue alarm. 14:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

OS may be appropriate here. BTW DrChrissy if you think someone is giving out private information as is the case here, email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org to deal with it privately. Zerotalk 14:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that, I suspected there might be a method of doing it privately rather than drawing public attention to it. I will follow your advice, so this thread can be closed. DrChrissy (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, that's a good idea - do link to these diffs on here too just in case these need suppressing too. Zerotalk 14:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I deliberately did not link to the single edit as I did not want to leave another trail of information. I have e-mailed the oversight team so it is in their hands now. Thanks for the advice. DrChrissy (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem has now been addressed by @Floquenbeam: - thanks. If there is any merit in having this thread suppressed, I would not object. DrChrissy (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
No reason to suppress this thread, but (as Dr Chrissy acknowledges, but which bears repeating for anyone reading this) please report oversight/revdel requests privately; I suspect ANI is the most highly watched page on the project. Everything that I think needed revision deletion has been revdel'd; I don't think Oversight is needed. Also blocked Mad666paul. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this Floquenbeam. This thread can now be closed officially I reckon. Zerotalk 15:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Also you can always ask for oversight on WP:IRC in #Wikipedia-en-revdel --Cameron11598 (Talk) 15:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
As a remark, there is information provided in the editnotice for this page about how to contact oversighters privately. BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out Beth and others. I was unsure of how much of a problem this disclosure was which is why I posed it as a question here - I think next time (if there is one) I will go straight to oversight. It sounds like is the safest default in such cases. DrChrissy (talk) 16:32, 27 July 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.

Require Conflict Resolution Skills[edit]

OP blocked for ban evasion -- samtar talk or stalk 19:47, 27 July 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knanaya#Requesting_an_Admin_for_Conflict_Resolution 117.213.23.76 (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC) Help required: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Knanaya&diff=731827096&oldid=731826569 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.23.76 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparent sock of banned user. TimothyJosephWood 19:46, 27 July 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 Md.Samiulali.37[edit]

NAC: Handled by Bishonen. Kleuske (talk) 11:13, 28 July 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.

Md.Samiulali.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) recreated Pirgacha Govt. Primary School which was deleted after an AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirgacha Govt. Primary School - I tagged for deletion G4, but user has deleted the speedy tag at least 6 times. Article creator User:Md.Samiulali.37 appears to be a duck-sockpuppet of User:Md Samiul Ali Pramanik who created the previous article, and was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Mohammed Samiul Ali - All have similar names and only edit articles on schools in Lahiripara Union, Bangladesh. - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Blocked and tagged, page deleted. Thank you, Arjayay. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 28 July 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.

Block these users[edit]

NO ACTION
(non-admin closure) No evidence of sockpuppetry. OP should read WP:BLPPROD and WP:HSOCK. Linguist 111 talk 12:31, 28 July 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.

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen! I'm Ardi from Indonesia, sorry to bother all of you for a while, can you block these users Adam Aflah (talk · contribs) and Armano Hakiim (talk · contribs)? Because they're possible sockpuppets of Adam aflah (talk · contribs) (which is a vandalism-only account). Sorry for my possibly bad English. Thanks. ArdiPras95 (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Normally, sockpuppets are reported to WP:SPI. Anyway, do you have any more evidence than just usernames? Such as examples of how the vandalism looks similar. Admins can't just go blocking accounts because they have a similar username to a blocked account. They have to have proof that they're related. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. ArdiPras95, you have provided no evidence and I have not found any. And please stop BLPPRODding articles that have sources. --NeilN talk to me 08:43, 28 July 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 Sadpopsicle vandalism only account[edit]

User blocked and threats taken care of for now. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:54, 28 July 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.

Sadpopsicle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) editing only consists of vandalizing articles and personal attacks. Jim1138 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed. Usually, WP:AIV is the place for these kinds of reports. --NeilN talk to me 08:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The user has also made death threats. How do I report this as an emergency? Linguist 111 talk 08:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
See WP:EMERGENCY or this page's edit notice. NeilN talk to me 09:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I've sent an email. Linguist 111 talk 09:46, 28 July 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:173.66.114.253[edit]

(non-admin closure) IP Blocked for one year per User:NeilN. Dane2007 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 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.

This IP address has repeatedly violated wikipedia policies on Tareq Salahi over an extended period of time and appears to have a conflict of interest with the subject. I reverted an edit where they added a nonexistent image (I believe it was deleted due to copyright). The user reverted my edit and violated the no legal threats policy, warning that if I revert again I will face legal action. I have reverted the article again and I am hereby requesting an extended or permanent IP ban for this user. Here is a link to the most recent revision containing the threat. Dane2007 (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked one year. The IP seems fairly static. --NeilN talk to me 01:16, 29 July 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.

POV pushing[edit]

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

A group of editors has made Nikola Tesla article a Serbian fort by reverting every edit that doesn't go along with Serbian nationalistic viewpoint. They've protected the article, protected the talk pages and everyone that tries to edit outside their viewpoint gets banned as one's or another's sock [1], without any SPI or warning, just like that. One should really try to deal with them to understand. I've been dealing with them for much too long and I'll leave this case that made me open this report as a testament.

So this is the case. This RfC was held [2] and an edit had been done [3]. Later on an editor had restored an edit that goes against the consensus [4] and they didn't react until I've reacted here [5]. The consensus was restored. Then we come to this edits from yesterday [6] [7]. Of course that they don't react, but any edit that doesn't go along with Serbian nationalistic viewpoint is reverted immediately.

I won't even try to enforce the consensus. Let this be a testament to their objectivity. It's obvious that they are more organized than an ip that wants to establish a consensus and follow it. Let this be a testament,although this is just a tip of iceberg.141.136.228.99 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Reporter blocked. Same IP range as IPs causing disruption on the talk page, causing it to be protected. --NeilN talk to me 01:21, 29 July 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.

Regarding the page "Lars von Trier"[edit]

Editors need to use Talk:Lars von Trier --NeilN talk to me 01:24, 29 July 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.

The page of the Danish filmmaker and screenwriter Lars von Trier has undergone extensive edits in the past few days, and it appears that Augstn, one of the primary editors, is making counterproductive changes. Problems include reversions of grammatical corrections and instances of borderline-puffery. There has been discussion of it on my talk page. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

He's violated WP:3RR. Reporting. Warning, as he is a new user that likely doesn't know about 3RR. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
He also wasn't welcomed, so I gave him {{welcomelaws}}. Is it ok if this is closed? -- Gestrid (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed there has been a discussion, and I started this discussion because you were deleting and rewriting specific entries without explaining why. Once the talk started you expressed your opinion and so did I. Your opinion had nothing to do with grammatical corrections as you claim: you insist on wanting a specific film of the director to be mentioned on the lead and an award mention to move elsewhere. There is a consensus of 3 users (1 being myself, User:Kinema) and User:Bndktfanta - the only active users editing the page including you) that these opinions you express don't comply with the living persons wikipedia policy that require high-quality citation. You insist on either analyzing the subject based on your opinion, based on criteria that are irrelevant with what is written on the intro or by providing social media and low-quality cites (imdb and rotten tomatoes). 2 more users commented against your arguments on your talk page. Despite this clear consensus you insist on deleting and rewriting the entries, every day, without mentioning what and why you delete and rewrite nor making an argument capable to break the consensus. Augustn 20:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talkcontribs)
There are 4 users, including myself, the past few days trying to correct a very messy wiki entry with extremely poor text, references and structure. Augstn is not the only one. We have corrected endless links and passages, You, AndrewOne have been fixating with 1 line on the lead for the past 5 days and all you have contributed is constantly changing it, even if most of us have disagreed with your POV. I don't understand the basis of your complain. Kinema (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Augstn alleges that none of the edits of mine that he reverted had anything to do with grammatical correction. This is false. Look at his undoing of "revision 731977816", for example. Furthermore, neither Augstn nor Kinema appear to have read my responses on my talk page. AndrewOne (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
That article is an utter mess. Augstn, familiarize yourself with WP:NFCC. Now. All of you, use the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 21:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I was part of the talk and agree with the comments by users Augstn and Kinema. You are a bit off track AndrewOne on this one, instead of writing for the wiki, you keep arguing, against everyone (sorry) Bndktfanta (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
This is what we are trying to do, clean the mess. I did not revert your grammatical corrections, in fact I thanked you for them (publicly). I reverted your constant deletes and re-writings of these 2 lines (just like other users did). The discussion on your Talk page was never about grammatical issues, it was about context as described on my previous comment. Augustn 21:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talkcontribs)
I've removed the NFCC usage violations, the inappropriate formatting, and the inappropriate tagging. Hopefully these won't be restored as the article is improved through consensus and discussion. --NeilN talk to me 21:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Will do User:NeilN. AndrewOne we need your help, not your constant deletion - thanx. Augustn 21:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talkcontribs)
@Kinema, Augstn, and AndrewOne: One suggestion: Look at a good article like Stanley Kubrick and model Lars von Trier after that. --NeilN talk to me 21:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Will do talk to me - Been using Steven Spielberg and Alfred Hitchcock articles as guides so far. Thanks! Augustn 21:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augstn (talkcontribs)

Augstn, you thanked me for a grammatical correction yesterday and reverted another one of mine today. Both had to do with capitalization. I still do not know why you reverted the second of the two.
This is part of a larger problem regarding the article altogether. For example, Augstn also reverted my deletion of a heading that was unnecessary and far too puffery-reminiscent to be encyclopedic. The lead section is poor by the standards of a film director's page. I have been editing film pages for years, and have been familiar with Kubrick's page for a long time. The best way of knowing this issue well, and of understanding how it started, is once again to read the disagreement on my talk page. Thanks, AndrewOne (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
AndrewOne there was no debate about grammatical issues, your arguments were about how well you know the Director and what Rotten tomatoes say about him. On and on. Come on, issue is resolved, keep contributing and lets move on and start making the article better. Lets keep the talking on the articles talk page. Chop chop! Bndktfanta (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
That is false, as my comments touched on far more than that. The issue remains unresolved, because everyone (judging from their comments) seems not to have read the discussion on my talk page, which remains the most informative source on this particular problem. NeilN is correct in asserting that the article in question is now a complete mess. AndrewOne (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
AndrewOne, incidents noticeboard here. Kinema (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
NeilN said that you should stop creating arguments, move your thoughts and concerns on the article's talk page, respect the consensus approach and start writing the article. The page has been a mess for months, and if you insist arguing instead of being creative, it will remain a mess. You are ignoring everyone, including the admin. Kinema (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
1) Yes, please use the article's talk page to centralize content discussion 2) Please stop dividing your posts with ---. Please see WP:INDENT. --NeilN talk to me 22:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
AndrewOne we read your argument and we discussed it with you. It would be better if we moved on now or, if you still believe the issue needs further discussion to have it on the talk page. The Kubrick page reading is an excellent idea btw, except its a dead person biography. any suggestions for a good livin director biography article to study its styleNeilN? Bndktfanta (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Bndktfanta - Aaron Sorkin, Joss Whedon --NeilN talk to me 22:56, 28 July 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.

Possible hacked account[edit]

Talk page of blocked editor has instructions on how to proceed. --NeilN talk to me 04:20, 29 July 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:Kathryn Cartini has made several vandalism edits on 25 July 2016, including my own talk page. This user had been a constructive contributor in the past, courteous and open about their WP:PAID editing, so this recent behaviour is very out of character. Combined with the period of inactivity that preceded it, I'm lead to believe that their account has been hacked. I'm not sure what the protocol is in these circumstances, or if there is anything that can be done to investigate my suspicions. --Drm310 (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2016 (

User:Drm310 this is unbelievable. Received a flood of messages to my inbox. This isn't the only account in jeopardy. Thanks for the alert, and having my back. PLEASE advise on next steps. Kathryn Cartini (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Kathryn Cartini:, compromised accounts are indefinitely blocked as a preventative measure per WP:GOTHACKED. I'd recommend requesting an administrator block your current account and starting a new one with a more secure password. Then just place a link on the new account so that other users know. Blackmane (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. Create a new account, secure it with a good password, and tie a trustworthy email address to the account (that is also secured with a good password) in the event that you must recover it. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Blocked as a preventative measure only. Editor remains in good standing. --NeilN talk to me 04:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Good call, NeilN; thanks for doing that. Kathryn Cartini, ping me on your talk page if you need help with creating a new account. You just need to go here to do it :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Unclosing. The account is not comprised by the information I have unless the person directly accessed the same computer in the same location. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I was informed that this discussion was re-opened. First of all, I should say that I may have inadvertently implied that I confirmed the account to appear to be compromised and that action was needed. I did not check this user's contributions in-depth; I simply pointed Drm310 to create a thread here if he felt that there was a concern, and I gave advice to Kathryn Cartini regarding the need to create another account. Instead of simply deferring the discussion here, I should have helped look in Kathryn Cartini's contributions first and asked Drm310 more questions before recommending that he open an ANI thread. Had I done so, I would have established that there isn't/wasn't evidence to assert or suggest that a blatant account compromise occurred with this user. And for that, I apologize to everyone. I'll make sure to do my part fully before I recommend a discussion like this. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You did nothing wrong, Oshwah. Information came to light that you had no way to foresee. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Oshwah: You did everything right. When a constructive editor suddenly starts vandalizing, WP:AGF dictates we assume loss of control of the account and block because of that. The block can be changed, lifted, or stay in place as further details come to light. --NeilN talk to me 05:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
*Oshwah gives NeilN and Someguy1221 a fist bump* - I appreciate the feedback. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:24, 26 July 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.

Copyright violation at Salvador Dalí[edit]

Copyvio has been removed again, editor has been notified of the problem, and more eyes are on the article now.
(non-admin closure)
Softlavender (talk) 08:14, 29 July 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.

Persistent addition of apparent copyright violation text, as here [8], [9], [10] and [11]. This seems to be identical, whole cloth, to text here [12], which I explained in edit summaries. If I'm in error regarding the copyvio assessment I'd appreciate it; otherwise this really needs to be removed from the article, and rewritten in an acceptable form. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin) It does appear to be a copyvio to me, I've gone ahead and removed the content again per policy and re-linked the source page in the edit summary and commented on Sapphorain's talk page. Given the edit summaries Sapphorain left, I think they just missed the link to all-art.org in the first edit summary that pointed out the copyvio. Provided they don't restore the copyvio content again, I'd say it's just a simple mistake and nothing to see here. Waggie (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Waggie. You're probably correct, but after four reversions and two different editors, I thought it was time to solicit further assistance, rather than edit warring. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:64A2:63B:81A0:A51F (talk) 18:05, 27 July 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.

Unilateral repeated removal of images[edit]

Speaking as an admin here, I see no reason for admin intervention. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 28 July 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.

Was doing general upkeep on Gender, Gender role, and Sex and gender distinction yesterday morning: minor c/e, sister project links, images and the like. Ryk72 (previously indeffed under Gamergate DS) came across the Sex and gender distinction article and was having none of it.

First they removed literally every image from the article. I reverted and attempted to address on their talk. And apparently they have returned this morning to again remove every image from the article, undoing six edits, and also removing {{Portal|LGBT|Transgender}}. Particularly relevant, they also removed an overlay of the Trans and Genderqueer pride flags...from a section entitled "Transgender and genderqueer" ...which...just makes no sense at all. (Note: my last revert on this article was an unexplained removal of text by an IP, not a revert of this user.) Images removed:

They also apparently followed to Gender role, and removed the lead, image thrice, even after I pointed them through both edit summaries and on their talk, to the discussion on talk where we had decided to move the LGBT infobox down to a section, and replace with the generic lead image (first image in the gallery above), following the format of the article on Gender.

I've encouraged them on their talk to find improved images on commons, or in public domain/with the appropriate license, and to suggest or boldly include them in the article. But it doesn't seem like they're particularly want to do that, and would rather just remove everything, as they apparently did this morning on the first article. Cheers. TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we please have a higher bar for ANI reports? This could be brought to the attention of your friendly neighborhood admin, instead of a big long report for all here to read, on something going on only a day. This is something that could be said about lots of ANI reports, but that this one comes equipped with images, even, makes the wasted effort particularly striking. EEng 13:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment - There are clear factual errors in the post by Timothyjosephwood, above; particularly around the timings of my edits, but also about their nature. There is also a clear failure to WP:AGF. I note that I have not been sanctioned under Gamergate DS - the solitary block on my record was incorrectly made by a rogue, since desysopped admin, under sanction relating to the Senkaku Islands dispute. My edits to Sex and gender distinction (an article which to the best of my recollection I have edited before), were made 15 or so hours ago, and is prior to the discussion between Timothy & I on my Talk page; this request is clearly stale.
I note that "removed every image" is actually "removed two recently added images", which do not relate simply & directly to the article subject. I do not concur with Timothy that these additions which they made were clear improvements to the article, and reverted them on that basis. I also do not concur with Timothy's view that there is a clear Talk page consensus for the inclusion of the image which I reverted from Gender role; the discussion is clearly primarily about other changes to the article. If my edits to Sex and gender distinction removed to much, then I apologise, and am happy to discuss the inclusions on Talk, as I have done at Gender role; but the behaviour by Timothy in reverting to maintain a desired version is contrary to WP:BRD and is borderline WP:OWNnership. This is a simple case of an editor making bold changes to an article, which were reverted, and then edit warring to include those changes. I am not that editor. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I am referring to this most recent edit, which removed four, in addition to your previous edit removing the lead image, for a total of five, which, by my math, is approximately "every single image in the article".
I have said nothing about, nor do I have any opinion on other edits you may have made to the article, except for the unexplained removal of {{Portal|LGBT|Transgender}}. TimothyJosephWood 13:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, this same edit was made eight hours after I posted on your talk. TimothyJosephWood 13:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The edits which I made to Sex and gender distinction and which are referred to above are WP:BRD reverts of WP:BOLD changes to the article made by Timothyjosephwood. Apropos the post on my Talk page, we don't get to force other editors to not object to BOLD changes and we don't get to avoid following WP:BRD by posting Talk page comments. There is not yet a discussion of these inclusions at Talk:Sex and gender distinction; let's have one, with other editors, and form a consensus. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with EEng. The three articles linked in the OP have 251, 287, and 70 watchers, respectively, and I see no effort to address this on any of their talk pages. ANI is not for content disputes (how many times does that need to be said, even to editors with some experience?), and lousy editing judgment (if that's what this was) is not a behavioral issue and therefore not a matter for ANI. Use the content dispute resolution resources available to you. ―Mandruss  14:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
If that's the consensus then so be it. I don't see it as a content dispute to repeatedly strip an entire article of images, and carry that mission on to other articles, warring to remove an image that had been there for three weeks, and was placed there after a talk discussion that lasted several days. I see that as flatly disruptive. TimothyJosephWood 14:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Step 1: Get consensus for your view. Step 2: If your opponent edits against that consensus, come to ANI with a DE complaint. You skipped Step 1, and you have no consensus. This is not a case of clear vandalism, which is the only exception I'm aware of. ―Mandruss  14:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I do consider the blanket removal of obviously relevant images from an article as damn near if not outright vandalism. It is wanton removal of content, and "revert AGF revision" does not constitute a "non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content... provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary" especially when done repeatedly, apparently indiscriminately, and across articles.
I would not take such exception to an editor who has an issue with a particular image for a particular purpose. This is, in fact, why the current lead image on Gender role is there. Blanking an entire page of images is nonsense, but apparently I'm alone on that. TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
In some cases, the article talk consensus could be seen as a mere formality. Nevertheless, it's a necessary formality in my view. If you're so clearly in the right, the consensus should be easy and won't take long. I simply believe in process, working within the system, and letting the system work for you. It often takes longer that way, but there's no real urgency to fix the problem today. All edits are revertable and will still be revertable next week (albeit not necessarily "undo"able).
(Contrary to widespread misinterpretation, vandalism is pure intent to damage an article, and there is no evidence of that intent from an editor with 4600 edits and no vandalism blocks. No amount of bad judgment makes it vandalism.) ―Mandruss  15:48, 28 July 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: ‎Md.Samiulali.38[edit]

Blocked. (non-admin closure) GABgab 14:30, 28 July 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.

Having blocked User: ‎Md.Samiulali.37 as a sockpuppet this morning (see section two places above), we have a "new" editor ‎Md.Samiulali.38, first edit was to recreate one of the same articles - please block again, - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:13, 28 July 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.

Dano2880[edit]

(non-admin closure) NeilN has blocked the account indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE, the absolute fastest resolution of an issue at AN/I, less than five minutes in. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:11, 29 July 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.

Racist and Holocaust denial posts on Talk pages. Sample for reference. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

And [13] and [14]. Warned this user and was waiting before ANI, but since it's here... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN talk to me 05:09, 29 July 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.

I'm being attacked again![edit]

IP hopper's current IPs have been blocked. Chronus and Leo Bonilla are advised to seek semi-protection of their talk pages at WP:RFPP if the problem recurs.
(non-admin closure)
Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 29 July 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'm being attacked again, through various personal offenses (see here, here, here and here), by an anonymous editor who is WP:DUCK of this case. Chronus (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

IP blocked for a month. Not indef only because I don't know when the IP will reset. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The IP user basically violated the policies WP:NPA and WP:SOAPBOX over and over again. But if you see my talk page there's another IP user which made similar claims. Probably somebody would need to take more actions. Also, can I deleted the lame discussion from my talk page??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep, you can delete it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: Thanks, but there are two IPs: 177.142.86.178 (talk · contribs) and 187.15.224.54 (talk · contribs). Chronus (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Guy seems to think his purpose on Wikipedia is to defend Brazil's former military dictatorship and point out how everything bad in the country is communism's fault. Anyone who disagrees with him is a communist vandal. On that note, I have also blocked the other IP. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Chronus took better action than me. I notified about the incident to other WP:ARBCOM members and administrators but only User:Drmies answered. Should I deleted the messages I wrote to the other users now that the trouble is solved by now??? Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Leo Bonilla, if the posts haven't been answered, it's best you remove them with a clear edit summary on the lines of "never mind, solved now". They'll appreciate not having to look into it. Bishonen | talk 07:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC).

@Someguy1221: As you can see above, the user return. Chronus (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah that person needs to find a different hobby. I found another sock (SuperTrump (talk · contribs)) and reported them on Commons as well for uploading images they claimed as their own. Tsk, tsk. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
He's blocked now too. Unfortunately he comes back every time on a new IP range, so all we can do is play whack-a-mole for the time being. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: I can't believe the user went to your talk page. Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a software expert, but the IP can come back only using a different computer on different locations, changing the internet provider or borrowing a mobile phone, right? Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope. If the IP address is dynamic, all the user has to do is reset his router or MODEM. --Elektrik Fanne 18:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggest a request to semi protect your talk page. Blackmane (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Chronus and Leo Bonilla, you can request semi-protection of your talk pages at WP:RFPP, which will prevent IPs from posting on them. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 29 July 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.

Dominion of Melchizedek[edit]

BLOCKED
(non-admin closure) Bssmith117 indef blocked as WP:NOTHERE by Ian.thomson --Elektrik Fanne 13:22, 29 July 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.

A bunch of POV problems. A variety of adminhammers may prove useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

this comment by Bssmith117 to his own talk page admits to a clear conflict of interest and a declaration of their 'right' to edit the target article to say what they want it to say. --Elektrik Fanne 16:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Elektrik Fanne: Your link leads to the page history, not a specific diff. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Doh! Try this one. --Elektrik Fanne 17:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Andy Dingley Statement is not accurate. I made no such "declaration of their "right" to say whatever I want to say". My statement and purpose for activity on the Dominion of Melchizedek Wikipedia page is to change the introduction of the lead on that page to reflect a more accurate description of the State and current Status of the Dominion of Melchizedek.
The current lead is entirely inaccurate for multiple reasons, the biggest reason being the statement cited, cannot be found anywhere in the Quatloos article used. Further, The sources used to "verify" and stand as "proof" of DoM's status in international law have no authority to make such claims. These sources include "Quatloos", the Security and Exchange Commission, and the Comptroller of the US. The authority to determine the political status and recognition of a State rest exclusively with the State Department of the United States and respective high offices of other Nation States.
The page for the Dominion of Melchizedek has been skewed, bias, and negative for many years. The introduction proposed by me is not POV, nor should it be considered Conflict of Interest. I asked Any on the Dominion of Melchizedek Talk page to explain which parts he considered Promotional Whitewash and Unsourced as he claimed and I have even updated the introduction with a link to verifying documents. I also asked him to verify and prove that the current Introduction is sourced properly.
I have also asked Bromley86 a notorious editor who always reverts any edit back to its original, to provide me with his credentials in International law and how States Recognize other Societies. This is not about COI, this is about proper understanding of International law, procedure, and up to date facts about the activities of the State. Not about hanging on to information that is over a decade old which is highly opinionated and one sided. Bssmith117 (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Regardless, under the conflict of interest policy, you are not permitted to directly edit any article with which you have a close connection. Any perceived qualification that you may believe you have does not change that policy. You may only propose changes on the article talk page (with supporting references). If another editor believes your edits are valid, supported and improve the article, then they will carry out the edit on your behalf.
Also note that the article lede is meant to ba summary of the main body of the article. Your contribution most certainly is not, but the existing lede is a reasonable (if somewhat brief) summary of what is a remarkably well referenced article by most standards. --Elektrik Fanne 17:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bssmith117: What Elektrik Fanne is saying is that the following statement you made on your talk page is "a declaration of [your] 'right' to edit the target article to say what [you] want it to say." You said on your talk page: "My team and I, regardless of what you consider a COI will continue to do what we can to see that this page is correct and reflect the RECOGNIZED State of the Dominion of Melchizedek." Basically, you seem to be saying that you have no regard for our policies and procedures. Plus, believe it or not, your credentials in this particular case make you less qualified to edit the article, as you seem to have a conflict of interest. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Editors are not required to have "credentials" to edit in any subject area. GABgab 20:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
True, but sometimes (as in this case) they're required to not have certain credentials i.e. to not have a COI. EEng 21:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course - I was actually referring to the statement above ("I have also asked Bromley86 a notorious editor who always reverts any edit back to its original, to provide me with his credentials in International law and how States Recognize other Societies.") GABgab 00:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Reveiwing administrators may care to note that Bssmith117 has made yet another revert despite being warned both on his talk page and above about his clear COI. His revert also means that he has reverted four times in under two hours comprehensively breaking the WP:3RR rule. Since Dominion of Melchizedek is the sole article edited by Bssmith117, it is a clear single purpose account that is WP:NOTHERE to co-opereratively edit. --Elektrik Fanne 11:28, 29 July 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.

Ongoing & persistent disruptive editing by User:Dr.K.[edit]

Withdrawn.
(non-admin closure)
-- X4n6 (talk) 09:32, 29 July 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:Dr.K. has edit warred with another editor: see here, here, here, here here; violated 3RR with that other editor: here and here and here; violated civility on an article's talk page here and here; twice removed yet another editor's comments on an article's talk page here and here; and repeatedly vandalized the other editor's talk page: here and here. X4n6 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This user was engaged in a persistent edit war with a newbie over a period of days, which I attempted to resolve as a disinterested 3rd party. I successfully ended the war in the article and also got them both to discuss their differences on the talk page. We had appeared to reach a resolution. At least the newbie agreed and eventually relented. This user did not. Instead, this user has chosen to be persistently disruptive, not only with comments on the article's talk page, but on my personal talk page as well. Even after I attempted to disengage with this user. Enough. X4n6 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@X4n6: It's pretty disingenuous to refer to yourself as "yet another editor" and call the NPA warnings given to you vandalism. Transparency, please. --NeilN talk to me 04:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: I believe you are confused. I was not the user this person was edit-warring with - so yes, I was "yet another editor." I was the 3rd party trying to help resolve their conflict. Instead this user turned his venom toward me. But the so-called "NPA warnings" were nonsense deflections, as any actual review of the article's talk page will show. X4n6 (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
X4n6, you think repeatedly calling a long standing editor a troll is not a personal attack. You are wrong. You need to adjust your conflict resolution techniques. --NeilN talk to me 04:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@NeilN: For the record, I also happen to be a long standing editor. But since you seem to believe I'm wrong, perhaps you can explain to me how personal attacks on me; reverting comments on talk pages; and vandalizing my talk page with bogus "warnings;" aren't personal attacks - but me calling someone a troll for this behavior is? X4n6 (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me clarify then. Partially redacting your comment to remove the personal attack and then correctly warning you is not vandalism or personal attacks. At this point, I recommend you walk away. --NeilN talk to me 05:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I never mentioned IPs. I simply mislinked comments to the left side rather than the right. Simple error. But you're not entitled to an explanation when you have consistently behaved uncivilly prior to that. Why don't you try reading the entire section before concluding who is a fault? As for me walking away? You forget: I already had until this user started populating my talk page with bogus warnings and editing my comments. But since you don't find that objectionable, even though WP:TALKO seems to suggest otherwise - and even another editor restored the section after it was removed, then fine. Perhaps I should scrub comments like: "So, not only you are continuing your PAs but now you have crossed into delusional territory." "Unless you have clairvoyant powers how on Earth do you have the gall" " not that I hold my breath you will recognise my GF, given your serial violations" "On top of your walls of text, which were WP:TLDR and I didn't bother to read," " I am afraid that any further discussion under such adverse conditions, as you have created through your continuing violations of our core policies, would be a total waste of time. I think you can talk to yourself from now on. You have earned it." Oh no, no violations of NPA there, right? X4n6 (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I have read the entire section. Twice. And have concluded that instead of calming the dispute, you poured fuel on the fire, making several ill-advised and erroneous statements and an extremely poor final response. The fact that you still refer to the warnings as bogus makes me think a WP:BOOMERANG might be headed your way. --NeilN talk to me 05:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Since you're obviously of the view that I did everything wrong and nothing right, can you tell me what was wrong with this edit? Or this one? X4n6 (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Your first edit was fine. The second edit was where things start to disintegrate.

  • "Before I address the latest editors' concerns, I will confess to some genuine surprise - and disappointment - that we're still having this discussion; because it seems two editors are still determined to push for their own agendas" -> Really? Barely after 24 hours and one reply later, you're surprised and disappointed? Pretty condescending. And bad faith accusations of pushing agendas.
  • "I urge editors not to edit according to their personal biases." -> Same as above.
  • "So upon objective review, I believe it's clear that, while well-meaning, both editors are wrong. Likely because they allowed their biases to influence their judgments." -> Same as above.

--NeilN talk to me 06:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact is, I had encountered this newbie editor just a few days earlier while he was pov editing on a different article. After my experience, I knew the newbie would war until he was blocked. So I was trying to facilitate a resolution, coupled with a teachable moment. Fact also is, what you claim was condescending, got me 3 thanks messages from different editors - including the one I reported here. Also, following my final dispute-related post, after K's attacks, the newbie tried to post that the dispute had been settled. So I accomplished more than you're willing to acknowledge. There was also context to my comments which you are unaware of. However, it's equally clear that none of that likely matters. So be it. Agree to disagree. So there's not much else to gain in continuing here. X4n6 (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Fact also is, what you claim was condescending, got me 3 thanks messages from different editors - including the one I reported here. Correction. I did not thank you for any posts on talk Switzerland. I had thanked you for an earlier post on the newbie editor's talkpage where you mentioned that some material was phrased in a promotional manner. That was before you started the thread on the article talkpage and before you reverted my edit thereby entering an edit-war. I did not revert you back because I had no intention of continuing the edit-war. Dr. K. 07:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You thanked me for addressing the same kind of behavior the newbie exhibited on the Switzerland page. You also need to review WP:EDITWAR if you believe a single revert constitutes edit warring. Also, as I've noted elsewhere here, I find it instructive that you never complained about the content of my response. Just the comment. Additionally, you just said you weren't "continuing the edit war." Fact is, you had already edit-warred - with that newbie. Another fact is, I resolved that dispute. You're welcome. X4n6 (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I also note you stated Dr.K. was editing the article using anonymous IPs and have not retracted that statement. --NeilN talk to me 04:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I note that calling another editor delusional does breach NPA. This was however in response to your baseless accusation of sockpuppet, also a violation of NPA, comment about the editor's agenda, also baseless and therefore Aspersions, and declaration (falsely) of edit-warring, WP:Aspersions. Do not accuse editors of wrongdoing without ample evidence for such an accusation, and make sure that the evidence demonstrates the wrongdoing accurately. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Glad you find the editor I reported did breach NPA. As for the sockpuppet claim, I've already explained how I never made that accusation. And if the two editors weren't warring, there would have been no reason for me to comment in the first place. This section proves there was an edit war] and the article's edit log from here to here proves it. X4n6 (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
X4n6, can I point to "bitter trolldom" as being a failure to AGF and an NPA by yourself. I looked at the talk page, I still don't see what it is that you find objectionable in their writing. Could you point to a specific example, a sentence or what have you, where Dr K. went afoul of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the first five diffs, does not appear that Dr. K made five reverts, only 2 on the 25th and 1 on the 26th, unless you're about to claim that Dr K. edit-warred against himself. Going through the rest of the diffs, I find very little that is inappropriate on the part of Dr K.'s behaviour. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: As I pointed out above, I wasn't involved in the edit warring. It was between the user I reported and User:Beboj3140 - who also noted that the dispute was now resolved. X4n6 (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Except, that there has been no violation of 3RR whatsoever, five edits of which two are actual reverts. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Dr.K. is correct. There has been no WP:3RR violation on their part. There has been edit warring on all sides but nothing that requires blocks right now. --NeilN talk to me 04:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The two diffs given for "vandalizing" another user's talk page are not vandalism in even the most abstract sense. If this user considers those diffs to be "vandalism" they have got a lot to learn. Doc talk 05:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, @NeilN:: there has been edit warring on two sides. I edit warred with no one. I ended the edit war. And yes, I view unwanted and unwarranted "warnings" to my talk page as disruptive, abusive - and yes, vandalism. X4n6 (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
You entered the edit war. You cannot end an edit war by fiat. Also, I would think all warnings are unwanted by the editors receiving them. And in this case, they were not unwarranted. --NeilN talk to me 05:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
At least you concede there was an edit war that did not involve me. That's more than Mr rnddude was willing to concede. And as my response to you above notes, there was no effort to end the war by fiat. But by consensus. It's also important to note that despite everything, the editor I reported and you defend, has never claimed that I did not end their content war. I find that omission instructive. X4n6 (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Wow... I never claimed that you'd edit-warred, and I didn't claim there was no edit-war, I said your evidence supporting the violation of WP:3RR was false. In fact when I did indeed make the mistake of referring to edit-warring I immediately removed it. Also, NeilN quite flatly stated that you were involved in the edit-war with this line, "you entered the edit war" which is equivalent to saying; you have been edit-warring. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It's been interesting to see that you and NeilN have viewed the same fact pattern so differently. Even within the same conversation. Of course, I view them differently as well. X4n6 (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course, on the other hand, you're not an admin and your acct is barely 7 months old. Nor do you have any direct involvement in this dispute. So why are you here? X4n6 (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Because AN/I is for community discussion on editor behaviour and anybody can show up. Refer to Doc9871's comment up above, also not an admin and also commented here (1 comment though). Look up the threads and down the threads, tell me what the ratio of admin to non-admin comments is, I'd estimate at around an order of 80% non-admin to 20% admin comments. As to the age of my account, a point that has been brought up a couple times, feel free to ask around, you'll find nothing particularly interesting. I edit mainly for the MilHist project, do some reviews (B-class, GA and A-class), and tend to hang around here (about a quarter to a third of my edits are here on this page). Unusual as I have been told. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oh come on people, this is a content dispute that went awry. I do not at all see any violation of WP:3RR (and only three diffs were even provided; it takes 4 reverts in 24 hours to violate 3RR). If someone believes there was such a violation, the way to deal with that is open a discussion on the article's talk page, issue a 3RR warning on the editor's talk page, and then if 3RR is actually breached after that, report at WP:ANEW, not ANI. X4n6, your attempt at resolving the content dispute seems to have only escalated it, and I think you should back off. Moreover, it seems that Dr. K's edits and reverts had proper substantiating citations. Can we please keep this content dispute off of ANI and on the article talk page where it belongs? If it still is festering, the parties in dispute need to avail themselves of WP:DR. Can we please close this thread before a boomerang ensues? Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • X4n6 has posted some completely bogus links as "evidence" in their opening statement—it's quite breathtaking to post "twice removed yet another editor's comments on an article's talk page here and here; and repeatedly vandalized the other editor's talk page: here and here" where the links show Dr.K. replacing a personal attack with {{rpa}} and issuing a standard "Comment on content, not on other contributors" warning. More astonishing is that X4n6's account was created in June 2006—my guess is that they have not engaged in many disputes before or they would know to avoid doing everything the wrong way. Out of kindness, this report should be closed with a strong suggestion that X4n6 comment on content, not on other contributors, and that they read enough of WP:VAND to know not to label things they don't like as "vandalism". Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree there's nothing here. We really need some kind of procedure under which a "second" is required before a new thread is opened here, because Wikipedia is not about whining. EEng 08:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Update The OP seemed to withdraw this thread. But, soon after he did that, he started edit-warring on the talkpage of the article, this time adding six tit-for-tat rpa templates to my comments, even though no such suggestion was made at the now closed thread. In good faith, I rephrased the "delusional" comment, since it was commented upon by Mr rnddude, and reverted the rest. Dr. K. 13:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, his last edit to the article talk page was at 07:41 UTC whereas he closed this thread at 09:32 UTC. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have collapsed the thread. A new one can be opened if the situation warrants. --NeilN talk to me 13:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you both. Take care. Dr. K. 13:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Since the one thing I do ultimately agree with NeilN on is this was going nowhere, I withdrew here. But since the consensus here was also that removing content on NPA grounds was acceptable, I removed the multiple PAs found in the user's last response on the article's talk page - only to have that user again edit-war and revert them. But since this is going nowhere, either here or at the article's talk page, my action here and NeilN's action there, have finally concluded this matter. X4n6 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 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:AdamSmith12 ignoring warnings[edit]

AdamSmith12 has been blocked 24 hours for edit-warring, and the article Namrata Sapkota has been full-protected for 2 weeks while it is at AfD. Sockpuppeting concerns can go to SPI.
(non-admin closure)
Softlavender (talk) 12:36, 29 July 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.

AdamSmith12 has been repeatedly warned not to remove AfD templates, and is continuing to do it at Namrata Sapkota. --Slashme (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I also suggest that his behaviour in continually redirecting his active User / Talk pages to a moribund page is a deliberate attempt to evade scrutiny. Or perhaps he thinks he is being clever.
Possibly related: Why did Nepalirider123 redirect Smith's page to his own...? Muffled Pocketed 10:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Not to say sockpuppet, but, sockpuppet ? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
May I also say that, no way is this AdamSmith character from New Zealand, his grammar fits much better with the Nepalese... Mr rnddude (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the triple post, but, what is this? [15]. Is it imitation of another user or what? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Spot on Mr rnddude... notice they are a member of Wikiproject Asia :) Muffled Pocketed 10:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Before the article have dead link now almost article is good and edited/ but again and again why you guys put deletion tag on article/ already i requested and discuss the issues with Kudpung but why you revert the issues Slashme ?? AdamSmith12 (talk) 10:15 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes the article about the New Zealander Nepalese model :) Muffled Pocketed 10:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
See the reference link Namrata Sapkota if this article will be deleted then what about other article which don't have reference link either any content AdamSmith12 (talk) 10:40 29 July 2016 (UTC)
You and nepalirider have around 240 edits each, and yet, this is somehow possible. 144 of Nepali's 210 edits and 114 of your 239 edits match to the same 20+ pages. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Mr rnddudeYou dont have any work. I came here to discuss my matter. IF you can give solution discuss here otherwise leave talk page. I need to know how to fix the issues of Namrata Sapkota AdamSmith12 (talk) 10:59 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Simple English; content dispute, does not belong here. Problem behaviour, belongs here, and is being discussed. The fact that other things came up as a result of it, that is outside of your control. If you want to fix the article, take it to the talk page of that article. Otherwise, "leave here". Mr rnddude (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well you're all going to get a 24-hour reprieve, this guy just cross the 3RR boundary and is blocked for the next 24 hours. I've also protected the article for the next 2 weeks so we should be done with this for now. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:40, 29 July 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.

Lugnuts[edit]

Lugnuts has apologized. Onward. Katietalk 22:44, 29 July 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.

Would someone mind giving a swift WP:NPA enforcement block to User:Lugnuts? Based on a 2015 AFD, Lugnuts tagged Muslim Musa for G4 speedy, which I declined because it's completely different from the deleted content; you don't need to be an admin to see this, as some of the content dates from 2016. Response? "obviously the reverting editor is blind" and I can't see that it was previously deleted. Followed up by a harsh message at my talk page, and then I'm told that I didn't look at the previous AFD, but there's no evidence for this accusation, and as a matter of fact, I did look at the previous AFD. It's bad enough to tag articles under criteria that obviously don't apply, but there's no reason to tolerate people who abuse admins for enforcing the speedy deletion criteria. Note his block log; this isn't someone unfamiliar with our policies. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe you did look at the AfD. It's clear it's the same article that was deleted earlier. I tagged it in good faith (previously deleted article), hence why I believe it did apply. Is it too late to aplogise? I guess so. I just didn't want to waste time with going though another AfD for what I though was an obious speedy. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Wait, is the content different in any meaningful way or not? if so, how exactly can we check this? or would this be something only an admin could do. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The previous AfD is a list of non-notable cricketers, so I though it would be safe to assume to tag this as a speedy. I found the initial revert by Nyttend to be a bit bitey, saying I was trying to "deceive administrators", which I was clearly not. Apologies again, but I found that comment frustrating at the least. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
These articles are quite poorly written, random capitalization, lack of punctuation, grammar issues. If we're keeping them, then they'll need a cleanup. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe a large trout for being a jackass and making and stating an unfounded assumption, but I don't see any real PA. We don't block people for getting hot under the collar when their speedy is denied on a previously deleted article and they have to take it to AfD. I'm not sure why this is being brought here to ANI when a simple response on your talk page would have sufficed. And no, Lugnuts, it's not the same text because the article was deleted in early December and this new article mentions his debut in late January. Softlavender (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks SL. Nyttend - I apologise for being a jackass and being, as SL said, hot under the collar. I was working through this wave of N/N biographies and though the speedy tag applied to the article in question. Yeah, I'm an idiot and apologise again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Lugnuts wouldn't these articles pass NCRIC because of "has appeared as a player ... in at least one cricket match that is ... at the highest international or domestic level". Isn't ICC an international level tournament? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Short answer - no. Playing at an U19 tournament doesn't meet the requirements by itself. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Slightly longer answer is no because an U-19 tournament is not the highest international level (as the senior team is higher). Joseph2302 18:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Good to see you back mate. Muffled Pocketed 18:31, 29 July 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.

Unreasonable blocking[edit]

Graham87 agreed declining and deleting the unblock request "probably wasn't a great idea" and no one else appears to be inclined to block the editor under the IP address currently being used. Jonathunder (talk) 00:50, 30 July 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. To make this perfectly clear, this account is technically a sock-account. I'm an IP editor, and the address refreshes every 6 hours or so. I was blocked yesterday by User:Graham87 for editing the talk page of Star Trek Beyond. I noticed that the movie had a recent edit where China was one of the countries of origin. There was no source, so I removed the edit, and asked on the talk page if there was a reliable source. Graham87 then put back the edit, and deleted my question off the talk page. I restored the talk page, he redeleted, and he blocked me for 48 hours or so to prove a point. I waited, restored the talk page, asking the question, is there a reliable source, and he blocked me. I asked for an unblock on my talk page User talk:2a02:c7d:ca36:5800:7941:59b9:eca4:43b1 and he deleted my talk page to hide that unblock request, and then blocked me from editing the talk page. I then saw he blocked any IP I had used, but again, since IP address rotate every few hours on a dynamic IP in a big city, I didn't know that those blocks were in place. I would use the block reporting system, but I really don't trust giving my email to wiki right now, knowing he is an admin. I know he is also aggrieved by me asking on the talk page for French Fries why the section on the UK uses a different variety of English than the rest of the article. He is also deleting that conversation from the talk page.

There really should be a system put in place where the person who blocks you, can't delete your talk page and unblock request without answering. I understand why talk pages can be blocked as well, but that should be a second admin.

If there is to be a block, that is fine, but he is running roughshod over procedure, not answering questions, hiding evidence of his own wrongdoing, and generally trying to mute any viewpoint but his own. I've just asked, is Star Trek Beyond a Chinese movie, and do we have a source for it. I had researched it, and found no source. Incidentally, BFI just stated it was a USA movie. Cheerio2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:35B3:FA9C:A1E0:6F0D (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding I had researched it, and found no source, you can't have researched very hard given that it's the very first reference in the article. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Having a chinese investor does not a chinese movie make. I noticed that, but the standard sources for the nationality of movies (i.e Variety, BFI, AFI) didn't have a listing yet. BFI now lists the movie nationality as 'USA'. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:35B3:FA9C:A1E0:6F0D (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course it does; do you think Star Wars should be listed as an Anglo-Tunisian film, given that it was filmed in Hertfordshire and Tataouine? Film industry practice has always been that "country of origin" is who produced it, not the actual filming location. Anyway, this is a content issue and not appropriate for ANI; regarding the block, I'd consider it harsh but legitimate. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No, Star Wars shouldn't be listed as an Anglo-Tunisian film, but I'd also argue an investor in a production company based in a country, doesn't mean that the investors country is listed as a country of origin. Traditionally we use BFI, AFI, Variety, Hollywood reporter, or a film festival to determine country of origin. And, no, this isn't the place for this discussion. The place for this discussion is the articles talk page, which is blanked of this content by Graham87 every time this subject is broached....which is the reason for this ANI. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:35B3:FA9C:A1E0:6F0D (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The user talk page the IP wikilinked to was actually a talk page wikilink, not a user talk page link. I took the liberty to fix that. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's clear that Graham has been blocking this IP user on site wherever he appears, even though in isolation each incarnation seems totally good faith (aside from some edit warring on French fries a couple weeks ago). Graham seems to think this IP is a troll and does not deserve to be listened to. I'm not so sure, but I have not been able to track down all previous IPs to make that decision. Perhaps Graham's input would be useful here. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutabaga&diff=prev&oldid=724197171 was the edit that first caught my attention, that I reverted. I then reverted, maybe poorly, the specious edits that this editor made, which put me on Graham87's radar.
The other question to be addressed, is when is it ok to repeatedly delete a discussion off a talk page, just because you don't like the editor, as Graham did at Star Trek Beyond? This question I asked in Star Trek is by no means settled (i.e look at Talk:Mission:_Impossible_–_Rogue_Nation which has the same issue), but Graham87 deletes it out of hand as 'trolling'. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:3903:CF42:B22C:5FCA (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Content dispute pure and simple, whether the blocks are appropriate becomes of less importance the more the IP keeps doing whatever it did to get blocked in the first place. Really, in all of wikipedia is there nothing else you want to edit other than whatever gets you blocked? If not, you'll end up with a permablock. Right or wrong you may be, but best to move on to something else that isn't going to get you a block. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Then I ask, an administrator can then "win" any content argument by repeatedly blocking those who disagree (as Graham87 is doing here)? Is the way we are supposed to be running wikipedia? I was trying to establish consensus about the article in question. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:3903:CF42:B22C:5FCA (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
IP, can you point to the first time Graham blocked you? I don't think you did anything deserving of a block aside from that edit war, but it's hard to follow your edit history when your IP changes about every 8 edits. I'm trying to figure out why he thinks you're a troll. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This seems to originally stem from Blue cod, where the 2A02:C7D IP editor had reverted four times, though the odd thing is that Graham87 blocked the editor after the first edit, not the fourth. Can't see the logic for that one. Mind you, that means that the other three edits were after the block and were therefore block evasion, which may be something that Graham87 has been taking into account since. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I can't. I just looked as well. I know that I have probably annoyed him as well, as I have been quite frustrated that he basically follows my edits and immediately reverts them, and thus, I haven't always said things in the most collegial manner. It still doesn't explain his blocking, and nor his deletion of a talk page when requesting an unblock or discussion. Nor does it explain why he repeatedly deletes a perfectly valid conversation on an article talk page, which has yet to come to consensus. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:79DF:AD05:8658:14B1 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I will not be answering questions on this again for a day or so. It's midnight local time here, and there's work in the morning! Thanks all for looking into this, regardless of outcome. I really have no problem with Graham, I really do have a problem with blocking without regard to allowing an appeal, and a HUGE problem with people deleting talk page discussions because they don't like the topic of discussion. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:79DF:AD05:8658:14B1 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Sorely tempted to block 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800::/64 for block evasion. We don't allow IPv4 addresses to evade blocks, and I see no reason we should allow dynamic IPv6 addresses to evade either. We have UTRS for block appeals and allowing this kind of thing here is, IMO, a bad precedent. Katietalk 23:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Whatever else - and I'm not impressed by the IP's edits either - Graham87 shouldn't have declined the unblock request himself, per WP:Blocking policy#Block reviews, let alone delete the user talk page entirely. Putting "Specious" as a comment under the unblock template would have served just as well as putting it in the delete summary. —Cryptic 23:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I first encountered this editor as 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:9CC1:7D2D:67E9:7675 on the Truck article. I have almost zero faith in IP's or very new accounts who come out of the woodwork to impose a certain variety of English or their warped interpretation of the Manual of Style on articles, so I reverted their edits and blocked them. Then 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:E878:6550:502A:8B98 came along and reverted my edits. I let some of them go, such as at Total Recall (2012 film), where the original edit turned out to be right. However, their edit summaries were very personalised, which raised my suspicions even further. Then 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:C065:A724:4184:1048 complained about me on ANI. I agree it probably wasn't a great idea for me to delete the unblock request. Graham87 02:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The interesting thing is, I also don't like when IP's come out and impose a certain variety of English or their interpretation of MOS, so when I saw :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.79.119.108 had done that, I went ahead and reverted them (for what it's worth, they just did it again at Chard but someone else can revert that while this discussion is ongoing). Then, when Graham87 saw me do those reversions, he then reverted those edits. I did become personalised, as, I believed he was trolling me to keep the other edits in place (as he did at Star Trek Beyond with China as a movie of origin). I reverted, brought to the talk page, and asked (unless it was clear cut). Graham87 reverted, and immediately blocked me, because as an admin, he can do that. So, I did the same type of reversions he claims he loves to do, but I don't block the editor, and try to wipe all their comments from wikipedia. Yet still we can't have a consensus discussion on Star Trek Beyond as he keeps deleting the discussion there, which is a violation of Talk Page guidelines, but this doesn't bother anyone. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:BCE4:CF2:D7E9:6D88 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
As Graham has admitted he has done something that probably should be left as long as he learns from the event that's fine and we can move to the meat of the question: is there any compelling reason to keep blocking an IP user that appears to be trying to improve Wikipedia? If so can we see links on problematic behavior? Tivanir2 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is the admitted block-evader and IP-hopper still being allowed to edit here? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Bugs, I asked for a discussion on the talk page of my account when blocked. My request was deleted, along with my talk page, by Graham87, against the general rules of unblock-requests. Please note that I've not edited anywhere else other than here (more or less as a proxy for my talk page) while this is being sorted out. 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:F131:5364:7DAE:9888 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 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:Darkinsision with a possible threat of violence?[edit]

Account blocked and the WMF notified as a precaution. Mike VTalk 01:21, 30 July 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.

The user in question has created an attack page named Irshad Ahmad as a "future big ben bomber", I'm not sure how to take this one but nonetheless felt it was important here to see if authorities needed to be contacted. Regards----Church Talk 00:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It was rather badly worded, but it definitely mentioned some sort of future bombing. I think any possible terror threats need to be taken seriously. Adam9007 (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On Hijackers in the September 11 attacks, they changed the names of two hijackers to the names that were the subject of two attack pages they created. (The edits were revdeled). —MRD2014 T C 01:23, 30 July 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 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz[edit]

There will be no iBan or other sanction against Hullaballoo Wolfowitz arising from this matter; it is generally agreed he was addressing genuine BLP concerns. Holanthony is warned that further edits posing BLP problems are likely to lead to sanctions. BethNaught (talk) 15:27, 29 July 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.

The user user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been harassing me for months on end. He constantly makes wanton edits with vague or little motivation, such as this one were I attempted to arrange into subsections, he reverted and called "clutter".[16] He has frequently called me names, such as "troll" and been rude, obnoxious and unhelpful.[17][18][19] These are just a few examples. I believe these are violations of WP:HOUND, WP:CIVIL, and WP:PA. Based on his talk page, it seems to be a recurring pattern with this editor. I would ask for a block to be implemented either from him editing my edits, or a two-way block so that neither can see nor edit the other one's contributions. Either way works fine with me. Holanthony (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. The supposed incivility Holanthany cites is more than six months old, and relates to harassing posts Holanthony made on my talk page, repeatedly and tendentiously disputing very basic aspects of BLP policy, including the basic definition of a self-published sourced. In contrast, Holanthony himself was far more uncivil in an edit summary earlier this afternoon [20].
  2. Dividing an article with three sentences of text into two sections can certainly be described as cluttering up the page, especially since it also added a completely superfluous TOC box to a very short article.
  3. Holanthony has a long and extensive track record of noncompliance with basic BLP requirements; his talk page shows concerns going back three years, and a warning from a highly experienced editor just four days ago. This is just another example of an editor very clearly on the wrong side of simple content disputes trying to use purported concerns over civility to obscure their far more disruptive behaviour, which actively damages the encyclopedia. It is clearly time to limit their ability to edit BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This happened over six months ago why being it up here now? Its too late for anything to really be done with the examples you gave. Also "neither can see the others contributions" thats not how an interaction ban works. As far as I'm aware there is no technical aspect to an iBan that stops you from being able to view another's user contributions. Also at this point I'd consider this non-actionable. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not about what happened "six months ago", its about showing an ongoing behavior that has not relented in spite of this time having passed. More recently, he admitted to applying subjective double-standards in his BLP editing, suggesting the rules apply to some people and not to others, when in fact the BLP rules are uniform and apply to every person of notability i.e has a page on Wikipedia. Beyond that, his manners are beyond the pale![21] My feeling is that the editor is bullying and actively hounding me, proven by the track records. He is consistently uncivil, such as in the examples here.[22] [23] His talk page shows that I am not the only one affected. The editor claims he is "treated like dirt by the administrators" when it is he himself who stands for the lion share of harassment. And if you want to talk about "issues" on the talk page, then look at the history of his deleted content and all the warnings he's been given (although he's tried to cover it up). Not a pretty sight at all.[24] For the sake of peace, I would suggest a two-way interaction ban as per WP:IBAN, and I see no reason why User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz would oppose such a ban, unless he is hell-bent on proceeding with the harassment and proving this fact to everyone. So User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, is this the one thing we can agree on? You go your way, I go mine? A ban works just as well for you as for me.Holanthony (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I doubt that HW would agree with something like that. The whole "treated like dirt" spiel is getting old, and it is true that HW is really a total pain to deal with, lashing out before you said even hello; terrible manners. But comments like this, as unpleasant and uncollegial as they sound, aren't really blockable, and who knows, maybe HW is right, maybe you have made those mistakes before. I can't judge that, but either way, I don't think ANI is going to be much help given the reticence we seem to have these days with iBans. Sorry, I have little to offer, accept to keep your cool and let HW do the yelling; it'll make HW look bad, not you. BTW, please sign your name consistently here and on talk pages... Drmies (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment)Okay yes those edits are pointy but are they a block able offense? I'm gonna agree with Drmies they probably aren't. I'm also fairly sure most of us are tired of the seeing "treated like dirt" comment but hey its not against policy.I seriously doubt an iBan is going to be issued out for these remarks. Unfortunately WP:CIVIL is one of the most ignored policies on this project and I'd wager also one of the most under enforced policies. All I will and probably can suggest is to "be the bigger man" and keep a cool head while dealing with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It sucks but unfortunately it is what it is. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Being a "bigger man" is one thing, being a push-over is another. They guy clearly has me on his watchlist and has little better to do than to revert nearly every edit I (and others) make. I suggest looking at his "contribution history" [25] he never ADDS any content, only REMOVES. The only exception to this, is when he adds a "nomination for deletion" for an article and that's only to for the purpose of removing more content. This guy does nothing for the community other than spreading negativity. If I request a ban, and the other party does not actively oppose one (and for what reason would he other than to continue bullying?), why shouldn't there be one? I see no reason not to grant an interaction ban, because I certainly don't want him anywhere near me, not now and not in the future! Worst part of all, the guy is impervious towards learning! Look here for instance! [26] [27] Holanthony (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Snark aside, that looks an awful lot like someone removing stuff that actually doesn't belong. Anmccaff (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) I monitor a fair number of porn performer blps. There is a genuine competence issue underlying this kerfuffle. If anyone feels moved to do anything here other than simply closing the thread, please review the last 2 days edits at Bridgette Kerkove, Alex Jordan and Randy West (actor) first. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

And this brings me to another point, the guy NEVER assumes good faith, which is what one is supposed to do. This goes for his deal with people by and large, which you can see on his history. Notwithstanding, this goes beyond the past two days at those three pages. I still request a two-way interaction ban!Holanthony (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • If you don't like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz why don't you just watch MSNBC instead of CNN? EEng 07:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
An interaction ban would do even better! Isn't there any way to get an admin to review this? Holanthony (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It should be added that HW has already received an interaction ban towards User:SimonTrew recently. [28] What he did to that user is what he has been doing to me, and I would call for a similar resolution as to that issue. He has also received numerous warnings on his talk page, such as this one