Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive944

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

207.34.115.71[edit]

(non-admin closure) IP blocked for three months. Resolved. Kleuske (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2017 (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.

207.34.115.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I would like to report this IP address for long-term disruptive editing. Normally, I'd report this IP to some place like WP:AIV, but I am not really sure if this is a complete vandalism issue, or whether or not that would be the right noticeboard to report this IP to. Another reason as to why I am bringing this here instead is because the block log is quite large, with scattered blocks in terms of length (the block lengths for this IP aren't escalated in order, like most shared IP addresses usually are). They include blocks as short as 24 hours, and blocks as long as 1 year. There are a couple of block evasion/check user blocks thrown in there as well. I thought that I'd put this here instead, as this may be too complicated for WP:AIV. Thank you. 172.58.38.139 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, the IP appears to have been blocked already. 172.58.38.139 (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2017 (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.

Mkativerata personal attacks, profanity, and edit warring[edit]

Mkativerata is noted to tone down the edit summaries a little. Their edits are correct, however, and frustration with a block-evader is understandable. IP blocked for a week, master account also blocked for a week for block evasion.Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2017 (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.

Mkativerata is engaging in edit warring as well as profanity and personal attacks in edit summaries in these 3 commits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trans-Pacific_Partnership&diff=761621903&oldid=761621826

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trans-Pacific_Partnership&diff=761625901&oldid=761625512

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trans-Pacific_Partnership&diff=761626906&oldid=761626258

Additionally, when warned about their behavior this user justified themselves by saying "I usually find it quite constructive to remind bad editors just how bad their editing is." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trans-Pacific_Partnership&diff=761625257&oldid=761623613 103.41.177.49 (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
And you, User:Galestar, are evading a block correctly imposed for your rabid and tedious POV-pushing that wastes the time of good editors. Of course I stand by everything I said in those edit summaries because they are unambiguously correct assessments of your editing. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Uninvolved admin here; just took a look over the history here, and I tend to agree that your edit summaries are overly snarky and you should tone it down some. You're in the right with your edits, but there's no reason for the editorial comments. There are higher roads to be taken in these kinds of disputes. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Tony - noted. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2017 (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.

Offensive language at J. B. Priestley[edit]

(non-admin closure) Content dispute. Kleuske (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IP editor had added this to the article on J. B. Priestley. Seems grossly offensive to me, not to mention improperly sourced. An Admin has locked the page for a week so it cannot be removed by an ordinary editor such as myself. See WP:RfPP discussion for background. Just thought you might want to do something about it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be a content dispute. The 'vitriolic' is a bit much, but "grossly offensive" it's not. Please voice your concerns on the talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2017 (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.

VPN[edit]

Report transferred to WP:OP per this entry for review there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2017 (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 is currently used by SurfEasy, you guys might want to block it due to it being an open VPN. --49.213.19.133 (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

See http://oneasiahost.com. See the Whois. It appears to me that there should be a webhost block of 49.213.16.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), intended to cover 49.213.16.0 - 49.213.19.255. EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2017 (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.
 Done SQLQuery me! 04:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

184.145.42.19[edit]

Short block by User:Gilliam for harassment (presumably of User:Garchy after [1] and note the stated intention to sock if blocked) resulted in this nasty (and declined) unblock request [2]. Since return from block has been following and reverting Garchy's edits, often with snarky comments or even outright attacks inh the edit summaries aimed at Garchy [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I disagree with some of the edits but some may be valid (I have not checked all of them) but the edit summaries are inappropriate and the IP continued to comment on the user in edit summaries after being warned not to [11]. Meters (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My ANI edit conflicted with an edit warring block by User:Materialscientist. I'll leave this open for now since the IP has already stated that he will sock, and because we've already gone through one block/unblock while this was being written. Meters (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
And this block resulted in another personal attack [12] Meters (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
And another one [13]. We should at least remove talkpage access. Meters (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all - I just woke up to see the work that has been done. I looked at my reverts, there were a few I did hastily and which didn't need to be done (I must have gone a little overboard while reverting the disruptive edits), but then again the IP editor was a bit of a handful - I'll not revert the good ones back, and it looks like the others were handled already. Thanks again! Garchy (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of comics articles by 107.77.*.*[edit]

This anon editor has been persistently vandalizing articles for many weeks, primarily making fraudulent claims about co-creating Spawn (comics),[14] and implicitly disparaging actual creator Todd McFarlane and certain other comics creators by referring readers to a web forum he frequents for details.[15] He evades page protections by targeting additional articles, and evades blocks by changing IP addresses, so far including 107.77.194.22, 107.77.203.11, 107.77.203.4, 107.77.204.229 (multiple warnings given on this one), 107.77.204.153, 107.77.204.185, 107.77.203.81, 107.77.203.210, 107.77.203.4Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of the affected articles seem to be semi-protected now. I'll keep an eye on the IP range for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
He's expanding this activity to additional related articles (Special:Contributions/107.77.194.126 17/18-January), and also now claiming to be creator of something called "Wolf Pack".[16] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism and ignoring warning[edit]

The account is suspicious (possibly banned Tirgil) and keep vandalising the pages with false edit summaries and deletions of sourced content. Have a look at the revision history of Turan and other articles he edited(vandalized). Thanks. 88.254.94.183 (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
He deleted a sourced content but in edit summary, he wrote that it is not sourced. After I warned him, he admitted that it is sourced but not reliable. Also please see the revision history of this article. He is vandalizing the page with false edit summaries and clearly lying. 88.254.94.183 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the IP editor is accusing User:일성강 of being Tirgil34 (talk · contribs), who is an LTA vandal. I don't know what's going on, but Tirgil34 apparently has a history of edit warring with his own socks, so that's something to consider. Also, the IP editor seems to have taken these socking concerns to Doug Weller's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. I still doubt that this editor is suspicious and might be a new sock of that LTA vandal, but it is not only about being Tirgil or not. The user is clearly vandalizing the articles through deletion of sourced contents with false or misleading edit summaries as I showed above. He did it many times. I don't think he is here to contribute. 88.254.94.183 (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Don't have the energy to investigate the validity of the IP's claims in detail, but a few points to consider:
  1. Both users have gone well past 3RR, so unless one of them is unambiguously vandalizing the articles in question they are both in violation.
  2. NRP appears to be subtly implying that both are Tirgil34, but again I don't have the energy to check.
  3. The OP's contribs to other Wikimedia projects relate almost exclusively to the genetic categorization of the Korean langauge. Unless this is a pet topic of Tirgil34 it seems unlikely they are the same person.
  4. The phrase "Thank you NinjaRobotPirate" is really amusing.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't read NRP's comment thoroughly and thusly did not notice his implication. Anyway, it doesn't make sense since at the end of the day, there is no difference between pre and post edit-warring version of the article (Then what could be the purpose of that fake edit-war?) As for OP's contribs, I do not know what he did on other wikimedia projects but on en.wiki, his some contribs seem to me suspicious and also since "ascribing fictitious personalities to his socks" (and false-flag operations) is one of the habitual behaviors the LTA vandal, I thought that he might be the same user. Regarding sockpuppetry, I am less doubtfull about him now. However, as I mentioned above, this is not only about sockpuppetry. The user clearly deleted sourced content with false/misleading edit summaries. 88.254.94.183 (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not deleted sourced content. This source is a thing of interpretation. There stand written, "we MAY add as fourth branch korean and japanese", but in the articel it stand that they are always considerd as "turanian" (which is a obsolet term so i do not care anymore...). I admit that Dravidian is fully sourced and that i have made in this case a mistake, but i did not started this edid war nor do i have "other suspisious" contribs made. 일성강 (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Boxing Fan[edit]

My patience has worn out with User:Boxing Fan, in the sense that they're constantly falling woefully short of WP:CIR and not giving a flying crap about MOS:BOXING. They've already had a block for edit warring against consensus on boxing weight classes, but lately they're continuing to mess with things like:

  • Boxing record tables, by incorrectly changing content ([17], for which they were warned multiple times for doing the same thing at a related article in December: [18], [19])
    • Breaking up small text parameters for no reason, and re-linking elements that only need linking on the first instance ([20], [21], [22])
    • Flagrantly changing result types to read incorrectly ([23], [24], [25], and heaps more). There's already serial vandals who've done this for years; we don't need another.
  • Adding redundant infobox stats ([26], [27], [28], [29]; for which, interestingly, an IP was very recently blocked for making the exact same edits.. I might actually call up an SPI on them for that.)
  • Random outbursts of foul language ([30])

It's not my place to say that this user is WP:NOTHERE, and my goodness I've tried communicating 'til I'm blue in the face, but they're certainly not in the habit of making constructive edits, nor are all the warnings in the world doing anything. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Had to go the WP:AIV route as they just wouldn't stop, but I'll be straight back here if (and when) they continue after their block. Look for a C&P dump of this same topic when that happens. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible WP:NOTHERE situation?[edit]

(non-admin closure) User warned. Kleuske (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2017 (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 think we might need some admins to look over WarnerFan 1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Pretty much every edit (at least, every edit visible to a non-admin) seems to be an attempt to add in claims of one or more non-notable (and, frankly, highly improbable) crossover "movies" for Tiny Toon Adventures and/or Animaniacs to related articles; in particular, they seem to be trying to push a user-sandbox article on one specific one into mainspace by any means possible (I'd give diffs, but it'd basically be recapping their contributions since 17 January) following it being denied at AfC. That article is sourced entirely to an IMDB page for it, and both it and the sandbox article make a number of highly implausible claims (Barry Sonnenfeld executive producing, Open Road Films distributing, and, entertainingly enough, no mention of Warner Bros. or Amblin Entertainment--which jointly own both shows--being involved at all), and attribute it to a filmmaking company named for a person whose Wikipedia article was deleted as non-notable, with WarnerFan, who created it, having been cautioned about creating autobiographical articles. (You can throw in highly amateurish "official art" on a number of IMDB articles attributed to the same film company... which were also all created by the same person.) I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for here--I suspect this is an enthusiastic teenager who is trying to make his fanworks more prominent, or something similar--but we should probably find a way to nip this behavior in the bud, since the user contributions show them having not once made a talkpage edit or any other sign that they pay attention to messages on their talk page. Anyone got any ideas? rdfox 76 (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a teenager who's adding hoax crossovers based on his own fan fiction. I'll leave a warning on his talk page. Ping me if he does it again, and I'll block him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2017 (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 on Derek Taylor[edit]

(non-admin closure) Fair use explanation and final warning issued. Kleuske (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2017 (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:Aunt Martha Repeatedly removes an image from Derek Taylor. I have reverted twice, not going to do it third time. As I have also answered ticket:2017012110011085, I feel a bit involved, so I do not wish to take any more action myself. The image in question is a non-free image and is clearly marked as such, the size is fine for non-free. I have offered the copyright holder at OTRS to alter the page for whatever copyright notice is required, and also offered to reduce the image to 150px wide - that has fell on deaf ears. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken has explained how our fair use policy applies and the user is on their last warning. --NeilN talk to me 15:17, 23 January 2017 (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:Soupforone, personal attack and related incidents[edit]

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

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

newly registered editor, previously editing the affected articles as 86.89.46.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Related cases:

  1. AN/I: User:EthiopianHabesha, Disruptive Editor on Ethiopia related pages (Filer: User:Duqsene)
  2. ARC: ARB case (Filer: User:GabiloveAdol)
  3. Possibly old cases of @Middayexpress, see the note posted by Cordless Larry today on AN/I here.
  4. There is a puzzling comment posted on my talk page in last 24 hours by the newly registered account @GabiloveAdol, that there is or will be a separate case on admin @Buckshot06: somewhere, with "Buckshot06 will also be mentioned in another case". Sorry, I do not know what that case is or will be, and am unable to provide links. Perhaps the admins can ask the affected parties to disclose and consolidate these cases?

Affected articles: Amhara people, Oromo people, Sultanate of Ifat, Somalis, Shirazi people

Behavior/incidents related to @Soupforone

  1. Personal attacks: Bigot allegations. The content disputes, which has already involved two admins on the talk pages, and other editors, has escalated to a point where there is a pattern of disruptive behavior by @Soupforone, in tandem with GabiloveAdol and EthiopianHabesha with the latest being an accusation of WP:BIGOT with this personal attack by @Soupforone. The other parts of the discussion can be reviewed here and here. Soupforone just back-edited and posted that their comment "was not intended for EthiopianHabesha or you", but this is strange. The context of the discussion on that page is my edits and the pending ARB case. Even if it somehow was not against me, unsubstantiated WP:BIGOT allegation against anyone in wikipedia is hostile and inappropriate PA.
  2. Policy shopping by Soupforone, hoping something will stick. Soupforone sought to delete sourced sections and WP:RS first claiming WP:UNDUE, WP:REDFLAG and WP:ATTACK applies. I explained how they misunderstand the policy. Soupforone responded I may be right about WP:ATTACK, "it's apparently BLP that applies"... here. For what it is worth, multiple admins/editors have already explained that BLP and BLPGROUP do not apply to these articles.
  3. Misuse of wikipedia policies to stonewall and block others from editing. For example, Soupforone invoked WP:BURDEN here, to allege "the WP:BURDEN to obtain consensus is actually on the editor who wants to make changes. That's why I asked you to present any potential wordings first here on the talk page for discussion and consensus." When I explained that WP:BURDEN is about verifiability and providing reliable sources, and that I already provided reliable scholarly sources thereby meeting the burden, Soupforone reinterpreted the policies again.
  4. WP:OWN behavior in Somalia-Ethiopia space articles. For example, in Amhara people demanding that I don't add any more sources or sourced content in that article at all per WP:BRD here without consensus with IP editor (see above). Same WP:OWN at Somalis article, where Soupforone left me the comment, "Somalis, as the page was honed through a laborious consensus process" asking me to stop removing / replacing unsourced 'citation needed' tagged "consensus" version or expanding the Somalis article with sourced content citing scholarly sources.

While content disputes can be resolved, policies can be clarified, personal attacks such linking WP:BIGOT is hostile. That page cautions, in bold, "Be careful linking other editors to this essay as direct accusations of bigotry can be interpreted as hostile, even when justified. An unfounded or speculative accusation of WikiBigotry could be considered a WP:Personal attack". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • TLDR. What do you want to happen? EEng 17:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • This is an ongoing dispute in the Amhara/Ethiopeia area. Essentially it boils down to 'Native/local/related editors think articles are being negatively (Not in line with NPOV) skewed by westerners of European descent'. I am actually sympathetic after looking at the editing history of some of them over the last few weeks but have been keeping clear. There does seem to be an ongoing bias towards exaggerating some aspects of culture/history with tenuous sourcing at best. If you look at the diffs provided in the (soon to be rejected) arbcom request, part of the complaint is that sources used by Sarah Welch are not relevant to the article (they do not mention the Amhara people etc). Which (if true) is whats leading to the requests not to add more content there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
      • All cites in the contested section (Amhara people#Slavery) have embedded quotes. The scholarly publications are by professors who are highly cited in Ethiopian studies, some who have lived/taught in Ethiopia. So it is not true that these are not relevant sources. Please note that the wording in the section is in part based on rewriting by Soupforone, which in good faith we must assume they did after source checks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @EEng: If WP:BIGOT evidence is found valid against Soupforone, I seek appropriate sanctions for PA. For rest, the request will depend on what the mitigating circumstances are. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
If there's a personal attack then please just give the diffs. We don't need a wall of text. EEng 20:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Ms Sarah Welch, not clear for me why I was mentioned here but I think it is because I criticized your recent edit that looks like paraphrasing out of context. I did explain above in detail so instead let me just list the diffs: [31][32][33][34][35]. You added content in the article saying "the conflict was triggered by Amda Tsion" while the source here said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan. And also why you ignored the most important part of the letter (threatening to tamper the Nile) in which that concerns the Egyptian Sultan and instead added a content as if the Egyptian Sultan is concerned with muslims in the Horn of Africa. I still did not get clarification on these two questions I asked which for me looks like paraphrasing out of context. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    • AN/I is not a substitute for the article's talk page. The clarification was posted there about 2 hours ago. You were mentioned in this case because you are involved, as is GabiloveAdol, as evidenced by this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Ms Sarah Welch, still no response as to why you said conflict was triggered by Amda Tsion while the scholar said it was precipitated by the Egyptian Sultan. Why I explained this issue here in ANI is because, it seems, you were trying to convince admins that your summary is in goodfaith while mine is not. I explained in detail so that Admins should be informed on your paraphrasing out of context. Instead of the walls of text, as all the other editors have said, it would have been helpful for us who are accused of personal attack to address your accusations if you have provided diffs and briefly explained how they are personal attack. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't understand you, just like Robert McClenon and others, above on AN/I. How was I "paraphrasing out of context"? No, not "all the other editors have said" about walls of text!! (except for non-admin EEng's strange comment, who ignored the "diff" that was already provided, and who doesn't complain of 'wall of text' similarly on other AN/I filings and discussions while responding (diff1, diff2, etc). There is nothing in AN/I guideline which says only give "diffs", "don't explain, no text at all". In my first draft I used both precipitated and triggered (with the meaning of stimulated), in the first and second sentence respectively. Nothing wrong with that, and not worthy of a discussion on AN/I. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Ms Sarah Welch Okay people has been on my noticeboard including you earlier? But anyway regarding those article's and all the users involved are being looked at by the Oversight team, including the admin Buckshot06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabiloveAdol (talkcontribs)
    • @GabiloveAdol: Have you already filed, or are you going to file additional cases on another wikipedia forum, on Amhara people-related matter, against anyone else such as admin Buckshot06? Please provide links to help avoid duplicate effort, and please do sign your comment by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

  • EEng#s, indeed. A wall of text by Ms Sarah Welch, yet not a single dif of a supposed personal attack by me against her. This is because I have not made any. The actual reason why I pointed GabiloveAdol (not her) to the bigot policy essay on his talk page was as a self-correction since we had both initially assumed that the blpgroup policy applied to ethnic groups, but an admin clarified that the latter was actually intended for smaller groups. Further, Awale-Abdi and AcidSnow can attest that there were problems with the Somali social stratification text, though these were eventually fixed. However, much of the slavery text on Amhara people is indeed undue and misrepresented, including the embedded text; EthiopianHabesha, Duqsene and Gabilolove are certainly not mistaken about that. Parts of it have been identified as fringe on the fringe noticeboard by The_Four_Deuces [36], and I've also demonstrated with direct links which other phrases are synthesized on the no original research noticeboard [37]. Only_in_death encapsulates the actual situation above well. Soupforone (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • No, @The Four Deuces never identified professor and one of the highly cited Ethiopia scholar Donald N. Levine source as a "fringe" source. In Somalis article, @Awale-Abdi deleted the text you, yes Soupforone you added, and left what I added (AcidSnow has not edited that article since August 12 2016, as you falsely allege and imply above without diffs; fwiw, my first edit ever of Somalis article was on November 14 2016). On your personal attack, I already provided the diff above, where you wrote WP:BIGOT. The context is clearly Amhara people article edits when you used WP:BIGOT link, and you are discussing @GabiloveAdol's ARB filing (diff2) that is entirely targeted at me. What is the context of your WP:BIGOT wording? and who are you insinuating to be the author of the alleged WP:BIGOT content? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Of course the context of WP:BIGOT was Amhara since GabiloveAdol alleged from the start that the page was being ethnically targeted. It's really reaching, though, to claim that I was personally attacking you for having the gall to point him (not you) to the correct policy essay on this. Also, Awale-Abdi did indicate that there were problems with the stratification stuff [38] [39], as did AcidSnow [40]. As for The Four Deuces, he wrote that the Levine claim "is not a useful source because it does not explain how or when it happened, what qualified them as slaves, how many were enslaved or provide any sources. We should not use sources where something is mentioned in passing" [41]. That seems fairly straightforward. Soupforone (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That depends on what GabiloveAdol meant by "someone wants to put a negative light on this page". Soupforone (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For diffs of personal attack by @GabiloveAdol, who has been working with @Soupforone (diff), please see "got caught redhanded again" and "lashed out and lied" language in this diff. That they were warned about PA, see this diff by admin @Buckshot06. That the allegations are false and I did exactly quote the WP:RS on Herbert Lewis, please see this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Actually, GabiloveAdol asked for moderator assistance to fix the Amhara stratification stuff, as he was concerned that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page" [42]. That is when and why I tried to help him. Soupforone (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • That "someone" you identified (diff) was me. So your unsubstantiated WP:BIGOT comment is targeted at me? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Uhh, that dif indicates that you originally added the stratification stuff, which is true. Nowhere do I personally attack you. Please stop reaching for what isn't there. Soupforone (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
          • You have linked WP:BIGOT. When Cordless Larry asked you, who do you think it applies to. You explained, "That depends on what GabiloveAdol meant by 'someone wants to put a negative light on this page'." In the ARB/C filing, GabeloveAdol's links are mostly citing your advice/comments as evidence against me! Can you explain why you linked WP:BIGOT? If that "someone" is not me, who did you apply it to, or prod GabeloveAdol to apply it to? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Well, it's quite simple. GabiloveAdol indicated that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page", so I pointed to blpgroup thinking that that was the correct policy for this [43]. You instead linked him to the WP:COMPETENCE policy essay [44]. GabiloveAdol later alluded to the blpgroup policy in the arb, but an admin there indicated that the policy was intended for smaller groups. As a self-correction, I then pointed GabiloveAdol to the WP:BIGOT policy essay on his talk page, explaining that apparently this was the actual standard for his particular concern (given its clause on subject-based bias) [45]. Ergo, kindly stop reaching for what is just not there. Soupforone (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
              • You allege "his particular concern (given its clause on subject-based bias)"? Please provide a diff where GabiloveAdol expressed this "particular concern". The link you added above doesn't show any concern that deserves WP:BIGOT answer. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Ethnic-nationalist editors have a bias that will accuse "good faith" editors of any bias(negative) if said "good faith" editor adds content that shows a negative fact on said ethno-nationalist group. That being said, it seems a witch hunt against Ms.Welch has occurred ever since her edits in ethno-nationalist congested articles like "Ethiopia, Horn of Africa, Oromo, Amhara...etc". Bigotry goes both ways in these types of articles, for example, there are dominating ethnic groups who trample on the voices of the minority ethnic groups, when said information of minority ethnic groups is brought to attention on wikipedia: 1. edit wars occurs 2. ethnonationalist editors go on editting rampages 3. good faith editors get accused of bias/bigotry etc for false "siding with majority or minority ethnic group". Wikipedia, seriously needs to do something about ethnonationalist editors who are ruining articles through various means. Pulling the Bigotry card is nonsensical when ethnonationalist editors are the most bigoted editors on wikipedia. Motto of ethnonationalist editors is "My ethnicity is superiour to yours!".HarryDirty (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Recreated, deleted, salted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Ms Sarah Welch, GabiloveAdol's particular concern is obviously his claim that "someone wants to put a negative light on this page"; that is the subject-based bias [46]. On the other hand, it's unclear what assertion of his elicited that WP:COMPETENCE policy link of yours. Soupforone (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rationale for that was at the time, but requesting an SPI of me, Ms Sarah Welch, Buckshot06, Robert McClenon, Duqsene, etc. might be a reason to suspect competence issues now! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This newbie clearly feels bitten. Soupforone (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that GabiloveAdol has been editing as an IP editor since July 2014. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, GabiloveAdol has voluntarily disclosed to be same as 86.89.46.90, the latter editing since July 20 2014. FWIW, the SPI has been re-encouraged by EthiopianHabesha. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Soupforone: See the third para of WP:COMPETENCE, and this section in particular. GabiloveAdol-86.89.46.70 claimed "the sources are not correct/false or at least questionable" because "Source 35 Leads to a title but no article". This falls under, "Editing beyond one's means, Lack of technical expertise"; their repeated deletion of sources and sourced content since October 2016, falls under "Non-incremental changes"; their edit summary of "I'm removing this section because it's biased and clearly inflamiatory, it's being recently added to cause division!!!" falls under "Bias-based" of CIR. As I note above, your creative (mis)interpretation of content policies/guidelines/essays such as WP:BURDEN, and now WP:CIR, continues to be disruptive. Your linking of WP:BIGOT and (mis)interpretation of content policy pages to goad GabiloveAdol is just another level. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Ms Sarah Welch: EthiopianHabesha, Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces, myself and Duqsene have all found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff. As for the wikipolicy linking, not a single dif shows that I goaded GabiloveAdol, much less that I personally attacked you. Please, do stop reaching for what just is not there. Soupforone (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: You goading GabiloveAdol is evidenced by these diffs: 1 with your unsubstantiated WP:BIGOT link on GabiloveAdol's talk page, 2 with your "it was appended out of bad faith" comment on behalf of IP ( = GabiloveAdol), 3 with your "you're right though about WP:ATTACK; it's apparently BLP that applies here" against in a matter raised by the same IP. Further evidence: GabiloveAdol quoted you and your explanations as evidence on AR/C case which has now been declined.
Please do not misquote and misrepresent Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces, or Duqsene. You allege they "all found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims", but you allege without diffs. Their edit history suggests no such conclusion. @Only_in_death_does_duty_end is tentative with "Which (if true) is whats leading to". I cannot find a link where @The Four Deuses states "there is some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims". Do you have a diff of a conversation between GabiloveAdol and The Four Deuces that supports your allegation? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hardly. What I actually wrote GabiloveAdol vis-a-vis his subject-based bias claim is that "it seems that the actual standard is WP:BIGOT" [47]. Nowhere did I goad him, nor is there any dif of me personally attacking you. As for the rest, I didn't quote Only in death does duty end, The Four Deuces and Duqsene in my last post, so I obviously couldn't have misquoted them. They each did though find that there was some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff [48] [49] [50] (I never claimed that TheFourDeuces and GabiloveAdol chatted). Please stop reaching for what is not there. Soupforone (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Soupforone: Are you confessing you are sockpuppet of GabiloveAdol? how can you know what GabiloveAdol/86.89.46.90 has in mind? They cited no WP:BLP or other policy claims, it is you explaining and inserting these on their behalf as their opinion. If you are a sock, come clean. If you are not, stop speaking on their behalf and putting words on GabiloveAdol/86.89.46.90 behalf with "the ip is claiming that much of the material is WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG" (diff), "he/she [the IP] means that WP:BLP..." etc. (diff), etc. because IP never wrote so, only you did.
You misrepresent all three editors, and this is further evidence of a persistent behavioral problem with you. Nowhere in those links does The Four Deuces acknowledge or comment on GabiloveAdol claim, just yours. Nor does Duqsene. You link the first draft of @Only_in reply, but ignore that @Only_in revised that draft moments later to express tentativeness of "if true". That tentativeness does not imply "I found that there is unfortunately some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Actually, GabiloveAdol indicated from the start that he thought the page was being ethnically targeted and therefore asked for moderator help [51]. That is when and why I tried to help him. Also, what I wrote is that there was some substance to GabiloveAdol's claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation on the stratification stuff. The italicized part is the actual stuff they found some legitimacy in, not all of GabiloveAdol's various claims. Only in death-- "I am actually sympathetic after looking at the editing history of some of them over the last few weeks. There does seem to be an ongoing bias towards exaggerating some aspects of the culture with tenuous sourcing at best." [52]; Duqsene-- "it would be inconceivable for Afar to raid Abyssinia" [53]; The Four Deuces-- "It is not a useful source because it does not explain how or when it happened, what qualified them as slaves, how many were enslaved or provide any sources. We should not use sources where something is mentioned in passing." [54]. Only in Death's later phrase tweak is not a tempering of his initial assertion, but rather an explanation of why there was in part resistance to the content [55]. Soupforone (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Moderation is not pretensively arguing "IP means this...", linking WP:BIGOT, etc. Note that admin Buckshot06 and others also tried to moderate the Talk:Amhara people page. They were constructive, you were tenacious with "if WP:ATTACK does not apply, then WP:BLP applies" followed by the BIGOT link elsewhere. You continue to distort what the three stated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I diffed and quoted the three above just fine. As for the WP:BIGOT and WP:ATTACK policy pages, I obviously pointed GabiloveAdol to them because he had alleged subject-based bias and asked for help [56]. There is no wikipolicy discouraging linking to wikipolicy - that is what it's there for. Soupforone (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposals for GabiloveAdol and Soupforone[edit]

Based on the due evidence gathering and discussion above, I suggest an indef ban on GabiloveAdol for PA during AR/C filing, disruptive SPI filing against admins/numerous editors and other disruptive behavior in Amhara people article. Additionally, I suggest a limited sanction/warning on Soupforone. The latter recommendation is based on Soupforone's repeated assertion of "for what is not there" which suggests they may not have linked the WP:BIGOT etc in bad faith, though they did so after repeatedly trying to put their own concerns / PA through GabiloveAdol with "the IP/GabiloveAdol means...". I hope they do not attempt to speak for other IP /editors in future. This case has no direct bearing on EthiopianHabesha (on whom there is a separate AN/I case pending above). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - GabiloveAdol specifically asked for moderator help on the talk page [57]. That is when and why I tried to assist him, which obviously there is no wikipolicy against. Ms Sarah Welch also has not provided a single dif demonstrating that I either personally attacked her or WP:GOADed GabiloveAdol. Actually, this claim of hers doesn't even make sense since I advised GabiloveAdol to abort his arb filing [58]. Harsh sanctions against GabiloveAdol would be unfair, as others (including on the fringe noticeboard) have found that there is some legitimacy to his claims regarding undue weight and misrepresentation [59] [60]. Therefore, what GabiloveAdol instead needs is guidance on basic wikietiquette by an experienced admin. Soupforone (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The diffs are above for personal attacks such as "lied", "caught red handed", WP:BIGOT, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • The WP:BIGOT link was me pointing GabiloveAdol (not you) to a policy essay on the subject-based bias that he alleged. I also never wrote that you lied or were caught red-handed, nor are there any difs of personal attacks by me against you. Soupforone (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Concur with regard to User:GabiloveAdol[edit]

Having looked at the spamming of multiple admin pages with comments about the removal of the frivolous SPI against Sarah Welch (and reportedly others), and at the flippant reply to my admonition about it, I am concluding that User:GabiloveAdol is not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but only to engage in battleground editing with regard to the battleground region that is the Horn of Africa (or by whatever names it is called). I reluctantly have to conclude that a Site Ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Observation: Horn of Africa[edit]

I would like to observe that this is one of THREE open threads having to do with disruptive editing having to do with the Horn of Africa region. This appears to be another region that is prone to battleground editing because it has been a historical battleground, such as the Balkans, and India and Pakistan. In some of those areas the ArbCom has had to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions to streamline the sanctioning of disruptive editing. While the most recent request for arbitration in this area was appropriately declined, it may be appropriate either for the ArbCom by motion to impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or the community to impose community general sanctions. (For some reason, community general sanctions, when used, have not worked as well as ArbCom sanctions, but they are better than just the free-for-all without any sanction regime.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Concur all you want[edit]

You can concur all you want, i will still make my SPI case, admin or not. All i need is to make it less frivolous(probably because of the unnecessary amount of added text i included) and just simply supply the diffs and time logs, about the editors in questions, which some of them are not suprisingly calling for a indef ban. During the AR/C filling they said i was aiming for the things in the wrong place, regarding the gutting of the history section of the Amhara people article and neutrality/misrepresentation of the article, which were later edited by Ms Sarah Welch & Soupforone. Further more on my talk page, there were reasons to question the good faith and reliabilty of that section regarding the Pankhurst sources.

Soupforone I would appreciate if you stop calling me him i'm a woman not a man, just use my nickname otherwise. Ms Sarah Welch Regarding the disruptive behavior in the Amhara people page, i never denied i removed your article on 27 October 2016, i even said it in the Arb/com, and encouraged by it i will make my case against it in a short notice. Cordless Larry I never edited wikipedia before October 2016, i live in a household of 5, and only bothered to remove/edit Ms Sarah Welch section after my younger brother asked me what a caste was.

I'm going on my own pace, and i will file/respond when i have the time or the feel for it. Ciao GabiloveAdol (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Brudger[edit]

I originally made a report at AIV but that was archived as stale so I'm bringing this here as administrator attention is still required. For almost 7 years now this editor has done nothing but insert the book he has written into articles as "cites". The fact that he has gone this long is astonishing. WP:SELFCITE aside, he is clearly only here to promote his book and to insert it in as many articles as possible. His conflict of interest is also undeclared on his user page and was only made known after he complained after one of his inserts was removed. As we are unambiguously in the realm of a promotion only account I'm asking for an admin to deal with them. Thank you. --Majora (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Citing one's own book isn't WP:VANDALISM, so it should not have been reported at AIV. He does need to stop spamming his book, though. I think we need to more closely look at where citing it belongs and where it doesn't. If the book is one of the only extant resources about an obscure subject, it can/could be OK to insert as a citation. Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Softlavender: Reporting people whose only purpose here is to promote themselves is an option under the AIV module in Twinkle. So...if that isn't a form of vandalism perhaps we need to redo that (a topic for another time). The main point here is that this person's only goal, for almost seven years, is to only insert his book into articles. Period. If that isn't a violation of NOTPROMOTION I don't know what is. --Majora (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Uninvolved comment Having taken a look at this user's contributions and the exchange between them and Richard-of-Earth transcribed onto their talk page, I think this is just a simple issue of an editor who simply doesn't know how to edit. I'm not seeing anything intentionally tendentious here. I'd be happy to help Richard tutor him if that will solve the problem. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I reviewed about 30 of their edits (approx 1/5th) and I found every single one I checked was primarily about including the editor's books into an article. I'll admit they've added some content. But there is a serious self promotion issue here. I think restricting the editor from citing themselves anymore is a reasonable action here. I was on the verge of blocking, myself.--v/r - TP 23:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with TParis; looks like COI editing to me. Miniapolis 00:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say it is a WP:NOTHERE situation, and yes, promotional/COI. At the very least at this point he should not be adding his book[s] (as citation or otherwise) to articles directly -- he should be restricted to making requests on article talk pages. At worst he should be blocked as NOTHERE and self-promotion. Softlavender (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I feel he is here to build an encyclopedia. He adds more then he needs to add his cite. He does not need to add anything as he could add his book as a cite to material already unsourced in the articles. I would also like to point out that the articles he adds to are in need of prose. He has written at least three books in this area and perhaps several more. (It is hard to tell, his name is not that uncommon.) WP:SELFCITE is allowed and we should be thrilled to have anyone with experience writing and informed contributing to our articles. Besides he did less then 6 edits a month last year. I think we keep up with Wikifying his contributions. Hell, maybe if we are nice to him he will cite some of his sources he used for his books. Even if he doesn't, having the prose gives us something to look for to add cites. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course self citing is allowed. If his edits are good for the encyclopedia, what should we care what his supposed motive might be? Paul August 12:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, writing the article Alice Diamond, is certainly a useful contribution to the encyclopedia. Can we please try not to drive away useful contributors to our encyclopedia.? Please? Paul August 13:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Paul August: Ah yes, an article with questionable notability whose only sources were written by the person being discussed. "Useful" is certainly debatable. We don't allow self-promotion and it is quite clear that this person is only here to promote themselves and their book by any means necessary. --Majora (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Richard-of-Earth and Paul August. We're always telling people that if they want their research to be included on Wikipedia, they'll have to get it published in a reliable source first. Well, he's done that. EEng 22:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with above. Unless there is something actually *wrong* with the edits concerned. Merely being self-cited isnt a problem. Info only being sourced to a single reference may be undue, but from a quick look there doesnt appear to be anything controversial as such. As long as the references are from a RS as we define it for the content concerned, it ultimately doesnt matter who added it. The first question that should be asked is "Would this be an issue if a different editor was adding the information?" Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Legal threat from Prizes fan[edit]

User blocked, with TPA removed due to continued legal threats RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2017 (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.

Prizes fan has been trying to add a personal website about a single issue to the State Bar of Texas article. They've been discussing it with me on my talk page over the weekend but their post this morning included a clear legal threat. They disagree with my view and I've pointed them to the article talk page and various noticeboards to get alternate views and wasn't expecting "...you will be reported and litigation may very well emerge until you are dealt with like you deserve." I'm done with this individual, please review and handle as needed. Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, I have blocked the user for this threat. Should they rescind the threat, I will be happy to remove the block, or have another admin do such. That's about as clear of a threat that I can see. The "we are on the verge of reporting you" line also makes me believe this is an account used by more than one person, which of course is also not allowed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. You blocked as I was notifying them. Appreciate the help. Ravensfire (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reopened this thread based on the comment left here by Prizes Fan: [61]. It would appear that they not only don't recognize the issue in their legal threat, but doubled down in their threat of a subpoena. As I indef'd the user I'm involved, however would this warrant the blocking of talk page access as well now, and have the user go to WP:UTRS for an unblock request? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this warrants the removal of talk page access. They've had it explained to them that legal threats are not permitted, they've had a link to the specific policy. They responded by violating policy, again, and making it clear that their interactions will be tendentious and disruptive, even if limited to their talk page. So block TPA to put a stop to that disruption and let UTRS turn down their unblock request. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
TPA has now been revoked as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2017 (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.

Followalltherules would seem to need talk page access revoked[edit]

(edit conflict)And I've deleted it. Κσυπ Cyp   10:35, 24 January 2017 (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.

Indeffed user Followalltherules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) turned their talk page into an attack page. I db-attacked the page, but it has been reverted several times by Followalltherules. Finally is targeting me. I was feeling deprived. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just revoked their talk page access. -- The Anome (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The talk page was deleted. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2017 (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.

Believe it or not, I was about to NAC the above but had an edit conflict. There was apparently a pile-on here. (笑) Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Abuse from "Curly Turkey"[edit]

(non-admin closure) (1) SuddenDeth: Grow a thicker skin, there was no "abuse", just a little garden-variety profanity. (2) This is a content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2017 (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 Curly Turkey added an unprofessional comment onto my talk page and used profanities over a dispute with another administrator who believes that a bass guitarist who plays on 2 tracks on an album cannot be listed in the credits even though I had another admin agree with me and revert his edits. His comment is as follows:

I hope you're not going to start another edit war over this shit, SuddenDeth—especially not on a Featured Article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

SuddenDeth (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2017 (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.

Is any of this vandalism???[edit]

This thread isn't going anywhere useful. Go write an encyclopaedia. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2017 (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 was accused of vandalism after a single edit (adding WP:Advert tag to an article I felt was written in a blatantly biased manner; [see diff]), and subsequently threatened with a block by Jim1138 for said edit, without so much as the courtesy of asking me why I tagged it. My edit history is there for the Wikiworld to see, and I implore any and all who might reply to this to do so. I rarely make contentious edits, never tenditious ones and, though accused of edit warring last week by another editor (Garchy), I didn't come anywhere near WP:3RR (result: blocked!). Also, IMO, Garchy breached WP:BADGER (specifically, "Wikihounding") by reverting ***every single edit I made on 18 January***. Garchy didn't once ask about any edits, but rather, reverted them wholesale. Feel free to peruse the diffs below to decide not if my edits were acceptable, but whether they were so egregious as to warrant running me down roughshod instead of Garchy making the slightest attempt to suss out WP:CONCENSUS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scoville_scale&diff=760973230&oldid=760691587
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lotusland&diff=760692885&oldid=760691719
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Echinocactus_grusonii&diff=760692484&oldid=759365592
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_cruiser_Aurora&diff=760691718&oldid=760646805
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kronstadt&diff=761052242&oldid=760977998

Meters injected himself into this "edit war" (by all means, you decide who was "warring"!) in a most biased and rude way, again invoking the threat of blocking with no good reason. That user also resorted to Wikihounding, reverting [edit] 4 minutes later. Even as I was adding an edit summary, Meters was here having me blocked (which I learned of when I tried to save it...buh-bye content!). Again, no questions asked of me, no opportunity to explain or defend myself.

I honestly expect little or nothing to be done about this, as I've learned from historical precedent that WP protects the most prolific and/or active editors regardless of abuses. I beg of you, prove me wrong!

PS: User:Herostratus called two of my edit summaries "uncivil", and cited them as reasons I was blocked. In one case, [this was true]. In the other, [patently false.]

PPS: I used some unsavoury language at several points in the exchanges above, and would even concede that some of it could be considered abusive. I'm happy to talk about apologies, just as soon as the others involved are ready to make theirs.184.145.42.19 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Your first sentence is not supported by the diff you provided. You said that Jim1138 accused you of vandalism when he reverted you. When you check the diff where he reverts you, at no point does his edit summary contain the word "vandalism". I'm afraid after noting that discrepancy it greatly effects the credibility of whatever you may have said afterwards. Could you please link to a diff where Jim1138 uses the word vandalism to describe that edit? --Jayron32 17:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
On my [page]. Is there anywhere else one might threaten to block someone? Above diff is to show the edit itself, so people like yourself can decide if it was a good-faith edit or not.184.145.42.19 (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Assuming you are referring to this edit, it's most definitely not a good-faith edit. "Revert at your peril, motherfucker" has no place in an edit summary. As to the removal of the content itself, I'd suggest it, too, is inappropriate but it's certainly possible others would disagree. --Yamla (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I just did. For future reference, should I have done that before I posted here???184.145.42.19 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you make more productive suggestions. I've reined in my anger for the moment, in the hopes of engaging the process as it is. Blocking me at this point would be incredibly petty. As I said above, LOOK AT MY EDITS!184.145.42.19 (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I most assuredly will tell you I have looked at your edits. You're edit warring, attacking other users, and refusing to discuss any changes you are making to articles. If you can't rein in your anger to work collaboratively, then maybe this project isn't suited for you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
LOOK AT MY EDITS Sure. This looks an awful lot like the addition of unsourced contentious material to a WP:BLP. TimothyJosephWood 17:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

this edit removed cited content. Also, please read the edit summary - "Revert at your peril, motherfucker."

I've acknowledged the inappropriateness of the edit summaries, among other things. That doesn't negate the edit. "Cited content" /= NPOV!184.145.42.19 (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

this edit added an advert tag to an article that did not fit WP:ADVERT. After being reverted by this editor it was again removed by another editor.

this edit was reverted by myself and one other editor, but in hindsight probably should have been allowed to stay.

this and this appeared to go against other edits on the page and page consensus.

this is the note I left for the editor about those changes, and their reply was not kind and referred to sock puppetry here. This editor is clearly not here to better Wikipedia.

I did not revert the editors edits "wholesale", but did do a check of their editing history and removed edits that I found to be disruptive or not positive for the encyclopedia. Plenty of other editors also handled these reverts. I'm happy to answer any other questions. Garchy (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no questions of you, just as you had none of me when you reverted every single edit I made in a day. Diffs say it all, even if your fellow editors prefer to focus on edit summaries rather than the articles themselves. Whatever, man.184.145.42.19 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm being bold. Don't like it? report the fuck out of me, goof. I'll get a new IP tomorrow. Cheers. Someone kindly block this duck, close this, and let's move on with our lives. TimothyJosephWood 18:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Pray tell, Timothy, what's a duck?184.145.42.19 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:DUCK TimothyJosephWood 18:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about that: I duplicated the page content in a recent edit: I've undone it now, but some other people's edits may have been lost. -- The Anome (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Funny, you only need to scroll up a little bit! Garchy (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, how does this comment help resolve anything???184.145.42.19 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
We are providing proof of your numerous disruptive and vulgar edits on Wikipedia. I've provided all the proof I need, so my case is closed. Garchy (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
"We"??? No, Garchy. I'm talking specifically about you making comments for the sake of point-scoring. Please keep it to your edits and interactions with me. Whatever my feelings on others' opinions here, they're all surely capable of reading what's here without you adding snark.184.145.42.19 (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and might I add that nothing I've said or done here, odious though it may be, contravenes WP:DISRUPT. Please read these things before you accuse others of them. Thanks.184.145.42.19 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (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.

One more tidbit I just saw now, which I daresay proves my edits were mostly or entirely Kosher: Garchy's own words! You can scroll up to the section on this page with my IP at the section title. Sorry, I'm not sure how to present this...

"Thanks all - I just woke up to see the work that has been done. I looked at my reverts, there were a few I did hastily and which didn't need to be done (I must have gone a little overboard while reverting the disruptive edits), but then again the IP editor was a bit of a handful - I'll not revert the good ones back, and it looks like the others were handled already. Thanks again! Garchy (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)"184.145.42.19 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw after the above edit that this was closed. OK then!184.145.42.19 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hijacked dab[edit]

Sock blocked, page de-hijacked, and dab returned to its previous title. NinjaRobotPirate hard at work with his new tools. Efficient, methodical, and bold...and that one guy thought "NinjaRobotPirate" was an inappropriate name for an admin! ;) (non-admin closure) Snow let's rap 08:51, 24 January 2017 (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.

Randomly came across J. P. Maroney today. Originally, it was a disambiguation page that was hijacked several months ago by what I assume to be a Highstakes00 sock, Areaskz. The user replaced the dab's content with the biography of a business person, moved it, then redirected the original title (Jannābī) to Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi). Could someone please restore the original disambiguation? Sro23 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Sro23 - I think you mean this revision? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the most recent non-hijacked revision. Sro23 (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I sorted it. I blocked Areaskz as a sock of Highstakes00, undid the page hijacking, and move the disambiguation page back to its old title. The biography does not exist any more. Technically, Maroney's article wasn't really deleted, since it wasn't ever "officially" created in the first place. Regardless, if people want me to cite a speedy deletion criteria, I would say it fits WP:G5, a creation by a blocked or banned user. This seems the most obvious solution to the problem, but I can recreate the BLP if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2017 (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.

Volunteer Marek[edit]

Nah. Writ Keeper  23:38, 24 January 2017 (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.

During a content dispute between me (User:Guy Macon) and User:Volunteer Marek on the James O'Keefe page, Volunteer Marek has reverted multiple times.[62][63][64][65][66] (no 3RR violation) in order to remove

"He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some of which have received criticism for being selectively edited"

and replace it with

"He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited"

At Talk:James O'Keefe#The issue of selective editing, three editors have objected to Volunteer Marek's changes,[67][68][69][70] Only Volunteer Marek himself has supported the changes.

My main objection is to Volunteer Marek using reverts to get his way when the consensus on the talk page appears to be against him. My secondary objection is to Volunteer Marek improperly turning a widely held but disputed opinion about a subjective assertion into an established fact in Wikipedia's voice. We should not conclude that the editing was misleading. We should report that multiple reliable sources have come to that conclusion (and add any reliable sources that disagree if we can find them).

Note 1: Also see Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing

Note 2: A discretionary sanctions alert was posted by User:Ks0stm on 13 December 2016.[71]

Note 3: Looking at the bigger picture, Volunteer Marek does a lot of editing in areas relating to the recent US presidential election. I would like a set of uninvolved eyes look at that edit history and determine whether we have a POV problem -- I don't trust my own judgement because I am involved in a content dispute with him. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Er "He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited" is an objective fact that can be stated in wikivoice. The article contains more than enough sources to support it. 'some of which have received criticism for being selectively edited' is weaselly when you consider the ACORN and NPR videos. O'Keefe was found on multiple occasions to have selectively edited videos in order to push an agenda or distort the truth. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • How is whether a video is selectively edited an objective fact? How is doing so in order to push an agenda or distort the truth an objective fact? Whether someone pushes an agenda or distorts the truth is innately a subjective value judgement. In this case, it is a widely held subjective value judgement and should be reported as such. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Surely this will result in rational discussion among disinterested editors, and not at all a dog pile of everyone who has ever edited in these topic areas predictably falling in on their pre-established sides. TimothyJosephWood 22:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ...as is our practice... Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • [Bishzilla falls in a huge pile on both sides.] Hurry close thread before little users wriggle free! bishzilla ROARR!! 23:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC).
  • I'm sorry. [Tiredly.] She's not allowed to edit Wikipedia space. She knows it. Bad 'zilla! But she makes a point. I suggest everybody discuss on article talk. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC).
  • You mean like it says in WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD? I am talking and talking on the article talk page. Volunteer Marek is reverting and reverting without discussing. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It's disruptive to bring a pure content dispute to ANI and then rehash the content dispute with a misleading cherrypicked excerpt to troll for what OP apparently knew would be a pile-on. Withdraw? Boomerang? SPECIFICO talk 23:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it okay if I just ignore this? I'm tired and this is obviously misrepresenting the situation. First, GM makes it sound like I'm the only one who objected to these changes, which isnt the case. Second, as GM himself notes, there's no 3RR violation here and this has been discussed on talk extensively - so why exactly is he bringing this here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Both sentences are supported by RS. One is a bit weaselly. Go back to Talk. Get more folk involved if needed. Objective3000 (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2017 (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.

‎TenBingo[edit]

(non-admin closure) Blocked for 31 hours, with an indef to follow if the behavior persists Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2017 (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.

TenBingo (talk · contribs) is targeting every single one of my edits that he can revert, apparently in an attempt to harass me( I don't know why). His following harassment and destructive edits are here

Petergstrom (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears that every one of his edits he has made over the past week have been reverted. L3X1 Complaints Desk 18:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Given the unexplained reversions of your talk page posts and article additions with sources I tend to agree. TenBingo, you need to explain your reasoning or stay away from Petergstrom. --NeilN talk to me 18:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours. Any other admin may unblock if TenBingo comes up with a sensible reason for his persistent reversion of Petergstrom, but we can't just let him carry on doing that. There may also be a WP:CIR issue as regarding English as a first language i.e. [72] Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the block. This is definitely unacceptable and indicative of blatant harassment. If harassment like this continues after the user's block expires, I have no problem instating an indefinite block without further warning. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:53, 24 January 2017 (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.

Disruption by Francis Schonken[edit]

Closing. I don't know what this morass has become, but it doesn't seem to be about FS any longer, who isn't editing anyway. AN/I is not for arguing out protracted content disputes. If you think the IP is a sock or meatpuppet, there is a place to report that. Otherwise, nothing is being accomplished here and the vast majority of the text is just the participants continuing their arguments. --Laser brain (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2017 (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 have been creating content on a long article Concerto transcriptions (Bach) for a while with perhaps 500 edits. It had an "in use" tag on it a few hours ago. Francis Schonken, who has been Tracking my edits for the last few months, was therefore aware that I was writing a huge amount of content there. I have been over the past 7 or 8 years one of the main contributors to articles on Bach's organ music; these pieces fall into that category. Francis Schonken has vandalised the article in the last few hours in an aggressive way. He did not give any warning. None at all. This was a very long article.

Could an administrator please restore the article that I was editing? I cannot even find the editing history.

It was a long article entitled Concerto transcriptions (Bach). Francis Schonken's editing on Bach-related articles was restricted before for tendentious editing on articles and their talk pages, mostly related to Bach's religious music. Those restrictions should probably be reinstated and strengthened. This editing might even warrant a block. Francis Schonken has shifted around a huge amount of content that I was creating. His aggressive actions show that he is not interested in helping the reader and indded is trying to stop me editing.

I cannot even find my editing history on the article on Concerto transcriptions (Bach) because of thr games he's been playing. He waits until the middle of the noght Europen time to make these disruotive edits. That is what is just happened. I will try to restore the article I was editing but would like help from an administrator. Perhpas the easiest wasy is to block his editing and then somehow restore the article. Mathsci (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: It must have been obvious when I made the filing that I was still correcting the original report, prepared in a state of consternation. While that was happening other editors started commenting, without allowing me time to proof-read this and then notify Francis Schonken. Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mathsci: You were required to notify Francis Schonken of this discussion per the instructions at the top of the page. I did it for you. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 05:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You removed my comment and made a bunch of edits to this post, but, whatever. I believe the article you have been contributing to is located at Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach) which has a long history of your edits and has recently been moved from Concerto transcriptions (Bach) which is currently just a redirect accesible here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) You also left {{in use}} in place for several days without actually working on the article. It was automatically removed as stale by JL-Bot yesterday. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 06:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: At this point, I believe the continuing conflict between FrancisSchonken and Mathsci, which boiled over in May 2016 and has merely accelerated since then ([73], [74], [75], [76], [77]), needs to go to ArbCom. It has lasted too long, and has still not improved despite a resultant 6-month 1RR editing restriction on Francis Schonken, who started right back on his apparent hounding of Mathsci when the 6 months ended. I'm not necessarily taking sides here; although I sense that Francis has normally been the aggressor, Mathsci has his own inopportune behaviors that exacerbate the situation. I would possibly normally in this sort of case recommend an IBAN, but I don't think that is going to work in this situation, since we have two classical-music knowledgeable editors whose contributions are usually good when they are not at each others' throats, and their editing paths may seemingly of necessity cross. I think at this point a good and thorough forensic analysis of who has done what, and why and how, needs to be done, in order to come up with solutions that work best for the encyclopedia. I would like to invite two neutral and experienced editors, Voceditenore and Johnuniq, to opine here, as they have seen some of this unfolding and have effectively opined about it here on ANI in the past. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I have restored Concerto transcriptions (Bach) myself having found out where it was put. There was no controversial content; I have been busy in Cambridge University Library reading reference sources on Vivaldi on the concertos transcribed. These volumes are not available on the web (they have detailed comments on hand written copies and transcriptions). The pattern of of HOUNDING is clear enough and has been described at WikiProject Classical Music (where Softlavender commented before). Francis Schonken made no comments there. He asked about a musical genre which is not current. In the past at WP:RSN he has been told not use primary sources, only secondary sources. His current editing looks like some kind of new stunt. Howeverem the article is restored. I will content adding content to it and the related summary content concerned on the 9 Vivaldi concertos Bach transcribed (the article L'estro Armonico). Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Mathsci, you've actually just created a redirect loop Concerto transcriptions (Bach) -> Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) -> Concerto transcriptions (Bach). The article you want is Concerto for unaccompanied harpsichord (Bach), you'll want to make the others redirect there. Though since you've asked admin assistance, and SL is recommending ARBCOM, I don't know how wise doing anything further to those pages would be. That is regardless of whether I am a member of the "Peanut gallery" or otherwise. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The article I have been writing is now at Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach). I wanted it to be at the old title, "Concerto transcriptions (Bach)". If User:Doug Weller or another administrator is around, could they please help? I am not quite sure what happened. I probably made a careless error somewhere. It is the main article on wikipedia discussing those transcriptions. I chose the short title. This is OK, but not as short and snappy as I would like. Francis Schonken's intention was to cause distress not to help the reader. Mathsci (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: This is a recent, related thread on WikiProject Classical Music which was mentioned in a post above: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Page_on_Bach.27s_unaccompanied_keyboard_concertos.3F. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have sorted out the redirects. Both point to the article currently being edited. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Although this issue seems to have been needlessly complicated. FS started the article at Weimar concerto transcription (Bach) on 15th December and the Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach) on the 25th December. On the 31st december Mathsci redirected the Weimar article elsewhere as a POV Fork (It wasnt a fork by the standard definition at that point although arguably it is a 'fork' of content included at the latter article.) and it goes through a number of other redirects/moves before pointing at Concerto transcriptions. If the intended sole article location is to be 'Concerto transcriptions (Bach)' please start a formal move request, as at this point its just getting ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have this vivid recollection of Francis Schonken having been topic-banned or something like that for moving articles without discussion. I find a reprimand by Boing! said Zebedee in the talk page archive, here, and I'm sure there's more. As far as I'm concerned Francis Schonken should be barred from making any moves at all (or forking content, re-forking content, renaming articles). Drmies (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it happened here:

The problematic editing has not improved. All that has happened is that most of his edits are related to topics I edit. He has abandoned editing cantatas and mainly edits in the subjects close to my long established interests (e.g. Bach organ music and more generally my repertoire as a keyboard player/organist/accompanist). Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the content because I have not edited classical music. I will comment that I have seen both editors, User:Mathsci and User:Francis Schonken, pop up on these drama boards in the past. My most recent encounter was of disruption of the dispute resolution process by Mathsci. Francis Schonken filed a request for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Mathsci deleted it. While dispute resolution is voluntary, and an editor may decline to take part, deleting the request is a violation of talk page guidelines. I restored but archived the filing, and advised that a Request for Comments would be in order. Francis Schonken then asked what to do because Mathsci had deleted the RFC, which is similarly a violation of talk page guidelines and is disruptive. I advised that RFCs should not be deleted. As I said, I am not familiar with the content dispute, and Francis Schonken may indeed be disruptive, but Mathsci's conduct was also disruptive. I would optimistically suggest that these editors could request formal mediation. Otherwise topic bans may be necessary, and neither editor is clean. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── See above. As Drmies says, Francis Schonken has a history of disruption. You have been told that before at WT:DRN: you were told explicitly about his editing restrictions, but you chose to ignore it. Please then read what happened that resulted in his editing restrictions. Before his disruptive conduct was directed at many people. Now he finds it more convenient to have me as the sole target of his disruption, following some of the topics I have edited for 7 or 8 years. Here he took this anodyne carefully written article, still in the course of creation:

Concerto transcriptions for organ and harpsichord (Bach)

blanked it and copy-pasted it overnight to create this mess

[78].

All the editing history was lost. That was disruptive editing. This is the kind of content I create BWV 596. I believe it is fairly well written and it certainly does not require mediation. Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mathsci - It is true that at