Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive967

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

Noticeboard archives


Link that leads to malicious website.[edit]

The first link in the notes section leads to a link that my browser is automatically blocking and says is dangerous.

"Exclusive: Ambitious Congress Theater Renovation Aims to Create Neighborhood Destination". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwleon79 (talkcontribs) 07:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bwleon79: Thanks, I've removed the link (it was added by a suspected COI account back in 2015). Feel free to remove any potentially malicious links on your own in the future. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 08:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bwleon79 and Alex Shih: Please read WP:ROT before simply removing old links. In fact, the reference was valid, and I've added an archived capture to the relevant article. Domains change hands constantly, which is not the same thing as the link having been introduced in bad faith. It was well formatted, and contained the date of access. Always check web archives before making rash decisions to remove valid, sourced content. Please don't just go around removing links without checking what you are doing, and don't encourage others to do so. If you don't know what you are doing, please don't mete out irresponsible advice. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in but what happened to common sense here ? ... Iryna Harpy is bang on - the link should've been replaced with an archived version not just removed entirely, if a link is utterly irrelevant then chances are as Iryna says someone would've taken over the domain/website. –Davey2010Talk 19:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Arguably, if the site was suspected to be malicious in some way, I don't think there is anything wrong with removing the URL temporarily while trying to figure out what to do about it. I think you both are coming down too hard on Alex for a reasonable response to the issue. I JethroBT drop me a line 03:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the priority here was to eliminate the risk from a possibly malicious site. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Temporarily removing the "dead" link (more deadly than dead, perhaps) is a reasonable action. Even though there is a preferred alternative (i.e., linking to an archival service), not everybody knows to do this, or how to do this. As an aside, the original source strikes me as rather low-quality, even though we're talking about the local arts scene in Chicago. While leaving it unreferenced would've been less desirable than using an archive link, I think in this case an even better answer would have been to outright replace the reference. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Site or topic ban[edit]

User:XavierD75 does very little other than persistently trying to aggrandise Isabel dos Santos (and her father) and repeatedly removing information that casts them in a negative light. The user repeatedly uses statements by Isabel dos Santos herself on how well she is doing as head of Sonangol. Despite having been told (here and on the Portuguese Wikipedia not to include such information, he insists. He does the same across various projects, basically verging on WP:SPA behaviour. I have also reported him on the Portuguese WP. Thank you for looking into this. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

SaintCon and multiple accounts[edit]

I don't know where it belongs, but I found these accounts rather fishy:

Most of these are unregistered, and the few that are have only made edits to their sandbox talking about PowerShell. SaintCon seems to be a cybersecurity conference of some sort which is currently going on, and several of the talks involve PowerShell. I'd say that there's no reason to worry as long as they don't start editing other stuff. ansh666 21:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
For the record, here's all the accounts that seem to be related to this event:
Not sure if more will pop up later. ansh666 21:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yet, they are experimenting on WP. Surly this deserves a IP range block? As they are giving us more oversight work to do, just a we are doing now. Aspro (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Since when do a couple of sandbox edits deserve an IP range block? –FlyingAce✈hello 13:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@FlyingAce: It have nothing to do with a couple sandbox edits, it have to do with multiple account creations which is in violation of out policy on multiple accounts.--Biografer (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Biografer – multiple accounts per se are not disallowed; what is not allowed is the use of those accounts "to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus". I am still not seeing evidence that these accounts are currently being disruptive, or deserve to be blocked as Aspro states – do we even know for certain that these accounts belong to the same user? (Could be multiple attendees at the same conference...) In any case, the proper place to report suspected abuse of multiple accounts is WP:SPI. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @FlyingAce: You said it: disrupt. That was exactly what our concern was. Thanks for the tip by the way (regarding SPI). :)--Biografer (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"TheStupidityNetwork" and "TheStupidityNetwork Sucks"[edit]

(non-admin closure) Both users indefinitely blocked for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia, also treating it like a battleground. theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:24, 16 October 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.

Both users are recently-created accounts who seem to be attacking each other. They may be the same person. Either way, both are likely WP:NOTHERE (anything but contributing to the encyclopedia).

Also, both are likely violating the username policy as a disruptive username. theinstantmatrix (talk) 21:07, 16 October 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.

Long-term gross incivility and WP:BATTLE[edit]

Having reviewed this whole thing - twice - I can make three definitive conclusions: 1) There is no consensus for an indef block at this time. I suspect (but can not prove) that the reason for this was the abrupt speed with which the original indef block came on. 2) Given the amount of bad blood I seem to be sensing here one or greater (or possibly fewer) of you need to seriously entertain the idea of avoiding each other because, quite frankly, tearing into one another over actions that may or may not have seen like good idea to an admin or an editor/contributor at the time solves nothing. 3) For purposes of the original matter, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) shall be considered to be on his Standard Offer. If any claims of incivility or disruptive editing arise in the mainspace or on the talk pages of editors otherwise not involved in this thread for the next six months from this thread's closure then - and only then - may the community reconvene at ANI to consider the issue of an indef block, and any indef blocking will occur only after the thread has been reviewed and closed by an uninvolved admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:24, 16 October 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.

  • Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) has a long block log for disruptive editing and incivility. He was released from his last incivility block 15 days ago. He's made 37 edits to user talk pages in total since that block, 2 of them, nothing but incivility and battleground approach to interacting with others:
  1. [1]
  2. [2]

and he's edit warred on Mum (disambiguation) (I've recommended the AN3 report be closed as I am opening this.)

  1. 01:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  2. 23:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  3. 16:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  4. 03:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  5. 23:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  6. 22:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC))

At what point do we say we've had enough? Toddst1 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Indef Block - This is a long term pattern of incivility towards other users and against WP:BATTLE. This editor seems unwilling to change and is being disruptive to the project with edit warring and incivility. Per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". This is a clear cut case of disruption to Wikipedia. -- Dane talk 19:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Toddst1: (edit conflict) Thank you for bringing this to our attention - Joefromrandb has been repeatedly warned and blocked for similar behaviour, and does not seem to want to change. I have blocked them indefinitely, as this behaviour is not conducive to this collaborative project. I'm disappointed its had to come to this, we should all be able to have differing opinions without reverting to incivility -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 19:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Moved here from User talk:Joefromrandb @There'sNoTime: Thanks, and with respect too I do agree with your point. For anyone that's watching this page/coming across this page later, indefinite does not mean infinite, and Joefromrandb can be unblocked by uninvolved administrator once there is a consensus to do so. I disagree with indef being issued so quickly (despite of the long history) without hearing the input from Joefromrandb at latest WP:AN/I report, but we will wait for more input from others. Alex ShihTalk 19:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I also thought the block was a bit too quick. As Bishonen said on Joe's talk page, Todd's civility warning could be reasonably interpreted as a provocation. On the other hand, Joe really does need to tone down the incivility. It's a difficult matter dealing with an uncivil individual. Warning him to stop will only further rile him up, but ignoring the problem does not make it go away. I therefore can't oppose the block very strongly; my only concern is that it came awfully quickly. Maybe Joe would get the message more clearly if there was a strong community consensus in favor of the block. Lepricavark (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)You say Joe has made three edits to user talk pages in total since the previous block, Toddst1? That's very inexact; I make it seven, most of them to his own page. The two edits that you diff above as examples of "nothing but incivility and battleground approach to interacting with others" are also to his own page, responses to one post from Bkonrad and one from you, where he requests first one and then the other of you to fuck off. The context is a quarrel between the three of you on WP:AN3. The post from you was a templated NPA warning about Joe's rude response to Bkonrad. I don't think getting aggravated in such a context is heinous. And no, Toddst, "Please fuck off and go away", that you warned Joe about, isn't a personal attack. I'm sorry, but it just isn't, because there's nothing personal about it. Read WP:NPA. Your NPA warning about it, taken in the context of what seems to be a long conflict between Joe and you, appears frankly to have been designed to elicit another rude, impatient reply, and you got it. There'sNoTime, I think you were too quick with your indef, and I don't support it. Please don't close this thread yet. If we can spend weeks debating the indefinite block of the egregious POV-pusher Hidden Tempo, and end by appointing a fucking panel of editors to close that discussion, I think we can weigh the fate of an actual long-time useful content contributor for more than a few minutes. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC).
Yes, I miscounted. I mistakenly thought the 9/24 edits were before his block expired. My apologies. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad the WP:DOUBLESTANDARD is being upheld. Todd's civility warning could be reasonably interpreted as a provocation. Yes, how very provocative! Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you seriously not see how warning someone in an uncivil mood is likely to further fan the flames? Lepricavark (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice - make excuses. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not making excuses. I've had my differences with Joe in the past and his behavior is highly problematic. I'm trying to help you see how your response might not have been ideal. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I also had disagreements with Joe, but Toddst1, "nice--make excuses"? I think Joe's response is appropriate here as well. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I thank you all for your opinions, but I stand firmly by my block. Continued blatant incivility is causing this project to get more and more toxic. Despite possible provocation, this has been a continued and unwavering course of incivility and I believe an indefinite block, which allows Joefromrandb to state a case as to how they will continue to contribute in a civil manner like the majority of our long-time useful content contributors manage, is the best way forward -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the block was too quick. The point of bringing an issue to AN/I is that the best course of action can be discussed. There was no time for anyone to actually do that, and Joefromrandb's action did not fall into any category of needing an immediate indef (apart from anything else, he hasn't edited for over 15 hours). Note: I don't believe I have had any previous dealings with this editor. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I can put my hands up and say yes, this was a quick block - personally, I don't see how a discussion would affect the outcome. I'm happy to be proven wrong and will of course make way for any consensus that forms -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nice day for shopping isn't it? (UPDATE: Even more shopping.) So far, Toddst1 has taken Jfromrndb to ANEW, now ANI, and in the meantime Oshwah's talk page- with the misleading claim that "he's made 3 edits to user talk pages"- and as I pointed out, two of these were to his own page. For a start we allow a greater degree of latitude on editors' own pages, secondly, Toddst1 leaving a 'No personal attacks' only-warning (as a response to what JfrRNB said on their own talk) was clearly designed to encourage them to respond in kind, and thus provide an excuse to bring them here. WP:BAITING applies; either that or it shows phenomonally bad judgement on Toddst1's part. Either way, ANI is getting played like a stradivarius. And frankly, as has been pointed out elsewhere, blocking a few minutes into an ANI, that's had almost no eyes upon it apart from involved parties is having a bit of a tin bath really. No offence. There was absolutely NO reason for Toddst to keep pestering the other editor on his own page- unless, of course, the purpose was this- and a block. — fortunavelut luna 20:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Slapping an NPA warning on a pissed off editor is only going to rile that editor up even more and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out - If TNT came and slapped any template on my talkpage I too would've told them to fuck off - Personal messages go a long way and a lot further than templated messages,
The block should've been 2 weeks max IMHO, Also Indeffing someone 24 minutes after an ANI report was raised is asking for trouble. –Davey2010Talk 20:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Worth noting I didn't template the editor (bar the block template), though thank you for your comments -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 20:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think he got you mixed up with Toddst1. Lepricavark (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Whoops sorry I did indeed get you mixed up, Obviously I meant Toddst1, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the block was too hasty too. There was no immediate need to do anything, and a discusson-based consensus on what to do would be a much better idea. I also see a bit of this going on here too. Take this as a !vote to undo the indef block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    Oh, and "fuck off" is not a personal attack. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
No, but it is bleeping UNCIVIL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the point is that an NPA warning was incorrect and only really amounted to poking someone when they were already in a bad mood - and that escalated the matter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For clarity, if an uninvolved administrator would like to undo the indef block I won't object. I only ask that they ping me and that they work towards ensuring Joefromrandb cuts out the incivility -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In my handful of interactions with Joefromrandb he's been an angry prick, but this block was way too precipitate. If nothing else, the subject of a block is more likely to accept its legitimacy (and that matters, if we want him to accept he needs to change his ways) if it comes after a community discussion. He's mostly constructive but he needs to cut out the caffeine, or something. EEng 22:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I've taken a look at this and am leaning towards two conclusions. First, there is a plausible argument that TNT may have pulled the block trigger a bit quickly and w/o giving other editors an opportunity to chime in. But I'd not call it outside his discretion or otherwise improper. Secondly Joefromrandb's track record is itself very strong evidence that this is a user who just doesn't play and get along well with others. Even taking into consideration that a couple of his blocks were lifted early, we are looking at twelve blocks over roughly five years. Whether or not TNT might have been better off waiting a bit, I haven't read a credible argument that the block is excessive. Given the background I honestly am a bit surprised that they haven't incurred a long term block before. I'm strongly inclined to affirm the block, with the stipulation that Joefromrandb could apply for a standard offer in six months. But the OP asks a good question that no one has answered, "At what point do we say we've had enough?" I'd say now is a good point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support for block and strong support and appreciation for NoTime's action. First off, admins are completely empowered by the community to block (including the implementation of indefs) whenever they think it is in the best interests of the project--so long as the block is undertaken purely for those good faith reasons. It makes no sense to insist that if TNT had come across this behaviour out "in the wild" of the project generally, he could have implemented this block, but because a process had begun here, the block was somehow harmful to the blocked party or the project's interests. That would be pro-forma/procedural silliness and has never been a standard adopted by the community (explicitly or implicitly) when admins come across disruptive behaviour in this space (or at any other noticeboard/community space). If anything, the fact TNT took action based on misconduct raised here (and noted the block here) gives additional protection to the blocked party, insofar as the reasons for the block itself will come under more scrutiny--and thus any particularly kneejerk or unjustified block would be more likely to be called out.
Nor is this a particularly borderline case. TNT's block was Joe's fifth this year alone, four of which were for incivility. And just weeks back from the last one, Joe has already ramped themselves up to "Fuck off" levels of caustic/disruptive behaviour. Clearly this user is not hearing the community's concerns, and may indeed just not have the temperament at present to participate in a project of this sort. And for those saying "Well, but a block like this is, which doesn't give the party a chance to defend themselves, will only make them angrier," I have a response of but one word: "So?" This user's anger (or more specifically, their apparent inability to control it) is exactly the issue here and holding other parties responsible for it in this context makes zero sense. Furthermore, it's not as if this user has not had an opportunity to engage with the community over these matters and been given an opportunity to understand and assimilate community expectations with regard to civility; they have been to ANI recently and each of the occasions on which they have received a lesser block, it has been received from a different admin, who would have explained the reasons for the block. How many different ways does the community have to try to explain the baseline conduct standards of this project before we view a disruptive user's inability to internalize those rules as a problem with the editor themselves?
Lastly, as has been noted above, an indef block is not per se a permanent one. If this editor can take time away from the project, analyze what went wrong here and come back to us with a genuine effort to identify and address those concerns, they will almost certainly be allowed to resume editing. They may be angry now, but anger will fade with time and hopefully allow them that kind of introspection. Or it won't, and they will continue to see everyone but themselves as the problem--in which case they shouldn't be on the project anyway. Regardless, I think that There'sNoTime did not just make a reasonable call here--they made the obvious one. The community of contributors here at ANI is often very vocal about the difficulty of getting admins to act on clear issues with alacrity, which makes the complaints in this case all the more peculiar, but regardless, I think TNT's action was 100% appropriate, justified, and in the best interests of the project. Snow let's rap 01:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Snow, that's a lot of words, but I don't agree that this was "obvious". Drmies (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough--you have an admin's perspective on this--but, if these facts are insufficient, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario where it would be much more fair for an admin to exercise their authority to institute a long-term block. In this situation we have a user who has been blocked five times in eight and half months, four of those resulting from the same issue. What would be the threshhold at which you think an indef for blatantly uncivil behaviour is warranted? Or do you think admins should not have recourse to indefs in cases of incivility? If so, that's another conversation and I strike no firm position on that--aside from generally worrying that WP:C has, in recent years, not been treated with the seriousness it deserves as a WP:PILLAR policy (and in my opinion maybe our most important in terms of making a collaborative endeavour work). Perhaps that's a conversation worth having, but insofar as admins are right now, under every relevant policy and community expectation, allowed the discretion of indefs in cases of recurrent problems, it's hard for me to imagine what more TNT would be expected to wait for in this instance. Snow let's rap 03:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note that I changed the original filer's template from Template:vandal to Template:user. That is a courtesy we can afford an "angry prick". For the record, there are better ways to handle this than a block, let alone an indefinite block. Sure, there are editors who have been begging for an indefinite block, and some of those editors show up regularly on these boards. Joefromrandomb is not one of those. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I propose WP:BOOMERANG block of the OP. (I've been quite critical of calls for BOOMERANG and those who love to apply it, as it has migrated from its original -- that a complainer is guilty of the same complaint they are registering, in the same instance. In this case I think the application is perfect, since admin Toddst1's complaint of WP:BATTLE clearly applies to Toddst1, an admin known for holding grudges and going after others based on incivility concerns, which is a lark, since there are more pernicious ways of metering out incivility, than saying a bad word in a blunt reply on user Talk, such as what Toddst1 has mastered: following around his pet targets, inciting them to respond, then trying to reap maximum damage, all the while never saying a bad word himself in nearly his entire editing history, just to be sure no one can put an objective finger on his own incivility. There is probably a Mother Goose fable about this, basically, wolf in sheep's clothing story. Toddst1 is a rogue admin, this proves to me no change after his dodge from being de-sysopped.) ¶ Admin TNT did a block from the hip, a surfacy "incivility block" to the max, which is supposed to be reserved for users doing egregious damage. After Toddst1 gave one of those to me, he further attempted to bury me alive, by removing my Talk page access. (TNT, how much background on these two respective users did you do? None? Thought so.) And about telling someone to "fuck off" their own Talk page, if you think that is uncivil, then please go tell admin Drmies, who is now also arbcom, as he several times told me that on his Talk page. (Hypocrisy much?) ¶ User Ad Orientem, go soak your head, trying to use an editor's block history against them. (Classic technique to bias others according to your wishes. Let's see, Toddst1 indef-blocked me, is that a strike against me, or against Toddst1?) --IHTS (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Ha, "hypocrisy much" says the editor who only shows up when there's an opportunity for digging up old grudges. For the record, Toddst1 is, on the whole, always, a fine, fine admin, and never finer than when he blocked you. Did I tell you to fuck off? Maybe so--on my own talk page, where you used to come trolling, back in the good old days.

      We can have a discussion here about the value of the block, the value of the warning that led to the block, the speed with which the block was issues, the length of the block, the value of the editor relative to the disruption they cause (if any--some minor edit warring and a "fuck off" or two on their own talk), but for none of those things we need you. Stick to chess--you were doing fine there! Drmies (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

      • Wrong, I'm here to object to abuse against Joe. (WP is an abuse pit. For years before I ever started as editor.) Yeah, thx for reminding (your past assessment of Toddst1 as "a fine admin"). You told me at least 3 times to "fuck off". (And I have no problem with that. I wasn't trolling you, you just couldn't tolerate truthful flak back, so the easiest technique to defeat that is what you did: "Fuck off my talk page." Cheap, but doesn't bother me. The hypocrisy lies in attempting to apply that uncivil comment against users versus against admins. Ditto the lack of recognition there are more pernicious ways to be uncivil than blunt responses containing a bad word.) If Toddst1 isn't being called out in this thread, then you really do need me, sorry if you don't like to hear that. (And you don't, because you're basically telling me to "fuck off" again, but like Toddst1, have mastered the ability to comment w/o incorporating choice words.) --IHTS (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Drmies has also called Toddst1 out in this thread, as have several other users. It seems you are too busy casting aspersions to get a good bearing on what is happening in this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • False equivalence; I am comfortable assuming that Drmies did not make those comments as part of an extended pattern of incivility that had already seen them censured by the community repeatedly throughout the year. Despite my high regard for them as an admin and member of the community in general, I actually do not approve of Drmies telling another user to "fuck off" under any circumstances. I think it is a clear, brightline violation of WP:C for any user and particularly problematic for an admin. But not all violation of policy (even the same policy) are alike in scope and context, and your analogy does not hold up here. This discussion is not about Drmies, it's about Joe, and Joe has already been the beneficiary of attention from the community this year telling them that they need to bring down the heat in their interactions with others. If they didn't take those warnings to heart in that context, then a) there's no reason for the community to assume the situation is going to get better on its own and b) Joe has no one to blame but themselves, at the end of the day. Snow let's rap 04:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I thought I recalled a prior history between IHTS and Toddst1, one that didn't necessarily reflect well on the latter. In the admin's defense, both Joe and IHTS are known for uncollegial behavior, but that doesn't mean that Toddst1's behavior was optimal in any way. It is unfortunate, IHTS, that you chose to jump in here with a petulant rant, and telling another editor to "go soak your head" is not appropriate behavior. IHTS, this is not an elementary school playground. Lepricavark (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Point of order: Toddst1 is not an admin, though he used to be, long time ago now. The Arbcom of that time didn't share your good opinion of his admin actions, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 03:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC).
        • To further clarify, he was desysoped for inactivity. Lepricavark (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Very specifically, he took a self-enforced one-year hiatus to escape an ongoing ANI and prob. an Arbcom case which was imminent and returned to prolific contributions after and only after he was desyssoped for in-activity.But IMHO, that is immaterial to the current case.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 06:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait, come again? What editor, page, or line of reasoning led you to the conclusion that looking at an editor's block log/previous history with the project was an exercise in bias, when the community has to consider how to deal with disruptive behaviou?. That is A) an incredibly curious conclusion and B) not a standard that has ever been endorsed by this community when it comes to grappling with longterm behaviour (logically and unsurprisingly enough). "Bias" would imply that someone was bringing in factors which obsfucate the matter under discussion and have no direct bearing on the matter. When considering how much WP:ROPE the community should/can afford to expend to an editor, the number of times they have been blocked (especially over a relatively short period of time and for the same issues) is clearly relevant--and evaluating past behaviour in general is outright necessary. Snow let's rap 03:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Joefromrandb has been blocked 10 times in less than 5 years, for his continued incivility and continued battleground conduct. And yet, his behavior continues to worsen rather than improving. His hostility and disruptiveness – nearly five years of ever-increasing hostility, warring, incivility, vulgarity, disruption, trolling, vandalism, and a blatant unconcern and disregard for behavioral norms or Wikipedia guidelines/policies, and an apparent attitude that he can do what he likes without consequence – have in my opinion crossed into net negative, and he has reached the point of a WP:CIR block for his inability to work collaboratively with others. I therefore support the indef block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. Either WP:CIVIL is a policy we uphold, or it isn't. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment--While the block was a bit too rapid, and the complainant's behaviour looked provocative to an extent, on an evaluation of his battle-ground uncivil behaviour with those with whom he dis-agreed, I strongly support the indef.This may be well-considered to be a cumulative result of his long-term behaviour rather than a reflection on this part. incident.Also echo Snow and GRing.Obviously, if John posts an un-block req. and is willing to change his manner(s), there's no need for the block to continue.which seems snow-impossible, given his latest edits.It's seriously problematic when certain editors think content-creation etc. excuses you from 3RR etc. and the subject of the disc. begins to think that his version of policies is the one that shall be abided by.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 05:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Blocking before discussion had even got underway was a poor decision. Per Bish: "If we can spend weeks debating the indefinite block of the egregious POV-pusher Hidden Tempo, and end by appointing a fucking panel of editors to close that discussion, I think we can weigh the fate of an actual long-time useful content contributor for more than a few minutes". The behaviour of the complainant was certainly provocative. "Fuck off" is not a personal attack. I agree with Drmies that there are better ways to handle this than a block, let alone an indefinite one. As, I think, Carrite has been known to say - this is a shop-floor, not a vicar's tea party. When improving the encyclopedia becomes secondary to "ooh, he said a rude word" then it is the encyclopedia that suffers. Oh, and who's John? -- Begoon 06:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
With respect, Begoon, I'm not sure why people keep asserting "'Fuck off' is not a WP:personal attack", because I have not seen so much as a single person make the assertion that is is. Nor is anyone saying that the behaviour in question was inappropriate because it involved a "rude word". Both of those strike me as blatant straw man arguments, conscious or otherwise. This isn't about sensitivity to vulgarity, when it comes to someone using the phrase "fuck off"; surely you recognize that the phrase, used in the context of a personal dispute, has meaning beyond mere vulgarity. I suspect most of the editors in this community couldn't give a fig if someone went around saying "Fucking brilliant work on the vandalism task force, friend. You're a great contributor and if anyone says differently, I don't give a fuck." Nobody is complaining about that sort of thing. But when someone tells another editor to fuck off as their means of dispute resolution, then yes that's clearly a brightline violation of WP:C, and yes it's a problem, regardless of how comfortable we might be with the word itself. And when this is done by a user who has already been blocked numerous times recently for incivility, it becomes particularly worth comment. One doesn't have to be a prude/particularly sensitive to vulgarity in order to find this particular usage in this particular context offensive and disruptive. Snow let's rap 07:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
With respect, Snow Rise (inclusion of which means I can now continue with impunity, because I've curtsied to the civility gods, yes?), I don't 'recognize' that the use of that phrase, under provocation, merits any kind of a block, no. I'm much more concerned about faux-civility tactics used by POV pushers and as a technique to "win" an argument or conflict than I am by this particular usage. -- Begoon 07:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree. Your use of the term "faux civility" suggests we have fundamentally different notions about what the word civility itself means. Civility is not (at least insofar as we generally use it on this project) a state of mind so much as a standard of conduct. And it's not about being affirmatively nice, it's about avoiding certain blatantly disruptive behaviours. You can be civil towards someone at this standard even if you don't agree with them, like them, or are quite certain they are being a total idiot. And without going through any particular extra effort to be nice, for that matter. So "faux" doesn't even come into the analysis for me. And whatever we feel, WP:C is one of the WP:5P. No, it doesn't (and is not meant to) solve all problems--your POV pusher, for example, or any manner of WP:disruptive user man we might use as a boogey-man to excuse being uncivil with others--but it surely addresses one particularly significant problem. Because we have policies to deal with those other issues, but those can only be applied if we first surmount the much lower standard of WP:C--or nothing else can ever get done. That's why this community enshrined that value as one of its foundational policies. If someone cannot negotiate such a low bar as not getting blocked four times in 8.5 months for civility violations (which is actually pretty hard to do even once), that's a problem for this community, plain and simple. Snow let's rap 09:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, we can agree to disagree on this. I am personally terrified by the number of times I see tenuous "civility concerns" inappropriately used, often as an attempted cudgel to unbalance or derail a discussion. That's much more of a concern to me than an editor, under provocation, telling someone to "fuck off" from their own talk page. (Oh, and my alleged "blatant straw-men" have asked me to put forward the NPA template on Joe's page as evidence against their 'strawness'... I told them to fuck off, obviously, but they were adamant...). -- Begoon 09:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
With respect, Snow Rise, I was the first to point out that "fuck off" is not a personal attack because Toddst1, not TNT, had indirectly (and provocatively) said it was, by posting a "No personal attacks" template on Joe because Joe had said "fuck off" to Bkonrad. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I thought I was. For "With all due respect", see WP:Wikispeak#R "respect, n., Often used as in with respect, or with all due respect, euphemisms for I think you're talking bollocks". Bishonen | talk 09:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC).
I'm not seeing where I implied that you didn't say that, Bish. As for "with respect", you're free to cite any essay you like as justification for not WP:AGFing that I mean it sincerely, or you can take me at my word that I do. Snow let's rap 09:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
You're not seeing that, really? Snow Rise, I'll risk sounding like Mr Bennet in Pride and Prejudice when Mary had gone on playing the piano for too long ("Child, you have delighted us long enough"), and ask if you wouldn't you agree you have contributed enough bytes to this discussion now? Bishonen | talk 09:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC).
First off, what a patronizing way to frame a sentiment that, at it's core, is already patronizing. Second, I didn't invite you to engage my comment, which was not directed at you. If you choose to do so (and especially if you do so for the purpose of suggesting I am being insincere), you can't take then take umbrage/try to highroad me with implications of being to single-minded if I respond. Snow let's rap 10:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can comment to challenge an apparent error without your invitation, eg "I'm not sure why people keep asserting "'Fuck off' is not a WP:personal attack", because I have not seen so much as a single person make the assertion that is is" (my emphasis) when the OP did exactly that by posting an NPA warning. I was going to point out the same thing myself, but I got an edit conflict with Bish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes, Bish, "with respect" means "with respect". I use it occasionally, and never as cowardly cover-my-ass code for "I think you're talking bollocks". My experience with Snow Rise strongly suggests that they never use it like that, either, and there is nothing here to suggest otherwise. Pretty clear AGF failure there, Bish. It appears Bish and Boing have a point as to NPA, Snow, and I AGF that you just missed that. I'll resist the temptation to go all meta on these larger issues, but I'll say that this dialogue has been (mostly) a refreshing if brief change from the standard fare on this page. ―Mandruss  11:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose that block. I slept through most of this, but not well. If you talk about civility, then please have the civility to talk before you block. I oppose this block, performed without talking to the person, and to the community. I think we heard enough long speeches, so just one more: every editor is a human being. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef block - On my tenth Wiki-birthday I am going to stand once again for the blocking of long-term abusers. This, right now, is the point where we have to say enough is enough to those with multiple blocks who show clear intent to continue their disruptive statements. In the decade I've been here the editing environment has grown increasingly toxic, so much so that recently I usually find I have better things to do with my time. We are discouraging new editors by allowing bullies and name-callers to dominate this project. I'm sick of excuses, and enablers. I salute the OP and the block as a first step in the right direction. Jusdafax 08:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support block TNT hits the nail on the head here with the phrase "continued blatant incivility" which pretty much describes Joefromrandb's behaviour. Like it or not, last time I checked WP:CIVIL was still a policy, and unless you want to change that then TNT's block was absolutely correct, and I applaud him for daring to actually enforce CIVIL, which it seems many admins have just given up on- and judging by this thread, you can certainly see why. jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support block. Enough is enough. MPS1992 (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose block - really, "fuck off" is not a personal attack. And jumping to an immediate indef after less than an hour discussion is concerning. Remember - encyclopedia. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Collaboration doesn't mean everyone behaves exactly alike - it means that sometimes you're going to run into people with different standards of collaboration than yourself. Keep in mind the goal of the project and it becomes a lot easier to say "gee... is this really worth the effort I've expended on it" - which, quite frankly, the source of this dispute shows clearly. The encyclopedia would all be better off if editors worried less about cuss words and more about accurate sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Ealdgyth: First of all, WP:CIV exists. Second, are you aware of their exhaustive block log containing blocks that were placed for this exact same tendentious behavior? Boiling this down to just one usage of "fuck off" displays shortsightedness. Nihlus 12:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    Weirdly enough, yes, I'm quite aware that WP:CIV exists. Of course, that's because I've watched it be used over and over as a hammer to get rid of opponents over the years I've been on this project. Heck, I even pointed it out in my RfA, and said then that I wasn't a big fan of its enforcement. Personally, I think keeping in mind the whole goal of the project doesn't display short-sightedness... it displays the correct attitude. Your milage/kilometerage may vary. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    You didn't speak to the long list of previous blocks. And unless I am misreading something, I find it odd that you would oppose something merely because you dislike the policy that others have used to bolster their arguments. I mean, like it or not, it is one of the five pillars, so I hesitate to say your attitude is the "correct" attitude. Nihlus 12:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Nihlus, I really don't want to go all "listen to your elders", but in this case please listen to your elders. Ealdgyth is an editor whose quality and experience, not to mention common sense, is pretty much unmatched; if she says "fuck off" is not a personal attack, that should be taken seriously, not responded to by asking if she knows of our civility rules--she does. I wouldn't say it in the way she said, but I would say, and I have, that "fuck off" isn't really blockable (certainly not on one's own talk page), and I say that from experience and from conviction, though I suppose this case might prove me wrong. What youngsters (yes) frequently fail to appreciate is that civility is difficult to enforce, for a couple of basic reasons, one of which is that one person's incivility is not another's, and another is, given that there is a broad range of levels of incivility, it is not easy to enforce that. So it's much less about correctness and the application of policy then it is about other things, and it is clear that Ealdgyth and I are not in agreement (I think Black Kite is with us) with the application that prevailed here. Finally, I think that attempting to summarize Ealdgyth's conciseness as shortsightedness is not fair to her, and worse, you are missing out on what could be a good learning opportunity. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: That's a rather needlessly patronizing comment. I never said nor implied that saying "fuck off" was a personal attack; I said it was uncivil, which it was and still is. And I never asked her if she knew the civility rules; I merely stated they existed in response to the implied reasoning that nothing was wrong with saying "fuck off". And while I can respect the notion that civility is hard to enforce in certain situations, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, especilly for habitually uncivil users. And implying that the "fuck off" was the only reason for the block is a display of shortsightedness as it fails to address the other multitude of arguments presented by others; this is why I asked her to address the nine previous blocks, which she has yet to do. Nihlus 04:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Nihlus, if u could take a break from digging your own grave, w/ you please relocate your generalized "Support block" rant out of the discussion between There'sNoTime & me, where it doesn't belong, to the !voting section where it belongs? Thx. --IHTS (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: >"elders". And Nihlus has a point: "Fuck off" may not be a personal attack, but it's mildly rude and offputting at best, and not conducive to a collegial editing environment. Wouldn't it be much simpler if, instead of replying "fuck off" and getting people's feathers all ruffled, people would turn the other cheek, so to speak, and just ignore or remove comments that tempt them to make that response? Personally, when I get that rising feeling to say unpleasant things, I find it's best to take a step back from the wiki and do something else for a couple hours. Think how much drama could be avoided if everyone did that. Ks0stm (TCGE) 08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I doubt TNT feels the need for validation, but since we're doing this, clearly I Oppose this block, both in duration (as the blocking admin now acknowledges) and indeed in its neccesity, due to the previous provocation. Unless of course TNT decides to block Toddst1 for unfounded accusations of personal attacks which are of course personal attacks :) — fortunavelut luna 12:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Support block in its current, 3–month form. My concerns about the speed of the block, and the behavior of the OP, notwithstanding, Joe's incivility has reached a point where it needs to be addressed strongly. An indef block is still a step or two away, but a three–month enforced Wikibreak is nothing to trifle with and will hopefully help Joe to see the need to adjust his behavior once his block expires. Lepricavark (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support increasing back to indef Joe's latest posts, such as these [3], [4], show that he still doesn't get it and likely never will. His strawman that he is being asked to "prostrate himself before you and beg to be forgiven" is beyond ridiculous. He has tried to turn himself into the victim because he is being asked to abide by our civility pillar as an unblocking condition. He has made his bed, and now he is determined to lie in it. Lepricavark (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Badger much? I repeat: this is not an elementary school playground. Lepricavark (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There is nothing for me to gain in trying to talk sensibly to such an angry person. Have a nice day. Lepricavark(talk) 03:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Insulting prick. --IHTS (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
...have mastered the ability to comment w/o incorporating choice words. Isn't that somewhat ironic? Blackmane (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
No. (I'm not admin or an admin wannabe, whose conducts s/b "at a higher standard". p.s. You've misused word "ironic"; the word you were looking for was "inconsistent". p.p.s. Can we gunk this up w/ further baiting badgering? Does "whispering" in small font make it better? --IHTS (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to feel baited, if that floats your boat. P.S. Small font isn't whispering, it's a peanut gallery comment. Have a nice day! Blackmane (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No, please, you (& AutomaticStrikeOut) feel free [to continue to badger], it's the notorious ANI cesspool, afterall (where your "peanuts" = little turds). --IHTS (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef block until Joe can show that he can WP:GETTHEPOINT. Lepricavark's diffs provide ample proof that this will not stop, so the community should wash its hands of this user and stop wasting its time. Nihlus 15:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support admin discretion - If someone is claiming that There'sNoTime has acted outside admin discretion, I can't see it; please respond here. If someone is claiming a violation of WP:BLOCK, I can't see it; please respond here. If someone is claiming that There'sNoTime has violated some other relevant policy, I can't see it; please respond here. If someone feels that There'sNoTime should be relieved of the mop, this is not the venue. If someone feels that admins have too much discretion in general, this is not the venue. The rest is noise.
    Those non-admins who feel they know enough to haul an admin over the coals over a within-policy action should be required to spend 3 months as an admin (and actually do controversial things with the mop during that time.) ―Mandruss  16:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Second Mandruss' point Blackmane (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block - A long block log shows he may not learn from a temporary block so I think he should be banned altogether from the site. Also, seeing him use the phrase "fuck off" in response to this shows a level of immaturity when handling this which does not show good conduct from a Wikipedian. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 01:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • 'Comment I've seen administrators use the phrase "f*** off" and nobody blocked them for it. (Only twice mind). Why don't we inform him this is his last chance and give him an indef block if he doesn't get the message? TomBarker23 (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
    • If admins aren't warned "last chance", and their conduct is "at a higher standard", then how is that suggestion logical? --IHTS (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving forwards[edit]

As I've mentioned in this thread, I blocked quickly. I can see now that waiting for additional comments on the matter is helpful, though currently I'm not swayed to a position of thinking I was mistaken in placing an indef block. I'll welcome a discussion into my block if the community wishes to go that direction, but the point of this thread was wholly incivility by Joefromrandb. So, for the sake of trying to "get things done", what would the community like to happen now in regards to the original report? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with any mention of standing offer here. Joefromrandb is not a vandal nor sockpuppet, nor was this a community-based indefinite block. I think moving forward we should discuss 1) if the block was needed 2) the appropriate length of the block 3) what the editor needs to do. Earlier this year Floquenbeam has proposed to Joefromrandb to restrict themselves to 1RR, and I think it's time to turn that into community enforcement. Alex ShihTalk 07:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I too disagree with a standard offer for the same reasons, as mentioned on my talk page, I'd unblock immediately if Joefromrandb put their hands up and committed to continue working here without these little outbursts -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, having looked at this, and my actions (and having taken on-board the comments, both supporting and opposing) I'm going to undo my indefinite block and replace it with a three month block (the next highest duration in TW after the previous 1 month block). I'm doing this because my initial block was too quick, as nearly everyone above has pointed out, but I am not entirely removing it as I still stand by a block being a reasonable result even now. I appreciate there are some who support the indef block, and would like to note that your support was noted in making this decision. I believe a discussion as to how we deal with this should be had, but I will recuse myself from that. If continued discussion here finds that any block was not required, an uninvolved administrator may remove it without notifying me. Thanks -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Incomprehensible. (The complaints of "too quick" were re blocking at all, not re length of block. Your logic is that because you agree re "too quick", you're retaining the block but adjusting duration?! After complaints of "too quick" came in this is how you responded: "I don't see how a discussion would affect the outcome. I'm happy to be proven wrong and will of course make way for any consensus that forms." If you believe a "too quick" consensus has formed, that means any block was premature. You also responded: "I thank you all for your opinions, but I stand firmly by my block. Continued blatant incivility is causing this project to get more and more toxic." which clearly shows an over-zealous civility enforcement mentality that has been discussed to incredible lengths in historical ANIs & arbcom cases. Really, are you even aware?) --IHTS (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I clearly can't make everyone happy. I'd rather be known for civility enforcement than incivility enabling. Now, I'm gonna go back to improving some medical articles, perhaps we could all find something more constructive to do? -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I support this block fully. Before today, this user had been blocked 9 times for tendentious editing and incivility. He has a multi-year history of telling others to fuck off and making belittling comments such as "Does that make you feel better?" in response to any an all blocking admins (or calling it pussy shit). The responses above about how this block was inappropriate are baffling. Users should not be permitted to be hostile towards other editors in any situation, let alone after being given multiple opportunities to change their behaviors, and other users shouldn't be asked to deal with it. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:EQ, and WP:CIVIL all come into play. Nihlus 11:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
How patronizing: "perhaps we could all find something more constructive to do?". Your RfA had 13 support !votes showing at least some "concern/pause/hesitation" re promoting someone w/ such shortage of content experience. Your statement: "It's clear from my article contributions that I do not find content creation as captivating as others do, but instead that I wish to volunteer my time and energy into areas where I have both skill and an interest." I guess that included patrolling ANI as civility cop? No mention of that at RfA. Your " I believe an understanding of content related policies and being able to empathise with content creators is important - I don't believe this experience can be gained solely from creating content, but can be gleamed also from interacting with both articles and content creators themselves." elicited in a support !vote: "I would just caution them that the only real way to understand the content creation side of WP is to actually do it." Anything learned here? Four support !voters dismissed the relevance of content creation experience, typically: "The myopic focus of some with content creation at RFA doesn't sway me. Yes, an admim must be able to understand the hurdles dedicated content creators go through, but where would we be without admins who [...]". I guess right here, dealing w/ the fallout? --IHTS (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
IHTS, I seem to recall you complaining in the past about how ANI is a cesspool. Guess what, it's editors like yourself who make it one. You've added not one iota of value to this discussion, and your further attempts at derailment by bringing up TNT's RfA demonstrate that you are incapable of contributing here in a productive manner. You have the rare talent for arguing with people whether they agree or disagree with you, and you are fortunate that your IDHT behavior hasn't yet earned you the same fate as Joefromrandb. Before you lash out at me for making these remarks, consider that I am employing your own strategy of personally discrediting one's opponents. The difference is that, unlike you, I actually have something to work with. Lepricavark (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Badger much? Here or RfA. Still can't get over the criticisms I left @ your Talk years ago, huh? Go away AutomaticStrikeOut. --IHTS (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
More strawmen. You're not very good at arguing against what other people are actually saying. Lepricavark (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Your "I'd rather be known for civility enforcement than incivility enabling." does not compute. (If I don't volunteer to leave my state to fight a forest fire in California, am I "enabling" the fire?) --IHTS (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I note that whilst there has been much commentary on the fact that this is Jfrnb's nth block. Indeed, much reiterated commentary- in case we haven't got the message, perhaps. On a side note- per Godwin's Law I won't mention who (IIRC) originally said it- but there is a sense here that "If you say something often enough... people will believe it." Yes the numbers are true, the conclusions drawn, less so. He went block-free between 2013 to February just gone; four years. Has anybody actually ever enquired- attempted to find out- what if anything happened in February, that all of a sudden, after four years, he went to Defcon1 and has hardly come back from it since? WP =/= THERAPY, of course, and we are not psychologists- but surely we have a duty to protect the encyclopaedia? And by that I mean attempt at least basic editor retention. — fortunavelut luna 12:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: The concern with editor retention should be what keeping someone who displays such uncivil behavior does to others, not the other way around. We shouldn't strive to keep people around whose behavior contravenes multiple policies. Nihlus 12:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly possible that we have different operating philosophies; mine is more along the lines that their isn't a "concern with editor retention"; there are "concerns with editor retention." That there are shades of grey, degrees of culpability and responsbility, blame isn't binary, most things go two ways, and that a community ==/== consistency. But that's why we do this, surely. — fortunavelut luna 12:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC).
  • Eh. I was OK with the indef but downgrading this to a 3 month seems reasonable. That said, I am getting tired of seeing editors get a pass on persistent gross abuse of CIVIL, often with the excuse that they are productive editors. On which note I'd like to thank There'sNoTime for their very calm and even tempered response to this discussion. And in closing I would caution Joefromrandb that they had best work on their communications skills. If their recent pattern of behavior continues after coming off block I would support an indefinite block, w/o further recourse to ANI. Now unless there is something that has not been said about this issue I am going to move along. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll take Ad Orientem's "Eh" and expand it to what young people call "Meh". I'm not really happy about expanding a 1 month block to a 3 month block on the basis of a couple of comments on the editor's own talk page (for which we have far more latitude), at least one of which was prompted by poking from the OP of this thread, who I'm sure will be very satisfied with their work in this situation. Some sort of a block was needed (more for the 3RR than the "incivility"), but I'm not sure that's best served by admins throwing out knee-jerk random blocks in the middle of an ANI discussion as seems to have happened in this case. "Meh", indeed. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth at this point, when I see an editor coming off a one-month block edit-warring against the MOS and citing irrelevant guidelines (as in [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]); being their fourth (maybe fifth, depending whether you count the extension in August) block this year for similar situations; making personal attacks in edit summaries (as in the '961 diff above); and when attempts to discuss the content in the dispute are met with gross incivility, I think I'd be at least considering indef. Something needs to change and clearly limited-duration blocks are not doing the job. The number of editors above who seek to excuse gross incivility is depressing. Responding to a civil attempt to discuss a dispute by telling someone to "fuck off" is never civil in any situation. Some above compare Wikipedia to a shop floor (or as sometimes happens to a pub common room), as thought "fuck off" was a perfectly civil article of interaction in those places. Of course it isn't; those are just places where incivility is commonly tolerated. Wikipedia is not such a place; that it is not such a place is not my opinion, it's one of the five pillars. And for what it's worth, of my two local pubs, in one you'd be asked to leave and the other you'd likely start a fight, which is the point of the pillar, really; a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger - not what we're trying to achieve. GoldenRing (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @There'sNoTime: Regardless of whether there is justification for a block of a productive editor, you didn't take the time to weigh factors like his block log against others like the provocation he received and the blatant inaccuracy of the original posting. An ANI discussion really should be allowed to explore these factors in any established editor's case, and we don't need admins displaying an itchy trigger-finger on the block button so soon after a debate has started. You should consider your position. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ^^ What he said. There seem to be some vociferous people here with axes to grind (what's new?) but one thing is certain: TNT acted inappropriately and even their change of heart is rule-bound beyond sensibility. Admins need to use discretion, not just rules. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


Someone put a fork in this one? EEng 01:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do - I'm sick to death of seeing this (and the related whining). Turns out the only thing I regret in this block is backing down from the indef. I've fucking had it with content creators getting a free pass on civility. If anyone has a problem with my block to the point where they believe it needs a full review, feel free to make a thread. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 16:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
You are one mixed up cookie. If you "regret backing down from the indef", then restore it, since it is you who is otherwise "whining". p.s. What a shining example of admin. p.p.s. The "sick to death" response more appropriately applies to your admin judgments/actions/comments. Echoes of Kafziel and "the puling masses". Do you think you w/ have passed your recent RfA had you expressed this same battleground attitude there? --IHTS (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I honestly don't think I have a battleground attitude, and I thought this block would help. Clearly I'm wrong. From a message on my talk page, I've undone my block so that other admins can make a better call. You're probably correct calling me a mixed up cookie, as I've now changed my mind three times regarding this, I'm confused. I thought I was helping -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 06:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Clarification: Flip-flopping doesn't make anyone mixed up, it's illogical rationales that do. Putting thought & communication ahead of action never hurts, always helps. Me thinks this ANI essentially forced that. Live & learn. This editor appreciates your unblock. Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 08:18, 16 October 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.

Hayley Dawn Harvey[edit]

Closing, IP has been blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:46, 16 October 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.

Here is the problem. I wrote the book. The Assassination of Jesse James ... Ect.. here is the deal.. your computer system steals and lies about many historical events. "The Outsiders". I wrote that script. The actors all know why is it your trying to take credit for my work. My stuff is all saved. You can't change history. Your liars will end up in jail or worse. Time to tell the Truth. Face your fears. That is my hard work not yours. Memories are I ask why would you work so hard to lie to the public. People are awake. All except the ones who are still trying to cover their butt. It won't be long now. For the record I hate you. I am smart....I am a great director....I do make a good difference.....I am. Hayley Dawn Harvey. God's kid

I really don't know what all this is about, presumably something to do with The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (novel) which this IP edited a bunch of times today, but blocked for "you will end up in jail or worse". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@A Train: I edit-conflicted with you removing this and I reposted the IP's blurb. Feel free to remove again, there's not much to do here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Ivanvector, no worries. It's basically moot, as you say. With the IP already blocked there's nothing productive to do here before the bot comes by to archive it. A Traintalk 16:29, 16 October 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.

Run-in with an editor acting like a troll results in me getting warned by another editor[edit]

I'm closing this up before Lexers615 digs him or herself any deeper. It's good that you feel passionate about contributing to Wikipedia, but it's bad that you react to routine editorial decisions in this manner. Wikipedia is a collaborative project where your point of view will not always prevail; a thicker skin than you are exhibiting is required. Please read WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:NPA, in addition to the reading recommended by SarekOfVulcan below. A Traintalk 13:55, 16 October 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.

To make a long story short, I created a short entry for "damaged beyond repair" For no reason what-so-ever, David.moreno72 rejected my entry. If you consult his page, you'll see his profile is essentially a flamebait. I deal with common trolls on a daily basis on gaming forum and on Facebook, so knew nothing good would have resulted in me contacting him directly. From his profile and other comments, I bet everything he has a notepad file with pre-writen "well crafted" flame lines design to look civil yet dealing the intended insults ready just for this situation, just like his profile is. So I went to the other link provided. Given first editor total and blatant lack of respect, I posted about the incident in the appropriate language. Then, second editor Ammarpad reverted my post, claiming I wasn't civil. I believe civility in the case of David.moreno72 is totally inappropriate given how he launched the hostility. However, I did a second post without the trashtalk, which I insist is the only language appropriate when facing common trolls... This time, Ammarpad reverted my post, now under the false pretense I was attacking an editor.

So my two issues: First is the run-ins with the two editor; second, for name-whoever-you-want's sake, on Wikipedia, I've seen several entries a lot shorter than what I submitted, I see controversial subject getting taken over by lobby firms (look for any and all entries about abortion or similar "hot topics"...), and anyone was free to latter add more "meat" on my entry, which is I believe the exact reason Wikipedia exist to begin with. So, if Wikipedia is supposed to be this "democratic", why do common trolls like David.moreno72 end up in such a position of power, and why editor have that much arbitrary power without having to justify themselves? My original post wasn't a case requiring urgent moderation, neither was my ulterior posts on the Help desk. Ammarpad's unconditional defense of David.moreno72 reflects poorly on the duties of the editor, just as David.moreno72 being an editor to begin with...

Lexers615 (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

As you've been told, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We also have strong rules about working with each other in a civil manner. Please take some time to read up on Wikipedia norms before editing again. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Both of your posts at the AfC Help Desk contained unacceptable personal attacks. Calling other editors self-centered and arrogant is not permissible, and in any event, arguing against the person who reviewed your AfC submission is not acceptable. Respectfully, your AfC submission was correctly rejected because it is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Our articles are generally about concepts rather than phrases themselves, though even articles about specific phrases must contain more than a dictionary definition. I see nothing specifically wrong with the other editors' response to your conduct. If you continue to personally attack other editors, you can expect to have your editing privileges revoked in short order. This does not mean simply to cut down the trash talk, either. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:39, 16 October 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.

XIIIfromTokyo, again[edit]

Closing as the previous report was only closed 6 days ago, and none of the edits since then requires additional intervention. Andrewa has graciously taken the role to mediate (relevant texts can be found in User talk:Andrewa, User talk:Launebee and User talk:XIIIfromTOKYO). Launebee is advised that the action of both parties are under scrutiny, and the editor should work toward settling the dispute instead of bringing them to the noticeboard again in haste. Alex ShihTalk 02:06, 17 October 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:XIIIfromTOKYO has been "cautioned against comments addressing the motive or character of other conversants". He also been separately asked by EdJohnston to withdraw his aspersions against me and to remove some statements.

Since the warning two days ago, he has already:

1. said I violated the French intellectual property law by creating a disambiguation Wikipedia article with the name of a trademark, twice [10][11] (and did not remove his other accusation of violation of French criminal law)
2. implied I am part of a conspiracy to target French users by legal actions, linking to something from January 2017 [12] (and did not remove his statements regarding his other conspiracy theory) and
3. personally attacked me by writing "Many contributors… have been legally threaten, harrassed, and disgusted away by" me. [13]

--Launebee (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  • What is needed here?: All of these diffs claimed to show misconduct come from discussion of the previous ANI megathread that was just archived yesterday. If there were noncompliance with the topic ban (I don't see such a claim), that would be one thing. Dragging XIII to ANI for being arguably unfriendly on his/her own user talk page in a discussion about the dispute that led to the topic ban in the immediate wake of it being instituted strikes me as rather excessive. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Mendaliv, These diffs are – all three of them – from after the warning (aside from the topic ban) that he is clearly not abiding to, with for example new accusations of violating the law (for having created a Wikipedia article). In only one day and half. --Launebee (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understood that much. I don't see the edits you point out as meriting the urgent intervention of an outside administrator, which is the purpose of this noticeboard. The issues you have presented, respectfully, strike me as minimally problematic, especially given the extremely short period of time that has passed since the previous thread was archived. I don't see anything untoward, honestly. The concern about intellectual property law and your edits don't strike me as any more egregious than pointing out possible copyright violations. So, no, I don't see any purpose to this thread and recommend closure to allow the outcome of the previous thread to better take effect. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The top of this page says This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors: can you show me the word "urgent"?
Also, since you say this is "too soon", what is the required lag between when the warning was received and when it's actually enforced? Do violators get 48 hours or is the grace period longer? --Calton | Talk 08:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a judgement call I think. I'll of course go with consensus here, but I'd like to give it a bit more time. See further comments below. Andrewa (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Usually its at least a couple of days while a user gets it out of their system on their talkpage/has it clarified by an admin etc etc. Short of 'Well fuck you I'm ignoring it!' almost all admins will given editors a reasonable grace period, unless its clear they have no intention to behave. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just as the presence of a fringe on the flag does not convert a court of law into an admiralty court, the absence of words like "urgent" or "important" or "things that actually matter" in a summary, instructional description of the purpose of a noticeboard at the top of ANI turn it into a place where people may vomit whatever personal gripes they may have, no matter how petty. As an aside, before clamoring for "enforcement", you might want to consider what you're asking to be enforced. Here, it's a warning. The consequences of repeating that conduct isn't a block, isn't a ban, and isn't necessarily a new ANI thread; those would be the consequences of violating a topic ban, or perhaps a clear final warning. There are at least two admins already handling this situation at XIII's user talk. Let it go at that. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Just pointing out that if you're going to gas on about rules and guidelines, it's perhaps best to refer to ACTUAL rules and guidelines instead of making things up. Just saying. So your Freeman on the Land analogy works, just not in the way you intended. --Calton | Talk 00:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about rules or guidelines. I'm talking about actual practice. If you're unfamiliar with the practice of these boards to refuse to take action on this sort of dispute, then I would suggest you take to observing more threads before commenting. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I have been observing the actual practice of the board, genius, and for longer than you (if you are unfamiliar with editors you are trying to to be condescending to on ANI, then I would suggest you take to actually looking up editor contributions before commenting). The actual accepted -- and acceptable-- practice, according to MY observation, is that if someone persists in bad/sanctioned behavior that they at least are warned. The lazy -- and for some, most common -- reaction is to claim ANI is too busy/settle it amongst yourselves, which will lead to the inevitable reappearance of the problem. --Calton | Talk 14:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It is somewhat ironical that I decided to take an interest in AN/I after my first two attempts to refer personal attacks here were both auto-archived without any admin even looking at them as far as I can tell. Personally I think we need to be far stricter on personal attacks than we have been in the past, with earlier intervention, before things escalate and other editors follow the appalling examples some set. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Are you seriously trying to turn this into a pissing match over edit count or time since registration? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death does duty end "unless its clear they have no intention to behave": I think that is clear. You can read User:XIIIfromTOKYO's attacks even on Andrewa (who is forgetful) because of the sanctions he received. --Launebee (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mendaliv XIII said he does not want me to write on his talk page, but is attacking me there. What should I do then? --Launebee (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I see no attacks, and no conduct worth addressing at this time. There are already admins watching XIII's user talk page. You should go edit Wikipedia and ignore what XIII is doing. You should also respect XIII's request to stay off his/her user talk page. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
What should you do? One option is to give me the diffs on my user talk page, as I have requested elsewhere. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Not forgetful, but hopefully forgiving. Life is too short to waste on bitterness. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Support close. What we have here is the eighth appearance at AN/I of an unfortunate personal feud between two otherwise constructive contributors, based on a bitter content dispute over French universities. One of them is a bit more sophisticated in their disruption than the other, and so it's probably only a matter of time before that other gets indeffed, but that would be a shame and I'd like to keep trying for now! See User talk:XIIIfromTOKYO#Further discussion. Andrewa (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Andrewa asked on his talk page if I did what XIII accused me of in the third point. The simple answer is not at all, and XIII has been told many time. It is part of the long-term abuse against me (beginning in 2016) for which he has been warned only few days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#Repetitive accusations of antisemitism and homophobia, and threats and personal attacks by XIIIfromTokyo (see "CONSTANT ABUSIVE AND AGRESSIVE LANGUAGE", example 2). Launebee (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    • No, I asked whether you had introduced the text fake education into an article, and your answer was evasive. XIIIfromTokyo provided some diffs that show you introducing very similar text, with unfortunate phrasing... On top of being a fake school and being a financial loophole for France, Sciences Po is accused of being complicit with the "mediacratie" for example. [14] This is ambiguous in English, it's not clear whether Wikipedia is asserting that it's a fake school etc. or whether we're just saying it's accused of that. The matter is sensitive enough that it's important to avoid such ambiguity, particularly in an article likely to be read by others with poor English. Andrewa (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • XIIIfromTokyo is now hunting me down on Andrewa talk page, making up warnings I never received [15] and bringing back old disputes by saying that Andrewa asked him to do so [16]. Only in death does duty end, you talked about being clear the user has no intention to stop, he is now continuing over and over. --Launebee (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    • No, XIIIfromTokyo is participating in the discussion on my talk page because I explicitly asked them to do so. They made a mistake regarding the warning, and have now admitted that. Their English is no better than yours, as has been established over and over. Andrewa (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning to Launebee[edit]

In view of their latest comments here I have posted an additional warning to Launebee. Andrewa (talk) 01:31, 17 October 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.

Talk:IPhone_8#Battery problems[edit]

Wrong venue, discuss content additions on the talk page. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 18:49, 17 October 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.

Talk:IPhone_8#Battery problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • What can we do for you? Words, please. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 17 October 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.

Attempted intimidation[edit]

Resolved at this time, NAC SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:KATMAKROFAN made an attempt to intimidate me on 15 October 2017 at User talk:Buaidh#October 2017. Apparently this is part of a long string of disruptive events by this user. Please see User talk:KATMAKROFAN#Templates... Again. by User:Bbb23. I hope this can be stopped. Yours aye,  Buaidh  04:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Buaidh: I am sorry about that. The history and recent contributions (NPA in the template discussions, for instance) are very troubling. I have left a warning note on their talk page, and I hope this will stop similar behaviours from this user. Alex ShihTalk 05:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of valid new content[edit]

User has been directed to the proper place to discuss the issue, and has done so. Closing. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:59, 18 October 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 am new to Wikipedia so hopefully I am in the right place.

I added a section to this page:

The information regarding the Melbourne City Council Report and a user called MelbourneStar keeps deleting it without a valid reason, they have also falsely accused me of pasting copyright material.

What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B7865643 (talkcontribs) 04:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As User:MelbourneStar has mentioned, you should be discussing it on the talk page of the article. Appearance of a copyright violation is a valid reason for reverting an edit. The revert should not be re-reverted, especially in the face of copyright concerns. On Wikipedia, we cannot copy significant amounts of content directly from outside sources. Hamtechperson 04:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
B7865643 - Hamtechperson is correct above. Let's take this discussion to my user talk page here. I'll be happy to assist you and help you with copyright policies if you'd like. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Oshwah, I have added my comments to the talk page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by B7865643 (talkcontribs) 04:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

B7865643 - Even better! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:58, 18 October 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.

Blocked editor evading block and disrupting articles[edit]

Both blocked. Favonian (talk) 19:45, 17 October 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.

Yesterday a new editor User:Amy. Firehoof. was created and started making a series of edits to articles related to Wales. These edits were mostly reverted, including by User:Andy Dingley and myself. The edits were problematic, and included this edit which attempted to remove the assertion that a specifically Welsh invention was Welsh, this edit that removed the Welsh language name of North Wales from the article about North Wales (with the alarming edit summary that this was "irrelevant info) and this edit which remove the Welsh name for a Welsh town, claiming that this was "fixing my own typo". Amy. Firehoof. entered into an edit war on Car gwyllt to get their changes into the article, including this change which is both factually inaccurate (see the citation in the article on Wales which establishes it is a country]] and irrelevant to that article. User:Amy. Firehoof. was blocked last night by User:Alexf for edit warring.

Today, a new user User:SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK was created, who started making the same edits to the same articles (e.g. this edit and this edit) and also interacted with the blocked user's talk page. It is clear to me that User:SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK is an account created to evade the block on User:Amy. Firehoof. and the underlying user is clearly violating Wikipedia's rules on maintaining a neutral point of view. The user is not engaging in meaningful dicussions about their concerns, is violating the requirement to maintain factual neutraility and is not here to help the project. Could an admin take a look and help with the right next steps? Thank you. Railfan23 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I was just writing up an SPI, but it's a lot of typing to do all the diffs and the massive crossover! This duck isn't quacking, it's neighing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Note that User:SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK just removed this entire discussion in this edit. I have restored it Railfan23 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This was going to be an ANEW post, but now we've started here...

Amy. Firehoof. appeared last night and walked straight into a triple 4RR edit-war over removing descriptions of anything Welsh as Welsh. This morning, a 31 hour block.

Tonight, a very obvious sock or meatpuppet appears. Repeats a couple of the edits and wikilove the original's talk: page. This is either a sock (during a block) or a meat, and CU might answer that.

That aside, we've got definite 4RRs.

  1. [17]
  2. [18]
  3. [19]
  4. [20]
High Contrast
  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]
Car gwyllt
(a hugely obscure article, but the only one I created which is obviously Welsh to a quick scan of my creations list)
  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]
  4. [28]
  5. [29]
  6. [30] (SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK)
  7. [31] (SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK)
North Wales
  1. [32]
  2. [33] (SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK)
  3. [34] (SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK)
Conwy County Borough
  1. [35]
  2. [36] (SilvermountainhorsepineappleUK)

When we start seeing POV edits to a local council page, from someone who's userpage claims naively, "Interested in learning more about the United Kingdom", then we have a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

<ec>> That was rude. No wonder I got an EC. I added to the SPI while trying to create a new one. A veritable barnyard of neighing and quacking.18:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Drmies, much appreciated. Railfan23 (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

both blocked per SPIDlohcierekim (talk) 18:18, 17 October 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.

Proposed topic ban of YahwehSaves on Audie Murphy[edit]

YahwehSaves has been indeffed by Drmies. GABgab 23:06, 18 October 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 am proposing a permanent topic ban of @YahwehSaves: on the Featured Topic Audie Murphy. A temporary ban will be useless, since this editor's history has been to make disruptive edits on articles and talk pages, and then lay off for several months or years, only to come back and repeat the pattern. In the latest, he laid off from January 2016 until this week. By much that I see at AIV and SPI, this is vandalism, masquerading as "improving" the article.

My first edit on Audie Murphy was February 5, 2013, so this issue with YahwehSaves pre-dates my involvement. Regarding diffs, you need an overall picture, because this is more than just a handful of recent edits. Let me try the short and tidy version. YahwehSave edits on Audie Murphy article beginning May 16, 2011. YahwehSaves edits to Talk:Audie Murphy beginning May 23, 2011. And there have also been Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of YahwehSaves involved at times. He has already received multiple blocks for Audie Murphy and other articles.

His agenda is whether or not Murphy is the top US decorated WWII soldier, mostly to prove Murphy is not. The Audie Murphy article does not make the claim of "most decorated", but YahwehSaves reworks his military service, and is fixated on the medal/awards/decorations count. This time when rewriting the prose, he shrunk the Medal of Honor image and complained on the talk page that it was "puffed up". When he is reverted, he claims to be the victim of unfair editors/admins. He is active on Matt Urban and Llewellyn Chilson - the two competitors for "most decorated". Please apply a permanent topic ban to stop this. — Maile (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  • We seem to have had a lot of patience with YahwehSaves, at the expense of the editors they interact with. They're currently under a 2-week block by @HJ Mitchell: for "disruptive edits to Audie Murphy and belligerence and incivility on the article's talk page". In view of YS's recent actions at Audie Murphy, their intemperate personal attacks on its talkpage, their one-month topic ban in December 2016, their block log, and their SPI, I propose extending the block to indefinite. If that's not acceptable, I support the topic ban as proposed. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC).
  • That looks like the IP has continued to edit on at least one same article as YahwehSaves since that SPI. I would support an indef block. We don't have time for intermittent nonsense from intermittent editors. I would also block the IP for a year, no account creation allowed, as it appears only he uses it. The topic ban would be my second choice. Dennis Brown - 16:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I support a community site-ban. He's the only editor I've ever been given specific warning about. He has no article accomplishments that I've seen, a long block log, and I see no point in expending further tolerance. I'd suggest a topic ban for all of MILHIST (broadly construed) if you want to re-arrange deck chairs for the time being. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef block This WP:TENDENTIOUS editing has gone on far too long. CT's suggestion of a topic ban for all MILHIST topics is proper if an indef is not to take place. MarnetteD|Talk 17:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I support the topic ban, at the least. I came to the talk page unaware of the history set forth above. An attempt to help resolve the situation resulted in immediate, stark WP:IDHT on YS's part. They refused to accept clear consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef block While I'd consider a topic ban on all MILHIST topics, this behavior has gone on for far too long (and the socking via IP only adds to my concern). RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support full site ban no need to pussyfoot about. Removal will be a net positive for the project. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I considered an indef but thought it was a bit too bold for a unilateral admin action. It would have been my next port of call if the disruption resumed after the current block. I have no problem with my block being changed to indefinite if that's the consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support either indefinite block or site ban. Eight blocks in six years, consistent refusal to accept consensus, years of continuous IP socking, insulting other editors, and pushing a personal agenda. Clearly a net negative. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Will block indefinitely per ANI consensus. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 18 October 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.

Topic ban violation by Mwest55[edit]

Both accounts now indeffed. Closing. GABgab 01:51, 19 October 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.

Mwest55 (talk · contribs) was indefinitely topic banned earlier this year from Wind turbine syndrome for disruptive editing, and later given a two month block for violating that ban. He had previously been blocked for edit warring on the same article. West has returned with a new account, MWest55 (talk · contribs) and violated the ban again. Not taking action myself as I am quite involved. From looking at his interactions, I think it's possible he actually doesn't realize he's topic banned. After all the attempts to contact him, that would bring into question issues of competence in addition to the edit warring and conspiracy mongering. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

This should probably be enough for indef (soapbox). Alex ShihTalk 00:58, 19 October 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.

Requesting Assistance on Persistent Disruptive editing by user[edit]

Requesting assistance. A non-registered user of IP-address had been repeatedly reverting contents without any specific rationale (except for one, but should have raised it up on discussion instead of a forceful reverting action) or raising any rationale up on the discussion. This is despite warnings by multiple users and a block applied a year ago (as dated on the block log). Failed attempts had been made to reach out to the user via the talk page or the edit descriptions (basically much of the actions appropriate under a extended confirmed-user privilege). Lyg 2001 (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lyg 2001: The IP address appears to be shared by multiple users. I have semi-protected the article for now, and will keep watching for developments. Alex ShihTalk 11:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


What began as a content dispute at the list of current world boxing champions has devolved into a conduct dispute filled with lies and personal attacks. At talk, I have tried to discuss the (albeit bizarre) intricacies of the WBA's world title rulings with User:David-golota, but all he does is make repeated accusations of ownership: