Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Could I borrow those eyeballs once more?[edit]

Be my guest.EEng

User:C. W. Gilmore has been making a series of edits to Ridgefield, WA, repeatedly re-introducing false information, accusing other writers of canvassing, violating BRD, and, in my opinion, trying to coatrack the article to be an offshoot of Removal_of_Confederate monuments and memorials. There also may be some socking; this low-output, interestingly named, single purpose account appears to share writing style with him. Anmccaff (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Returning the article to it's original condition while the section in RFC discussion[1], appears to be the issue for Anmccaff as they have repeated attempted to delete the entire section.[2][3] This is very disruptive.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope, it's repeatedly re-introducing false information, accusing other writers of canvassing, violating BRD, and, in my opinion, trying to coatrack the article to be an offshoot of Removal_of_Confederate monuments and memorials. There also may be some socking, as seen 4, 5 lines above. Anmccaff (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The section before it was repeatedly deleted [4] is what I was attempting to maintain while the RFC discussion proceeds. It is Anmccaff, who is being disruptive and deleting the section in some kind of edit war.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I also asked Anmccaff to specify sight anything I posted that might be in error and all I got as response was a threat of ANI action. This is most troubling and non-productive.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

And, not surprisingly, we have a repeated accusation of canvassing, I'm curious whether by cavalry [brought] in from as far away as Swastika, Ontario he means User:Cullen328 or User:Kleuske this time. Anmccaff (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to Anmccaff.[5] You and the others had no interest in this article, until John from Idegon pointed you in it's direction. You don't need to be so hostile, I'm an honest contributor and no 'sock puppet'; just ask and I will be happy to clarify any question you have. I do however, object strongly to your false accretions, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I dunno if that's mendacity or conveniently poor memory on your part, but I was involved in a conversation with you here, about five days prior. That's on the same page, with you directly responding to me. More importantly, JfI and were discussing the larger problem of POV-pushers circumventing restrictions on political topics by coatracking them on other articles, viz:
Anmccaff, do you have any idea if the arb American Politics discretionary sanctions decisions apply to political content in what should be non political articles? John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you are on to something here. When the subject is pretty close to an obvious political subject, it's gonna get noticed and brought up, but if, say, folks keep adding borderline stuff to Swastika, Ontario "because bacon Hitler!", and so forth, it's not going to be seen that way. I don't think there is any formal policy that covers this. Anmccaff (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
When JfI mentioned It's gone to RfC now, I'd assumed "it" was a request for clarification of whether the arb American Politics discretionary sanctions decisions apply to political content in what should be non political articles?. We had already discussed your coatracking days earlier, remember. Anmccaff (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I was only mentioning that JfI, you and others do a great job tag-teaming to push you POV; from Swastika, Ontario to Ridgefield, Washington. The cavalry was called and you did a great job responding, thus the natives from the area, like myself, have no chance. Great work to you and your friends. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not close friends with anyone involved, although I try to be friendly with everyone. I just took a look when the matter was brought up here, and commented on what I saw as foolishness. The only POV that I push is that we should all work together to build a better encyclopedia. The notion that "natives from the area" ought to have some special status when editing articles about cities and towns is erroneous. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
A blimp in the news cycleEEng
The local sources have know that this is not just a blimp blip in the news cycle, the issues surrounding the Jefferson Davis Highway markers began in 1998 with the Vancouver city council, when they removed the stone. It again became an issue in 2001, and again in 2006 when it was removed from public land for the last time. Thus the park was built in 2007 for the purpose of displaying the marker and for the education of confederate heritage. Those of us close to it have seen it play out in the local media: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]http://www.kptv.com/story/36153519/some-calling-for-removal-of-confederate-flag-at-ridgefield-park][13][14][15][16][17][18]. The problem is when those that do not familiarize themselves with these local issues, take over control of wiki to the point of whitewashing them out of the local history. None of this was directed at you, Cullen328, only those that are pushing their agenda from outside the area that have not educated themselves to this, almost 30yr issues in Southwestern Washington. Ridgefield city government has asked the county historical society to remove the stone markers just this year, but all this started in 1939. I do appreciate that you, Cullen328, have an opinion and I respect it, and I also know that these over editors will get there way with this site as they are in force. So it will be, but I do object most strongly to the false allegations of Anmccaff, that I am someone's sock puppet, or a single purpose account (SPA) or that my account name, which is my name, is some how questionable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Leaving aside the questionable assertion that it's just then pointy-headed outsider troublemakers causing the problems at your lunchcounter town, I am not saying that you are a sock-puppet, I'm saying it looks like you use them. Any objection to a checkuser looking at the edits in question? Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
"There also may be some socking; this low-output, interestingly named, single purpose account appears to share writing style with him. Anmccaff" -"I am not saying that you are a sock-puppet, I'm saying it looks like you use them. Any objection to a checkuser looking at the edits in question? Anmccaff"
Your spurius allegations are what I object to and consider an intimidating tactic that goes against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and are not worthy of response. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: Either file an SPI or drop the allegations of sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment -- I think this has disagreement been resolved via the RfC. Separately, I invited C. W. Gilmore to create a stand-alone article on the subject, which they are in the process of doing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks but Anmccaff is not through with me as he has begun a 'sockpuppet' investigation.here I do hope that they will leave me alone after this, but I get the feeling, that's not their style. This really does make for a hostile environment to try and contribute. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
AFAICT none of this is improper, but if CWG's conduct in that RfC comes under consideration, the background may matter. I will not follow this, ping me if further input is needed. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
Thanks, but Anmccaff is searching for anything to pin on me, and has been going through my old posts back to 2011 as well as starting a 'sockpuppet' or 'meatpuppet' investigation into me, along with going around to that Administrator's TP to besmirch my name with accusations. [19] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

500/30 ARBPIA rule[edit]

For me it's more the 500 edits testing out fonts and stuff and then jumping into ARBPIA edits but anyway I think we're done here. GoldenRing (talk) 22:40, 7 November 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.

See [20] - this user has evaded the 500/30 rule on ARBPIA articles by opening an account 30 days ago and then making 500 edits to their own user page. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef. "I was just testing out different fonts and such" yeah, sure. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
That...takes a bit of gumption, to think 500 sandbox edits would stand. ValarianB (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Now CU blocked. ~ Rob13Talk 22:14, 7 November 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.

Dutchy85's film stubs[edit]

Dutchy85 has been informed of sourcing requirements, and seems to be making a good-faith effort to improve. Given this, and that his creations appear to be, if badly sourced to start with, actually notable in general, I think we're no longer needing ANI input here. Let us remember that not everything on ANI has to end in fire and flame. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:55, 8 November 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.

While wading through stubs today, I've noticed huge numbers of sub-stubs being created over the past month by Dutchy85, most of which are sourced only to IMDB. Obviously, as they stand these are all technically non-compliant, and there are so many of them that it's impractical to do the full WP:BEFORE treatment on all of them—however, given that the films in question almost certainly do exist, the bulk deletion nomination I'd usually perform in these circumstances would seem a bit counterproductive since at some point they'd all need to be re-created with proper sourcing. Can I get some other peoples' thoughts on whether we ought to be applying the letter of the law in these circumstances, or quietly turning a blind eye? (Note: while I'll obviously give D85 the correct ANI notification, I've not given the usual {{uw-unsourced1}} or similar; this is someone with 50,000 edits, not a newbie who doesn't understand Wikipedia policy.) ‑ Iridescent 17:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you tag them with a request for a non-IMDB source? Abyssal (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I have considerably better things to do with my life than wade through well over 500 articles adding tags, particularly if there's consensus that these pages shouldn't be deleted. ‑ Iridescent 18:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I meant with a bot or something automated. Abyssal (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent... to explain what I've been doing, is usually I'll go through a filmmaker's filmography, and note what films there are no wikipedia pages up for. I do up a quick wikipedia page for the film entry (I feel all theatrically released feature films deserve a page especially if they have notable talent in it). I always try to give at least two sources, normally IMDB and TCM but also at times BFI. Then I go back later and try to flesh out the article with references to newspaper articles... by which time often people in the wikipedia community are kind enough to have added contributions to the entries to help out. Unfortunately some times it takes me longer to get back to the entries than I would like. I don't mean to contravene any policy - certainly I don't do it consciously - I'm just keen for Wikipedia to be as comprehensive as possible when it comes to covering cinema. It all comes from a good place. But absolutely all the films do exist. Dutchy85 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This same issue with this user has come up before, specifically at the Film Project in June 2016. This was their talkpage (note the warnings, prods, etc), before they cleared it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Didn't mean to cause any offence. I might hop off editing for a while. Apologies for causing any extra work it was not my intention. I feel every feature film released theatrically is inherently notable.Dutchy85 (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

How about instead of "hopping off", you follow up on the suggestion above and tag all of your sub-stub film articles which rely solely on IMDB as a source as needing a non-IMDB source? Since you created them, it's unreasonable for you to make someone else fix your errors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Point taken Dutchy85 (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I looked at one of these articles – The Gallant Blade. It is listed in lots of books and I had no difficulty finding a substantial source. The relevant policy seems to be WP:IMPERFECT, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." So, as this seems to be a valid topic, we should welcome it. No admin action seems necessary or appropriate here and and so this matter seems to belong at a relevant project like Wikipedia:WikiProject Film rather than ANI. Andrew D. (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it's a valid topic, and there's plenty of sources out there to expand it. The issue is that it was left in this unsourced state on 8 October and then pretty much abandonded, until expanded by yourself (thanks BTW). Now if it was a one-off from a new editor who doesn't know the ins-and-outs of WP:RS, building articles, etc, then we'd be dropping helpful notes on their talkpage and helping them to write a better (sourced) article. But this isn't that scenario. There are dozens, if not hundreds of these articles created by the same (experienced) user with nothing more than an external link. And looking at the version from 8th October, even the basic categories are not correct (no country, wrong year cat, etc). It's not the best use of time to clean up all this mess. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User Vishnuvardhana[edit]

User blocked for verbal assault. Nee-yow BOOM. TomBarker23 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 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.

Vishnuvardhana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Vishnuvardhana is a reasonably new user who has mainly edited articles on Indian films and Indian actors/actresses. Unfortunately, they're turning into a problematic editor, linking to copyright infringement [21][22], making unsourced changes with particular POV [23][24][25], unsourced changes with BLP issues [26][27][28], removing sourced information [29][30] and changing sourced information [31]. More in their contribution list.

They've gotten various warnings on their talk page and I've left a couple of personalized messages directly asking them for a response to discuss the concerns that have been raised. They haven't responded to anything. At this point, I think at a minimum they need a block to force discussion. Review of their edits, suggestions and possible admin action would be appreciated. Ravensfire (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User notified here. Ravensfire (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Bleh - that was supposed to be included as "seriously creepy edit". Feels like something from a middle-school boy, but creepy. Ravensfire (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I do whatever I want[edit]

I have seen so many notifications about Bollywood movies editing and yes I do it and I will do whatever I want fuck urself I love Sonakshi Sinha and want her so get lost u stupid idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnuvardhana (talkcontribs) 08:05 08 November 2017 (UTC)

(moved comment here from bottom of page / unsigned Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC))
  • Indeffed in light of this. Any other admin has my explicit consent to unblock without consulting me if they feel either that this is too harsh, or that there's a convincing unblock appeal. ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Sensible block. A Traintalk 10:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That's about as WP:NOTHERE as it gets. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That went a bit sideways. Not expecting that to happen. Appreciate the assistance. Ravensfire (talk) 15:15, 8 November 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.

ShushkoMushko: Antisemitism in talk pages[edit]

ShushkoMushko is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to the Arab Israeli conflict broadly construed. per WP:ACDS with a supporting consensus in this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 9 November 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:ShushkoMushko is trying to push an point of view that an otherwise reliable source is compromised by his identity as a Jew. It has been explained to him numerous times that this is extremely offensive and is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, but he/she insists on arguing ad nauseum: [32], [33], [34]. --GHcool (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

He seems to fail to understand that not all Jewish people are Israeli, nor do they all support Israel. He's confusing nationality with religion. --Tarage (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Topic Banning The most generous interpretation is that this is a massive CIR fail. I am going to invoke WP:ACDS and topic ban them from all Arab Israeli related articles talk pages and related discussions broadly construed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
On reflection I will wait a bit to see if there are any other opinions on this, though I think a TBan is probably the best course short of an indefinite block. I will also give them a chance to respond. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
10x, Ad Orientem. I don't want to offend anybody.
If we suppose there is a protected page about the Yugoslavia's civil war for example. It is protected because Serbs and Bosnians are very oftеn updating the page, because there are taking the conflict personally and can not decide how is good and who is bad. I am an ethnic Serb, I am a writer, famous as Levitt, Matthew. I wrote a book about the civil war. Someone uses my book about the war as a source in wikipedia. In the book I wrote "2+2=4". In wikipedia this men wrote "2+2=4". GHcool, which is from different ethnic group, different nationality, does not lives in Yugoslavia and he haven't ever been there asks for the following edit: "It is against the wiki independent sources to write "2+2=4" here, because ShushkoMushko is a Serb, the Sebrs are not independent to the Yugoslavia civil war. Edit the comment "ShushkoMushko wrote 2+2=4". Should be this offensive for me? Or for the rest ethnic Serbs? The question is not rhetoric, no matter will you ban me or not, please answer me. ShushkoMushko (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShushkoMushko (talkcontribs) 20:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Being ETHNICALLY JEWISH and RELIGIOUSLY JEWISH are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. --Tarage (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
To answer your question more bluntly, if you were FROM Serbia or Yugoslavia, then yes, arguments could be made that you had a conflict of interest. However if you had never even lived in either of those places and did not identify as a Serbian or Yugoslavian national, then no, it would not be okay to simply exclude your reference because of your parent's ethnic background. --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Support topic ban Editor seems to have bias, so moving away from this area seems like a good idea. I have a feeling though they will either ignore it or cease editing, since all of their edits are in that space. Should be on the lookout for new IP editors popping up saying the same things... --Tarage (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Support topic ban A very new editor who's clearly violating guidelines. Regardless of whether they are acting in good faith, a TBAN is the correct response. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Support sitebanSupport Indefinite block. There must be no room for antisemitic editors on WP. This user knows exactly that it is doing. When they accept the error of their ways they can express it in an appeal. Irondome (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
We impose sanctions in response to actions, usually some form of disruptive editing as is the case here. We do not impose sanctions for beliefs or opinions, even those we may find deeply offensive. In this situation a TBan seems proportionate, and if adhered to, will likely resolve the problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree, users should never be punished for beliefs or opinions. Talk about an NPOV violation! Abyssal (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Abyssal and where exactly, is this NPOV 'violation'? The user is displaying openly rascist behaviours. Are you comfortable with that on WP? Irondome (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I said opinions, I didn't say anything about tolerating bad behavior. Abyssal (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec)*I disagree with you on your last point, Ad Orientem (talk) in that I suspect this individual will just find other topics to advance this kind of behaviour. An indef until they get what the issue is. However, I suspect they do not accept they have an issue. Irondome (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

TBan on what? There is nothing in here to suggest what topic is going to be banned. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It's in Ad Orientem's struck comments: "all Arab Israeli related articles talk pages and related discussions broadly construed" power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, was just about to reply myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This user has been here for like a week. Really we're going to topic ban already? We already won't let them edit any pages related to this subject matter at all until they're 500 edits in. The diffs above do not appear to be virulent anti-semitism. Maybe we WP:AGF and let the user see how talk page discussion works for a few days before we throw them out. agtx 20:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to see Shushko respond to my comment about understanding the difference between a religion and a nationality. Does he understand this? Does he understand that a Jewish person does NOT automatically mean they are Israeli, nor does it mean they support/write for Israel? If he can't answer this question, then yes, topic ban is needed. Look at the talk pages he's posted on. They are filled with nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I already commented the ethic groups and the nationality with corresponding example, check my comment here, little bit above. I haven't mention anything about religion, why are you asking about it? Can you answer on my question after the example? Maybe it will be better to move it bellow the GHcool's comment to be more easily seen? ShushkoMushko (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You said, and I quote, "Is a Levitt Jewish? Are the bigger part of the Israeli citizens Jewish? Are the bigger part of Hezbollah victims Jewish?" When called out on this, you replied "I find the notion that a journalist's reliability is compromised by their identity as a Iranian to be extremely offensive." This shows a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING of the difference between being ISRAELI and JEWISH. Since you continue to be belligerent and refuse to answer my simple question, I must re-state that I am in favor of a topic ban at the minimum. You've only been editing for less than a week and already you are saying some hugely offensive things and failing to understand basic concepts. This is the last piece of advice I am going to give you: Stop. Right now, by not admitting that you are wrong, you are ONLY setting yourself up to be blocked. This will NOT end well for you if you keep this up. Do you understand that? You are VERY CLOSE to having your editing abilities revoked. Instead of lashing out at everyone, take a good, honest look at your behavior and recognize that MULTIPLE PEOPLE are telling you that you are clearly in the wrong. I highly suggest you listen. --Tarage (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment If this had come to WP:AE I would have no hesitation in topic-banning this user. Non-EC editors are tolerated on ARBPIA-related talk pages so long as their edits are unambiguously constructive. I think it's pretty clear this line has been crossed. Since it's here for discussion let's discuss it, though I think technically any uninvolved administrator can still act unilaterally here. I support a topic ban. GoldenRing (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree and I'm not seeing anything so far that is causing me to reconsider a TBan. I held back out of an abundance of caution and a desire to let ShushkoMushko respond and see what others had to say. But yeah... barring something really unexpected I think this is going to get dealt with sooner rather than later. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Topic Banned indefinitely from all pages and discussions relating to the Arab Israeli conflict broadly construed per WP:ACDS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 9 November 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.

Cleanup on aisle Nazism?[edit]

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources indicate that Nazism is a specie of extreme right socio-political ideology. While there are some who argue that Nazism should be considered a far left ideology, this is an extreme minority view. Whether or not it is a FRINGE view is a question that is open to debate. What is not open to debate is that the community has consistently demonstrated a strong consensus that reflects the prevalent view among scholars and historians that Nazism is a far right ideology. Repeatedly challenging that conclusion without demonstrating a significant shift of thought on the subject in reliable sources is not constructive and if pressed after being advised of the community's strong consensus on the subject, might be seen as disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 9 November 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.

Moved from WP:AN3

There is a somewhat heated discussion ongoing on Talk:Nazism, it involves closure of open ongoing discussions, reversion of the closures, and so forth. Depending on how you define it, I suspect two of us are well past 3RR.

The entire mess starts here; to get the full flavor, you gotta just plough through it.

So, my question here is:

Does repeatedly closing a discussion, despite the fact that at least 4 other people are actively participating in it, constitute edit warring? Anmccaff (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

So, unfortunately Talk:Nazism distressingly often gets inquiries or statements concerning the Nazis actually being part of the political left, and not the political right. These questions/statements have been answered each time they come up, and the standing consensus on the talk page is that the vast majority of mainstream historians consider the Nazis to be part of the right, and not part of the left, despite some strands of "socialism" in the party's formal (but not practical) agenda. (The Nazis being part of the left appears to be a current Alt-right talking point. [35]) So, when this question came up today, I answered it, and then closed the discussion, to enforce the standing consensus on the talk page.
Unfortunately, Anmccaff seems to be the holder of a WP:FRINGE ahistorical position that the Nazis only became considered to be part of the right after the war [36], and for this reason he doesn't want the discussion closed. I opened an RfC on the talk page [37] to further confirm the standing consensus (which can be easily found by anyone simply by reviewing the page's archives) but this doesn't seem to satisfy Anmccaff's need to re-litigate the question that has already been asked and answered numerous times.
The operative concern here is not edit warring, it's Anmcaff's refusal to accept the standing consensus on the talk page, due to his desire to espouse his fringe viewpoint. As such, this complaint really should be on ANI, as it's an issue of Anmcaff's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Anmccaff and Beyond My Ken: Hope you two don't mind, but I moved this to ANI, as it really does seem like the better place for this kind of discussion. SkyWarrior 03:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Fine by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
First, I'd like someone to address what brought this to (another) drama board. BMK repeatedly closed an ongoing discussion, usually, by the look of at after leaving himself the last word. I'd call that edit warring at its worst, especially when it's topped off by template bombing; any comment? Anmccaff (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Anyone who places Nazism on the left needs a CIR block. EEng 03:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Why? The left isn't wholly defined by marxism, isn't entirely international, etc. A good many "progressive" movements have recently been embarrassed by (exaggerated, of course) comparisons of their ideas with Nazi practice, and it's trivial to find a reputable historian who points out that one large part of the reason the old SDP was quiescent was that the Nasties implemented so many of their social policies directly. Yeah, most of this is a minority opinion, but not a fringe one. Anmccaff (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my opinion, there is no cause to close down a good-faith article-talk discussion, much less in less than 24 hours. In addition, if the issue has been previously discussed, it behooves those pooh-poohing the query to link to those discussions. Thirdly, there is never a case for closing down a less-than-24-hour-old good-faith article-talk discussion and immediately opening up a snarky so-called RfC with the question "Has the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left been sufficiently discussed on this talk page in the past, so that when the question comes up again, the response can be brief and to the point, and there is no need to have an unnecessary additional full discussion?" -- Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You think that ""Has the question of whether the Nazis were part of the political left been sufficiently discussed on this talk page in the past, so that when the question comes up again, the response can be brief and to the point, and there is no need to have an unnecessary additional full discussion?" is "snarky"? Interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's snarky. You think it deserves a 7 day discussion? Interesting. --DHeyward (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Well obviously, we hold somewhat different notions of what is and isn't "snarky". If I had intended to be snarky, I might have phrased the question as something like "Are we required to accommodate every wingnut who shows up here trying to establish that the Nazis were lefties?" Now that would have been snarky.
    As to whether I thought the actual question I posed required a 7 day discussion - no, I did not. In fact, I don't think it required any discussion at all as being obvious on its face, but I was trying to accommodate an editor who thought otherwise by giving him a chance to establish a new consensus. All it will take is a consensus of "no" !votes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Conversation is warm and friendly but it is also a weapon to drive away editors with a genuine interest in the topic. I have seen several articles where fringe stuff is repeatedly raised and shutting it down quickly is the only way to avoid losing control of the talk page. How do you close a discussion after people have started enjoying it? Actually, it's not really a discussion, it's a list of fringe claims versus reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I think the second part of the RfC question (starting from ...so that) should be rephrased to something like "how should we approach if there are recurring discussions on this topic?". Opinionated input would probably be better placed in the threaded comments section. Alex Shih (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Looked at charitably, this is a relitigation of the content dispute, though parts of it tend to mere abuse. GoldenRing (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment Anyone who thinks this, prewar, was a fringe claim simply can not have read any of the leftian commentary between the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Barbarossa...no, make that between the suppression of the POUM and Barbarossa. Writers under party discipline during the immediate prewar era were damn near fawning over Hitler, and touched on exactly the same points raised more recently regarding social policy. (This, of course, led to the first major wave of disillusionment with Stalinism.) Anmccaff (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is ANI, where behavioral issue are dealt with; content issues are not determined here. But, in any case, the fact that Nazis said nice things about Stalin & Co. during that brief period, and the Soviets and other Communists did the same in return is completely irrelevant to whether the Nazis were left wing or right wing. Hitler was just buying himself some time for the invasions of Poland and France, and had no intention of keeping up his "friendship" with the Soviet Union. But even if he did -- against all historical evidence -- precipitously change his view of Communism during that period, it still wouldn't make Nazism left wing. So, yes, your viewpoint is exceedingly fringe, and - as I said - profoundly ahistorical. No mainstream historian agrees with you, and your taking up time and space on Talk:Nazism to put forward your patent nonsense is a complete and total waste of our resources, as is the time it takes to rebut your drivel.
What's next? Are we going to give Holocaust deniers all the time and space they want to spew their lies? Are we giving equal time to Flat-earthers? We're a encyclopedia, for crying out loud, not Reddit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
So, make that point back on the talk page for Nazism...and then expect to be deluged with counter-examples. The slavish adherence of some stalinites to the current official line made for cringe-worthy reading, especially in retrospect. But don't continue to write anything else here until you adress what got you here: Your edit-warring to close an onging discussion. Anmccaff (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Making up a position for someone and then calling it "drivel" isn't an argument, it isn't even a strawman, it's just drooling.
First, this isn't my argument. My argument is then when someone raises an arguable point, you don't complain that someon else said it before, somewhere buried in an archive, and close it down before comments end, and then bury it again, and then piss and moan because people haven't read the stuff you've buried. If you have an actual consensus, it's very easy to enforce without that sort of thing.
More importantly, George Reisman, say, isn't a fringe figure, and pretending he is to push a POV is a [1066 and all that|Bad Thing]. Anmccaff (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Not makin' nothin' up, bud, just reporting what you wrote [38]:

Certainly generally seen that way [i.e. as right-wing] since WWII, especially in the West, but the tie-in between the Nasties and the left were real enough, and rather embarrassing sometimes to both. Stuffing pre-Night of the Long Knives hitlerism into the same pigeonhole as, say George Lincoln Rockwell is comforting, but not accurate.

WP:Fringe, pure and simple - and now that I look at it again, in connection with your comment above, not only ahistorical, but completely illogical as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, kiddo, perhaps someday you'll learn the difference between reporting and interpreting, and maybe even learn to do it impartially...but I'm not holdin' my breath.
Meanwhile, back at the this board's subject area, do you think it correct to revert to closing an ongoing discussion multiple times, and then claim someone else was edit-warring? Anmccaff (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Please note:When you interpolate a comment out of order, you should indent one tab more, so that people don't accidentally get the wrong impression about how the discussion proceeded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
BYW, you do know that just mentioning someone's name, without providing a quote or a source, as you did above and in two comments on Talk:Nazism, isn't proof of anything, right?
And while we're at it, "Cleanup on aisle Nazism" [39] - you think that's funny? How about "Brad, please clean up the spill on Holocaust", or "Price check on September 11 attacks" - pretty hilarious right? You'd probably like "Can I get an associate in Rwandan genocide?" or "Rape of Nanking, please call your office." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
To someone who claims to be so familiar with the subject that he can detect fringe without his Ouija board, or even a forked stick, both names should have some meaning. And, yeah, laughing at the bastards is good for the soul, just ask Mel Brooks.
But that aside, why not answer the question that dragged you onto this board, indirectly: do you really think that repeatedly closing an ongoing conversation isn't a form of edit warring? And if it is, should you be accusing anyone else of it? Anmccaff (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
So, you think "Cleanup on aisle Nazism" is your own little Springtime for Hitler, huh? Well, feel free to use any of my "jokes" in the future. I recommend you try the Holocaust one in your neighborhood synagogue, or the 9/11 one anywhere in downtown Manhattan. And the Rape of Nanking "joke" should absolutely kill with any group of Chinese people of a particular age.
In any case, I've already answered your question: I was upholding a long-standing talk page WP:consensus, while you were just attempting to allow yourself a place to propagandize a totally debunked ahistorical illogical fringe viewpoint. 'Taint the same, McGee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
BMK, take a chill pill. Go drink some tea or something. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • On other articles where fringe - or for that matter ridiculous - ideas are brought up again and again with tiring regularity, we often have a FAQ on the talkpage that such editors can be directed to and the discussions hatted. For examples, see Homeopathy or Homophobia. Incidentally, Anmccaff, do you think this is appropriate? I don't. Black Kite (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
In context? Damned straight. When someone can only argue by comparing reputable sources to cartoonish fictional characters, and would rather play home psychologist than discuss sources presented? Anmccaff (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
And while we're at it, what about this? Anmccaff is a net negative on that talk page. A Traintalk 08:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
So, ::::It's not the theory which needs to be taken seriously, it's the danger which comes from people accepting it as fact that is the problem, and the reason that responsible academics and other debunk even patent nonsense, such as you espouse. is your idea of a "net positive?" Anmccaff (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
If you can't (or don't wish) to see the difference between calling an idea "nonsense" and calling an editor "special" and comparing them to a crazy person, then I'm not sure what to tell you. A Traintalk 08:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
And if you can pick out this one piece from the context above and focus so sharply on it, then I am not sure what to tell you. Anmccaff (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
You are suggesting that incivility is a matter of volume. You and BMK are both exasperated with each other, but only one of you is resorting to ad hominem. A Traintalk 11:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've hatted bits of it, though I don't have any particular objection to someone just closing it if they think it's going nowhere. GoldenRing (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It'd be nice if someone answered the question well above the hat. Is closing an open discussion acceptable, or is it a form of edit warring? Anmccaff (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It depends on context. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the context of a discussion that has been had many times previously, closing it with a link to previous discussions is usually fine. The general exception being if there has been any new evidence/new research that sheds any doubt on the previous discussions accuracy. I am pretty sure that current thinking is that the Nazi's were overwhelmingly of the right. Even with some of the left policies they had (on paper). Short of the entire academic community deciding to change the meaning of 'right' and 'left', that is not going to change anything by having another 7 day discussion on it. Its been asked and answered before. If you want to discuss how the Nazis were not right, go to Stormfront. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed the historical basis for so many of their 'left-sounding' policies- indeed, up to and including the inclusion of the very word 'Socialist' in their title- was an acknowledgement of the historical strength of support that left-wing parties had in Germany post-1918, and specifically a means with which to persuade their target audience that they were suitable for everyone to join. None of which whasoever alters the fact that modern scholarship of almost every political and academic hue does not give the slightest credence to the fact, or their own self-definition, in discussion of the NSDP's position on the political spectrum. Frankly to suggest otherwise is — fortunavelut luna 12:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • To be fair, Night of the Long Knives was a purge of the left-wing elements, including Brown Shirts. It also included conservatives that were not nazi's that stopped labor unrest. That's the niche Nazi's filled when they appealed to labor organizations to create civil unrest which forced conservatives to violently suppress it. After power was established, they eliminated both the establishment conservatives that shut down the brownshirt rallies with police and also destroyed the leadership of the brownshirts. That niche and collection of party and business leaders is considered right wing. It is also true that the broad categorization of right wing was used as Soviet propaganda that left many soldiers returning back with disdain for anything conservative, leading to the removal of Churchill despite his success. The view that Nazi's are right wing is correct but it's a mistake to say that they represented anything but a niche right-wing ideology--DHeyward (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
That's one school of thought, I agree. — fortunavelut luna 13:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strasserism is perhaps our best article on the topic and an understanding of modern-day views. --DHeyward (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, Nazism is one of those things you can't expect a lot of neutralitity about. Go ahead and close it.TomBarker23 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Anyone who places Nazism on the left needs a CIR block."

Are you joking? A block on an editor over a misconception? May I remind you of Wikipedia:Assume good faith?: "Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

In this case, someone is believing the revisionist 'historians' and giving them undue weight in the discussion. Next will be giving them a place in the article along with the Holocaust deniers. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Dimadick, apparently you don't know what a WP:CIR block is -- nothing to do with GF. EEng 16:17, 9 November 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.

Donald Trump[edit]

Not an issue for this venue, the talk page of the article would be the place. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Wikipedia editors, First let me say I respect the work that your group must have to deal with. Let me also say I really don't care who is in office. I spent time in the military and have had enough of politics and those types of social games. Yet you are the portrayer of information and can have a profound impact on history. That is my current field and should be considered sacred. Your article on Trump, especially after the presidential campaign began, seems bias in the direction towards a negative attitude. While comments about his lack of factual competence may or may not be true, it is hard to for anyone to compare that on a scientific level as his statements were under extreme scrutiny while other in history may not have been as closely analyzed. Additionally, it is this and the choice of wording in regards to policy or unsuccessful attempts at change that are evaluated with judgement rather than a portrayal of events. As a provayer of information you have a duty to remain neutral. I urge you to re-evaluate this article and potentially other presidents histories as those are politically charged which can leave traces of opinions in your word choices (whether we want them to or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.235.20 (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Emergency Community Ban for 118 alex[edit]

WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yawn. Fut.Perf. 07:32, 11 November 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.

Short background: long term troll/vandal, vandalises Singapore Buses, creates sockpuppets, claims he is a sock of 118 alex.

See the SPI page and the archives for how much time this guy wastes. Hence I would like to propose a ban and to contact the ISP to block the user. 115.66.246.66 (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. This editor is an endlessly, astonishingly, and annoyingly persistent WP:LTA case with dozens of socks. Softlavender (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I'm pinging Davey2010 for input. Softlavender (talk)
  • Support More socks please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 118 alex and m:SRG Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
But by the way, is this 115.66.246.66 a sock of 118 alex? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Self-reporting drama magnet that already IP hops and is blocked, creates his own drama board ebtry with no real practical resolution. Sounds like it's trolling. --DHeyward (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, per user:zzuuzz comment, this ip tagged socks. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What? User:118 alex is currently blocked. No other users are mentioned here. If he is using block evading socks, no other remedies except blocking the socks is available. Oh, and nothing here is ever an emergency. --DHeyward (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

His sock was continously created by him. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the comments by DHeyward. While contacting the ISP is not likely, the gist of this appears to be a straight forward proposal of a community ban, and the list of previously blocked socks is readily available from the linked SPI. Meters (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Meaning he's already blocked. If he's avoiding his block, it doesn't require anything more than establishing he's a sock of the blocked account and a ban doesn't change that process. A community ban doesn't really change the requirement to confirm the sock or any additional authority to block a sock. That makes this a formality rather than a remedy. What protection is this proposal creating and what is hamstringing administrators that makes it an emergency? --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support More than 30 socks in 5 months and a stated intention to continue socking. Meters (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I support a ban on any user proposing this user be banned, anyone tagging their socks, anyone creating an LTA page, and immediate blocks for sockpuppetry for anyone who does. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you explain that? Would you rather that the master and all of his socks be unblocked, and for him to have free reign to create dozens more socks that continually vandalize Wikipedia? Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Having just deleted Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/118 alex, again, it's become obvious to me that the only people interested in writing about Alex 118 being a vandal is Alex 118. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
How does that justify your chilling response and your call for banning and accusations of sock puppetry against me, Softlavender, and any other editor who happens to have anything to do with this? As an admin you must be fully aware that making unsubstantiated sockpuppetry claims is a personal attack. Please withdraw that immediately. Meters (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear with the wording, I was referring to the proposer, and other sockpuppets, and not those supporting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was more than a bit surprised. Thanks. Meters (talk) 07:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. This discussion should be closed per WP:DENY. The propensity of the community to respond to this sort of bait is disappointing, especially when banning the user would give no change to the status quo of "block/lock on sight". -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:25, 11 November 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.

Revdel request[edit]

Handled. (non-admin closure)MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 02:08, 9 November 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.

Please revdel this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I'm probably being a bit thick, but I'm not seeing why this needs rev-del. GoldenRing (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: It looks like a veiled death threat.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Fair enough; I didn't read it that way, but I guess you could. Done. GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:46, 8 November 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.
  • What's a "veiled death"? EEng 03:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    It's a death threat, but hidden in something else like a comment. TomBarker23 (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Thanos's bride at his wedding, of course. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mahir M[edit]

(non-admin closure) Mahir M (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely for making personal insults and attacks on other users. Yes mistakes and conflicts happen, but simply just outright insulting and attacking other people definitely isn't the solution to it. theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:36, 9 November 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:Mahir M has been posting hateful comments at other users' talk pages. Some examples:

The user was warned regarding this on 20 September: [47] [48], but has continued such behavior. Dee03 16:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Indeffed. If anyone thinks that's too harsh feel free to shorten, but for my money we don't need accounts that just sit around dishing out racist abuse. Some earlier edits look okay but recently this has been their sole purpose. GoldenRing (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Good block. You beat me to it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC) EDIT: Although, they aren't blocked? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jauerback: Er, yeah, they are now. Some clot over here blocked the wrong account. Fixed now. GoldenRing (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone else see irony in "we don’t what uneducated morons editing in Wikipedia"? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
"Who needs a clean block-log anyway?! Dive my hawkmen!"
Good block. I hope you don't mind I cleaned up the quotes from the diffs, let's say per WP:DENY. We don't need that abuse preserved forever in the archive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:20, 9 November 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.

Maybe an admin (@Boing! said Zebedee and GoldenRing:) ought to take a look at the encouragement (e.g. [49] [50]) from Rayatbiz on this editor's talk page and decide if that's acceptable. 74.175.117.2 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Harassment here by an user blocked on frwiki[edit]

And that's all folks. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:16, 10 November 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.

Hi,

French admin (I'm one of them) blocked User:Olivier Hammam for uncivil comments (insults), for defamation about a public person, and because he was not contributing positively and constructivly anymore (see fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2017/Semaine 21#Samedi 27 mai 2017). Then he started to harass me by email (I asked several time to stop), saying crazy things like: "The truth can't be hidden" (I translate) or "Salut pour la dernière fois, mon con. Désormais je suis toi et tu n'es plus rien. C'est ainsi. Inamicalement. Dieu.", talking about conspiracy, etc. I added him in the "spam" of my email, so it became quiet. (I can forward you emails if needed.)

But now he's harassing me on my english wikipedia talkpage ([51], [52], [53]). It's again some foolish messages (for example, in the first diff, he accuses me to have a bot for spamming... but it's the official French bot fr:User:Loveless which welcomes newbies, and it's not even mine -_-). I again asked him to stop, but he didn't.

Can you do something please?

Best regards, Jules78120 (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Having read all of his contributions here, they are pretty much all complaining about his block at fr.wiki or attacking those he believes are responsible for it. I read that as a simple case of WP:NOTHERE to improve en.wiki and therefore have blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 10 November 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.

IP warring to add inapplicable CSD[edit]

(non-admin closure) As stated by a number of editors, the CSD criteria is not applicable to the article in question. The IP editor should consider the First Law of Holes Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 11 November 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 don't necessarily have time to deal with this shit further, so requesting an assist on Barassi Line where Special:Contributions/2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D keeps adding a CSD for "patent nonsense" (which it is clearly not) despite being pointed towards AfD for his notability/WP:FRINGE concerns. Thanks in advance. Not watching ANI, so please ping. Ben · Salvidrim!  23:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You may want to mind your Ps and Qs if you want to talk to an admin here. This is a rather frivolous ANI and I would kindly ask that the admin in question takes that into account. This article clearly fails both on notability and on crystal ball. It was a speech given at some point in time that has no significant reason to exist. It is a fringe topic which has no relevance on Wikipedia. --2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Which as has been explained to you repeatedly would be best addressed at WP:AFD. SQLQuery me! 23:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey now, I am no the one that made this an ANI. I have no reason to be here, you on the other hand? I'm not sure about that, so you may wish to address your behavior before an admin here says that your behavior is a waste of their time and your language is uncouth. I don't have any more time in my week for dealing with your behavior or your language. --2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
You've been told by at least 2 different editors (now 3) that your method for dealing with the issue is not the right one. They are correct. Speedy deletions are for articles that non-controversially break the rules and fit the criteria for speedy deletion. So you have 3 choices: put it up at WP:AFD if you really want it to be deleted, continue to put up the speedy deletion template and you'll get banned, or you can walk away and let the article be. Your choice. Acebulf (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't have time for people like you wielding a big stick here and wasting everyone's time with a frivolous ANI either... I won't be responding in kind to this type of behavior. If you want to continue digging that hole please feel free to, you may arrive in China eventually. --2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You do realize that two of those who you imply will come to some sort of unspecified grief at the hands of the administrators for informing you of your error are, well, administrators, don't you? Flatly put: you're badly mistaken in your interpretation of the deletion policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
You do realise that your statement is indicative of how ill thought out this complaint is in the first place right? In fact it's a perfectly good indicator of how absurd and often tangential articles with no real merrit for being here end up on a place like Wikipedia. It's also a perfectly good case in point as to why most educational facilities have a policy of "kind of" disliking Wikipedia as a source for relevant information in and of itself. However, if you would like to continue to waste my time of day I would be happy for you to elaborate on why its not. My complaints and quote "shit" unquote might actually be based on some sort of relevant and understandable logic. --2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D (talk) 00:16, 11 November 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.

Legal threat by IP[edit]

Resolved, NAC SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see the legal threat in the edit-summary. Dr. K. 01:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. --John (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you John. Dr. K. 02:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

IP attacking me on my talk page and other places[edit]

Both blocked. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 11 November 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.

A sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov is vandalizing multiple articles. He is edit-warring and is making verbal personal attacks on my talk page in Bulgarian and English, as well on other pages and at its edit-summaries.Jingiby (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Newly registred user attacking me on my talk page and other places[edit]

The same story as above. Sock of blocked User:PavelStaykov with the personal attacks against me. Jingiby (talk) 15:08, 11 November 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.

Repeated harrassment[edit]

Harassing socks are blocked, and there's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GeoJoe1000. Further socks can be reported at the SPI, or if it's just plain vandalism at WP:AIV. And there's at least one admin watching Prisonermonkeys' user and talk pages now, and ready to leap into action faster than a speeding sloth. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:40, 11 November 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.

A few months ago, I started having problems with GeoJoe1000. He was a rude, aggressive and altogether disruptive editor. Despite repeated warnings from admins, he did not change his behaviour even after attempting to start over as GeoJoe10000. He was subsequently blocked for having sockpuppet accounts. One of his favourite things to do was edit the talk pages of editors who discussed his behaviour, trying to remove criticisms. He returned as GregJohnson1245 and continued this behaviour; he was blocked again. He made several edits to my talk page from an IP address, and I responded by requesting temporary semi-protection. He has since returned overnight as Whatashame0 and has resumed editing my talk page, accusing me of being unable to work with other editors and causing untold damage to the site. At no point have I been referred to the admins for the way I handled the situation; nor have I been subject to any sanctions. It would appear that my only "crimes" (as they were) were calling him out for his behaviour and refusing to accept his apologies (he had previously "apologised" as a way of escaping punishment). His latest string of edits appear to be threatening further disruption, stating that "there's more trouble to come". This is a clear pattern of harrassment by this user. If you check the edit history of his original account, you will see abusive tirades and deliberately disruptive behaviour. If GeoJoe1000 got in trouble, it was all his own doing, as I am sure both Tvx1 and Spintendo will attest (I hope they don't mind my mentioning them here). This harrassment needs to stop. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I have put in an RFP for full protection on both my user page and user talk page, but given GeoJoe1000's behaviour, I am a little concerned about where he might start causing disruption if he cannot access those pages. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked Whatashame0 as no Checkuser is required to show that they're not here to build an encyclopedia; a review of their contributions makes that pretty plain. Sounds like this needs a wider SPI though, and that will require an admin with more experience in that area than me. A Traintalk 07:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears that some of his early edits were to establish a facade of legitimacy. His GregJohnson1245 account directly edited my talk page (and Spintendo's) and referenced old conversations; there was no way he could know that without being GeoJoe1000. Now he's making edits where all he does is shift white spaces around and then undo his own edits. It looks like he's trying to set himself up as a legitimate editor before turning his attention to my talk page. It's a worry because it means he's learning, trying to find ways around the rules. It does make me more concerned about how he might act if my RFP goes through, especially considering his threat. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much. As facades of legitimacy go, that wasn't exactly Frank Abagnale. A Traintalk 08:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
How do I start an SPI, and what are the long-term effects of it? It's all well and good to shut down each of his socks as they appear, but there seems to be little to stop him from simply re-registering with another account and starting the process over. I'm hoping he'll eventually grow bored, but going by his edit history, he a) holds grudges and b) refuses to learn. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Tvx1 has already started one. A Traintalk 10:17, 8 November 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.

IP user repeatedly adding original research to Blue Cut Fire and North Fire[edit]

Per Black Kite: "Blocked for a week. If they return we could always semi-protect the articles instead."
Softlavender (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
(non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All of this IP's contributions are adding the assertion that the local county's (apparent) failure to follow its own fire code was a cause of each respective fire, which is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH. I have attempted to contact this IP on their talk page, but they absolutely don't seem to be listening and I myself have reached 3RR on each article. The reason why I am posting here is that this IP simply doesn't want to communicate about this issue, a prerequisite for BRD to work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Now the IP is just spamming the same text all over the articles, and it's getting to the point of pure disruption.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Blocked for a week. If they return we could always semi-protect the articles instead. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 11 November 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.

Multiple copyright violations (Revdells needed)[edit]

Edits revdelled and IP warned. If further instances occur, please report back here or to GoldenRing.
(non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This IP address added multiple copyright violations to Hellraiser: Judgment, including a link to a pirated movie and a copy-and-pasted summary. Can an adminstrator revdel these edits (specifically the ones involving pirated material)? DarkKnight2149 16:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Since their other contributions don't seem particularly disruptive, I haven't blocked but have left a warning at their talk page. Hopefully they'll learn from the experience. GoldenRing (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Them learning would be the ideal outcome. Hopefully they continue editing in a constructive manner. DarkKnight2149 16:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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

User AJ Pachano sockpuppet[edit]

Accounts blocked. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 01:52, 12 November 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.

Previously, AJ Pachano (talk · contribs) was accused of edit warring on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Changes to Infobox services. I was also subject to a personal attack on their talk page. I figured the user had quit wikipedia, but I found PhilEvolution (talk · contribs) had started editing and creating similar templates. Both users share a lack of proper grammar, and were editing the same types of articles. One of the 50+ examples on the second account is Jackson Park station. Cards84664 (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a separate noticeboard for socks. I was going to bring AJ Pachano here for disruptive editing but that may not be necessary now. I'll just add that Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs) is probably the same guy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the older account Armanjarrettp 72 hours for socking and indeffed the other two.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    I noticed that one modus operandi of AJ Pachano was to mark a page for speedy deletion (improperly, by using the {{delete|...}} template and not stating which WP:CSD criterion]] applied) thus, and then immediately contesting that deletion on the corresponding talk page thus. This behaviour was repeated today, on exactly the same pair of pages, by PhilEvolution here and here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cards84664 and Kendall-K1: For future ref, sockpuppet reports are not really an ANI matter: the page which specialises in this (experts hang around it) is WP:SPI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Berean Hunter, have the accounts been blocked? If not can someone please deal with them? Having SPI-like reports on ANI is a problem, because they do not get follow-up attention and official admin closes. Softlavender (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs) was blocked 72 hours, all the rest indef. Nothing else to do here. Somebody (Softlavender?) should apply a closure box to this report. An SPI may not be needed unless there are more outbreaks of railway socking. Plus, ANI is way faster than SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 12 November 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.

Request for deletion of redirect page[edit]

Redirect fixed and page moved. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 21:43, 11 November 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 just moved List of natural disasters in Great Britain and Ireland to List of natural disasters in the Brirish Isles because of lack of coffee, but can't move it to the correct List of natural disasters in the British Isles because that page already exists as a redirect. Could an admin clean up my mess, please? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    • When you've finished your copy you may like to consider why the article was called Great Britain and Ireland in the first place, and maybe how much Irish people dislike being called British by anyone, but especially by the English. And then put the title back to the perfectly sensible version it was at originally.Mdw0 (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
This Irish person doesn't like being called British by anyone, didn't notice any English people around earlier calling him anything, and is well capable of NPOV distinguishing between a geographical term and an ethnicity. This Irish person is also not fond of people telling him what he and his fellow citizens should think, cos that's a bit imperialist... ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
It should clearly remain at the original title. Ireland is, after all, not part of the British Isles (unless you can provide a reliable source that says so :p and the ethnicity of anyone- here or not- is irrelevant. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 14:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
British Isles, British Isles naming dispute -Roxy the dog. barcus 14:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. You should get on the WP:RD :) OK, carry on. — fortunavelut luna 14:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm far too short tempered for that. -Roxy the dog. barcus 14:40, 11 November 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.

71.82.237.58 ‎[edit]

(non-admin closure)IP warned Tornado chaser (talk) 18:09, 12 November 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.

All this user does is vandalize. --MopTop (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @MopTop: Simple vandalisim like this should be reported to WP:AIV, which I will do. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Actually I'm can't tell if the recent edits are vandalism, so I won't report for stuff from October. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
But I will warn. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:58, 12 November 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.

Boundarylayer and pregnancy[