Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

John Carter (who is currently blocked indef) has created 655 pages. So far, 103 have been deleted and another group are at AfD. They are nonsense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabal ad Dayt for an example. I clicked on some of the notices on his talkpage about other creations that were deleted and they are nonsense as well. It would probably be a good idea for someone to review all of these articles, because this is a pretty poor track record. I do not want to go through 500 pages on my own. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Alexandermcnabb is meticulously combing through these. There are several threads on A's talk page regarding these including this one User talk:Alexandermcnabb#A cup of coffee for you!. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a saint. Natureium (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the beatitude with grateful thanks. Mind, I could use some help. There IS some good in there, the odd nugget, but there's an awful lot of total rubbish and over the past ten years it's spawned hundreds, if not thousands, of WP-derived web pages in/about the UAE. Each of those damn stubs has, in ten years, created a virtual universe of non-existent places offering tours, trips, car hire, shoes - maps citing WP, WP citing maps. He made his whole own UAE on WP. I've been AfDing the articles individually (which has caused some irritation, I know, but a) I didn't know how to bulk AfD and b) I was scared of WP:Traincrash. There were a few of the 'settlement' stubs which had their staunch defenders despite the places totally lacking in notability, for instance this Dahir, Fujairah and this one, which is a residential block in the city of Ras Al Khaimah Al Mataf). I'm now trying to bulk AfD them where relevant but have to admit the task is Augean. I didn't know he'd created 655 pages and do fervently hope they aren't all UAE stubs because it's caused an immense amount of confusion and damage. Hey ho! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These really need a Neelix-esque nuke approach. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I reached the end. He's created thousands and thousands of categories and redirects, but appears to have only (relatively) briefly focused on the UAE's geography. Someone may like to take a look at the rest of the creations... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dang... that's a lot of articles. Thank you, Alexandermcnabb, for going through them. Looking at the user's contributions and filtering to show only mainspace edits that are page creations, there's... wow... a ton of redirects that go many years back. If I can be of any assistance, or if any tools like Special:Nuke might make anything go faster, let me know and I'll be happy to help. We just want to make sure that we don't go crazy and delete anything that is legitimate and shouldn't be. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Oshwah but I'm done with my bit - I got involved when his edits touched geography in the UAE and I stumbled on the considerable mess that got left behind - and that's what I've been cleaning up, article by article and AfD by (sometimes contested!) AfD. But I'm no good on the Wiki procedural stuff (what's a valid redirect, what's not? Are all those thousands of categories necessary/needed?). I'm a little concerned that if all that other stuff is of the same quality/utility of the stuff I found, and where I have occasionally dipped in while paging through his edits to find if he'd done any more UAE stuff I hadn't so far found (I didn't see that he had) it was of dubious utility as far as I could see. But I am no WP procedural wonk, I have to leave that to you guys! Even making a bulk AfD work had my head bursting... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lugnuts, given the scale of the issue here, why don't we simply nuke first and ask questions later ie delete them all, and if any turn out to be notable (unlikely) in the future they can be restored? GiantSnowman 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: it seems like Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987; see Google Books profile) was cited, but without page numbers. I think Wikipedia:RX might be able to supply a copy? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have took a couple more articles of the UAE stubs that are not notable to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: Did you find any of the articles to be correct or were they all garbage? Natureium (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: There were a couple of names were right (but they were still nine-word stubs with wacky pins), a couple of the settlements scraped through AfD. 98% cruft, I'd say. Are there any left to nuke? Thought I'd got 'em all. It's the non-UAE stuff I thought might need a bit of scrutiny!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree all of the UAE stubs need to be mass nuked. It's exhausting AfD and exhausting the time and patience and research of many users to have to deal with them. I agree this is a Neelix-level cleanup, but unfortunately unlike the Neelix creations, since these are articles (as opposed to redirects), the hundreds of inaccurate decade-old stubs have created a massive amount of misinformation spread all over the internet. This is, literally, a Wikipedia's worst nightmare scenario. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of slightly changing the title of this thread to emphasize the scale of the problem. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a mass delete, to make it crystal clear/easy to see for reviewing admin. GiantSnowman 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment even though he cited the Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987), he never cited page numbers, ISBNs, etc. There really is a Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates published by the Defense Mapping Agency so hopefully someone gets a copy of it and actually uses it... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Gazetteer_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates I am checking to see if I can get the table of contents and/or the index from this book. That way I can share it with other Wikipedians and it can be determined which pages are needed. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• support nuking all the articles. I will go through all the creations after 18 hours from now. If something that exists and is notable, someone would create it again eventually; and these creations can be reviewed as they come in. There is no point in wasting time and energy veryfying everything that this editor has created. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think people are scared away of re-creating deleted pages, even if the topics do turn out to be notable. However I am not opposed to a mass-delete as John Carter did a poor job of citing things. By getting the index it can make verification much easier. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funnily enough, I took another one of these stubs to AFD as John Carter pin-pointed the location directly in the sea. This is absolutely awful and the creator said that it is "a location in Fujairah". I support a careful mass-deletion of these stubs. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • All valid arguments. But I still feel this is the best option. Or maybe we can draftify everything? Upon verification, it can be added back to mainspace. Is there any way to avoid deletion of drafts after the inactivity period? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • We've already gone through and sent a number of these to AfD. I think we're nearly done. No reason to nuke everything now. A pinpoint into the sea for a coastal area is common where the point is only accurate to degrees and minutes, between 1.1 and 11km... see: Decimal_degrees SportingFlyer talk 02:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think we need to be careful not to delete anything that has survived an AfD. A few of these places really do exist. The errors in the pin positions are largely due to rounding (not using enough decimal places) and are easily corrected. It would appear that an entry in the Gazeteer cannot be taken as proof of existence. That same data is also in online databases like geographic.org which contains all the many entries we now know definitely don't exist thanks to Alexander's work on the ground. SpinningSpark 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spinningspark: do you think draftifying everything can be an option? (Kindly see my reply above.) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It will just lie dormant for six months and then get G13'd. SpinningSpark 11:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• WhisperToMe Asked me to share how I think this all happened. In 1959, the Trucial Oman Scouts did a survey of the area by basically wandering around and asking people where they were (imagine a couple of Brits in short trousers bombing around in a Land Rover Defender). So if they stopped (and they often did) at a well with a couple of tents by it, they'd ask 'Where's this?' and the locals would shrug and say 'Well' or 'Wadi Helou' (literally, BTW, 'sweet wadi') or whatever. As far as I can tell, the Brits also used data from John Lorimer's 1915 Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf which is compendious, but contains some very quaint spellings/transliterations from Arabic. So we have a couple of VERY out of date sources (given that in 1959 the interior of the Trucial States was still bandit country and even the oil companies were having a hard time getting access to the interior and then the breakneck development of here since then, it's safe to say 99.9% of things have changed. Some haven't, which is always nice to find!). ANYWAY, that survey was picked up and used as the source of a Gazetteer in 1974 by Abu Dhabi and that source was in turn picked up by the American Defence Mapping Agency in 1987. Hope they don't use that data for targeting otherwise a bunch of wells and seasonal Bedouin encampments are really going to know what's hit 'em. So the info you're looking at is at least 59 years out of date and features mad transliteration. We still have issues with transliterating from Arabic today and place names in the UAE can often be spelled 2-3 ways on different signs. I remember going to the village of HabHab and seeing a sign on the police station 'HebHeb Police Station'. End result? Mr Carter would appear to have happily banged all those place names into WP along with 'is a city in Sharjah' or 'is a location in Ajman' or 'is a mountain' or 'is a tribal area in Dubai'. I'd say the mess is pretty much cleared up now, but the above is how I reckon we got here. What scares me is the information STOOD FOR TEN YEARS mostly unchallenged. I mean, good grief. Best to all Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I could understand someone saying "well the Defense Mapping Agency has to know what they're doing!" Yet it turns out they had bad data. This is why I'm glad I inquired on the source: that way people can learn from this and take more due diligence on their sourcing. While I could understand Carter believing in the verifiability of the agency's work, I still think there should have been an effort to get page numbers, and also to get some background info on the source before using it. That's also why I have Wikipedia articles written on books being used by Wikipedia as sources: so people know about the sources they're using. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he batch-created these articles from a geographic database which already had input the outdated information. I highly doubt he actually had the page number of anything in the gazetteer. SportingFlyer talk 00:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • wow. Under these circumstances, I think we should not keep any margin for error. What I mean is, we should not have articles about towns-settlements and similar things if they dont exist. And we have no way to verify these articles; as most of the usual RS are now flawed (and/or based on something which is flawed). As I said in my fist comment, we should delete everything. If it exists, and is notable; someone would eventually create the article for it. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should be cleaned up now. Someone might want to page through the thousands of JC's redirects and category creations and decide whether they're valid, someone might want to close the UAE AfDs now (the bulk ones, of course - after some complained loudly about the volume of individual ones - have attracted few votes) but the UAE geostubs are gone, baby, gone. We've retained the few valid/semi-valid ones. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming John Carter did just batch create it... it's too bad. Anyway I got scans of the original Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987) and according to that work, these are the "principal sources":

• The United Arab Emirates, 1:750,000, GEOProjects (Beirut) in association with Oxford University Press, 1981.
• Joint Operations Graphic, 1:250,000, U.S. Defense Agency or U.K. Director of Military Survey, 1966-1984
• United Arab Emirates, 1:750,000, Ministry of Cabinet Affairs, Abu Dhabi, 1974.
• Trucial States, Muscat-Oman, 1:100,000, U.K. Director of Military of Survey, 1959-1971.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose a batch delete of all articles created by John Carter. Some of the articles created by this user have passed AfD: e.g. Lulayyah, [1], [2]. The most recent AfD's can be seen at User_talk:John_Carter. It's true most got deleted, but not all of them.

We need a list of the entire subset of 655 articles in question that are proposed to be deleted. We need an opportunity to consider all of them, and each of them individually, as necessary. Just because 100 have been deleted, doesn't mean that entire oeuvre of the editor who has been here 10 years is equally bad. Perhaps the 100 deleted are the worst ones, and the reason so many of the others have remained is because they are not as bad as those 100? I don't know. Without the list of what is left, I cannot assess.

I do appreciate the work of Alexandermcnabb and Natureium in putting the questionable ones to AfD. It sounds like s/he might need help with that work. I might be interested in that, if the list is given and is easy to work with. Perhaps a work area that lists them all, offers opportunities for feedback on each of the articles proposed to be deleted, before they go to AfD.

Are there other examples of mass deletions? If so, where? I am disinclined to any kind of mass deletion unless it is easy to prove that *every* item in the list should not be in the encyclopedia. I am not convinced every article created by John Carter needs to be deleted.

If a group of articles were all created on one day with a piece of software as a batch file with little or no effort, and no one has touched those articles since then, I might support a batch delete of articles that were batch created. But we need to have some sort of clear standards on differentiating articles that have been around and improved and deserve to stay from articles that should never have been created in the first place.

It would be nice to hear what John Carter would say. Does he even have talk page privilege? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel were mass-deleted (actually, by me) after an extensive community discussion and some salvage attempts.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter Where is that discussed? I don't see it on his talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up, it has further links--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support mass deleting all of the stubs. While it's clear John Carter made a lot of friends on article talkpages discussing things (50% of his edits), especially in his first couple of years on Wikipedia, his mainspace edits were only 13% of his editing and left much to be desired [3]. The distressingly inaccurate and unresearched stubs, relying only on an inaccurate and extremely outdated source, are too problematic to let stand, and too numerous to pore over singly at this point after Alexander McNabb has found 99% of them to be demonstrably false (he has lived in the UAE for 25 years and has even driven to the putative sites to check on the putative locations of these inaccurate article stubs). The good will JC garnered on article talk has seemingly blinded the community to the problems of his mainspace editing. His indef is sort of symptomatic of that, in that we didn't see he was a disruptive or problem editor until well down the line. Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As WhisperToMe shows above, the stubs are based on hopelessly out of date information and archaic transliteration of Arabic that that's been through a sort of government to government Chinese Whispers process and bears almost (like 99%) no resemblance to the modern human geography of the UAE. ALL of the UAE geostubs that SHOULD have been AfDd have been nominated (it would be nice to close them all, BTW!!!!). So as far as this stuff goes, we're good. Whatever ELSE Mr Carter created needs to be scanned by an admin, IMHO, but the UAE stuff has now been cleaned up. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke him Better that 100 valid articles be deleted than that one blatant garbage article remain. EEng 02:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of this encyclopedia would be left if we nuked 100 valid articles for every 1 garbage article. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant blatant made-up garbage articles from an editor known for making up blatant garbage. EEng 16:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It'd be more productive if a couple of people could look for the AfD nominations and slip a vote in so we can get the bad articles deleted: there's a danger they'll fail AfD because of lack of consensus and remain by default simply because nobody's voted on 'em. This one Bani 'Udayd, for example. It's noteworthy that the individual AfDs I did created a fuss with some users shaking fists at me for overloading Articles for Deletion and yet the bulk AfDs have generally attracted fewer votes. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexandermcnabb, if you want the articles deleted, then !vote support for mass deletion. At this point no one wants to wade through another hundred AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are a number of articles he created about the UAE which are still up, all over a decade old. Some articles are okay, like Habhab. Most are not. I support bulk deletion, but I think the articles should be carefully identified - either unreferenced stubs or only stubs referenced to the 1987 Gazetteer, which has been shown to be an unreliable source for this sort of work. SportingFlyer talk 12:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like some people are really frustrated. The Mohanlal v Mammootty fan wars has gone one step ahead, now a weird version of it is taking place in Wikipedia. Since 13th October, an IP (or IPs) was persistently trying to edit Mohanlal's name in Odiyan (an upcoming much anticipated film in the industry) cast list and replacing it with extreme foul language (Malayalam written in English letters). An otherwise less edited page, on that day there was at least 120 edits, warring to add the profanity.

Some IPs are:

• 2405:204:D105:E05F:EC1F:93DF:BBAB:3519 (14 edits) - most disruptive (also edited Kayamkulam Kochunni)
• 2405:204:D302:3DB1:D9AD:D0AA:A5B6:FE55 (3)
• 86.98.84.7 (1)
• 2405:204:D48B:93CF:346A:3D8C:26FE:8EF1 (2)
• 2405:204:D308:7024:5208:43DF:5B9E:8A86 (4)
• 137.97.155.163 (10) - most disruptive (also in Mohanlal regular collaborator Antony Perumbavoor)
• 49.15.207.246 (1)
• 42.111.228.116 (1)
• 78.100.162.226 (1)
• 2405:204:D401:C999:A711:D1EB:E234:868F (2)
• 2405:204:519E:B978:3F78:3C0A:BEDB:40E8 (2)
• 2405:204:D08B:9642:0:0:1E85:E8A1 (2)
• 43.239.55.13 (2)
• 2405:204:659A:E1A6:904D:6515:3C4D:FB90 (2)
• 83.110.229.77 (1)
• 2405:204:D206:94C3:79CD:B692:225B:ED5A (1)
• 2405:204:D282:32E5:0:0:2480:B8A4 (1)
• 45.125.117.2 (2)

Finally the page was protected for disruptive editing. Unable to vandalize Odiyan, the target shifted to Mohanlal's Pulimurugan (the top-grossing Malayalam film).

• 27.61.41.50 ([4], [5]) - vandalizing box-office data
• 27.97.28.205 ([6])
• 2405:204:D10E:F29C:2487:7A45:2113:988C ([7]) - profanity
• 27.61.22.115 ([8]) - profanity and box-office vandalism
• Fayismuhammed ([9])

The page was soon protected. If you observe here, 27.61.22.115 and Fayismuhammed edited in 1 minute gap with same edit summary. Fayismuhammed, an otherwise inactive user came at the same time ? You know what I mean. Check his contributions, it's all box-office vandalism, adding inflated numbers in Mammootty films (Rajamanikyam, Pokkiri Raja) and diminishing them in Mohanlal films (Drishyam, Pulimurugan). Same obscene words used by IPs here was also seen in Odiyan, so it's possibly the same person.

Then other IPs began returning the favour, doing the same in Mammootty films. But is less occuring when compared to the vandal spree in Odiyan and Pulimurugan. On 17th October, Frz latheef undid such an edit in a Mammootty film [10] at 21:29 UTC. Just a minute after, this IP went savage adding profanity in a number of Mohanlal films. It was from 21:30 UTC to 21:39 UTC just after Frz latheef's edit. Maybe his retaliation ?

Instead of protecting the pages and preventing good faith editors too, blocking the problematic IPs/Users will be more effective. After all, how many pages can you protect. Both the M's has acted in more than 300 films each. 2405:204:D483:E219:BC9B:BFD2:524F:F1C1 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done some blocking. I think an edit-filter would be useful here, and I'm going to request it. Can you let me know on my talk page of any further issues? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the diverse IP ranges and edits made, I agree with Black Kite that an edit filter will probably be the best solution to this matter... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the tightest range here is an IPv6 /32, which is much too large to block. It's regrettable but this is why we have semiprotection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; semi-protection will be helpful, but it won't stop further disruption from spilling over and spreading to other articles and we'll essentially be playing "whack-a-mole", which would be both beneficial and convenient to avoid if we can do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, Oshwah, Ivanvector. Why are you not blocking them ? Today they have started it in Mohanlal's upcoming films Drama ([11], [12], [13], [14]) and Lucifer (film) ([15]). You think this is going to stop ? Unless you apply a range block, I don't think so. 2405:204:D18A:ACC0:A859:7843:4744:8F26 (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking individual IPs has already been an active task performed as noted by Black Kite above. Given the ranges available to the user and what I calculated from the IPs listed here - they could just hop onto another IP and continue with their "business as usual". The IPv6 range (2405:204::/32) is much too wide to block and it would result in a lot of collateral damage as seen by the range's edit contributions. The IPv4 addresses listed here all come from different ranges and would be useless to try and pursue. I just applied semi-protection to the two articles you listed in your response above. Are there disruptive edits continuing to actively occur at this moment in time and on other articles or pages? If so, can you list these articles and pages here so that I can take a look? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I did rangeblock a smaller subset of that IPv6 range because all of the recent contributions appeared to be about this subject. However as Oshwah says the IPv4s are just popping up all over various ranges and I can see no rangeblock for any of them that would not cause significant collateral issues. Semi-protection and/or edit-filter is the main way to proceed here. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit: the 42.109.136.x - 42.109.146.x range appears to have very little collateral so I have temporarily rangeblocked that.) Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with applying a useful range block, IP, is that it would also block your IP. That's the "collateral" problem here, we can't technically sort the good edits from the bad. We're doing the best we can. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite's block on "42.109.136.x - 42.109.146.x" translates to 42.109.128.0/19 in CIDR notation, for those who don't know how to calculate those. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, Oshwah, now it's in Neerali ([16], [17], [18] - this page was vandalizing since 17th October, I forgot to mention) and Janatha Garage [19], also Untitled K. V. Anand film. Any blocking possible ? 2405:204:D489:DA38:79C2:3D18:F628:DB52 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added semi-protection to all three articles listed here, and blocked 188.236.128.0/19 due to their disruption to them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite & Oshwah, the person has now created an account User:Itheillu and started abusing Mohanlal in Villain (2017 film), 1971: Beyond Borders, Velipadinte Pusthakam. Also in IPv6 - Villain [20], [21]; 1971: Beyond Borders [22], [23]. It is now clear that Fayismuhammed is the guy, you can see the user abusing Mohanlal here at the same time with IPv6. It's a vandalism-only account and should be blocked. Please do what is necessary for the IPs. 2405:204:D306:848F:F16B:4C84:1F6F:8D15 (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite and Oshwah:, repinging for the IP ——SerialNumber54129 10:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more: Shajil_369.2405:204:D286:3C77:ECD7:174:E1ED:4AA6 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User 87.254.70.8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.254.70.8 is in a rampage posting "porn" images. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The IP has been blocked by RickinBaltimore. TedEdwards 16:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we also RevDel the offensive edits? Altamel (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by somebody.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've revdel'd the diffs, and added the soon-to-be-deleted-on-Commons image file to the badimages list. Raul654 blocked an earlier IP doing the same thing. I expect more attempts once they obtain another IP. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to get to work on some image-rec software to filter out uploads at commons of the usual suspects. This is not the first time I've seen this exact form of vandalism using the goatse image. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the image, now they will need to upload a new one.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Ymblanter:, @RickinBaltimore:, They had another image currently in 2018 Yilan train derailment, please delete the image and protect the article (despite it is a current event and some ip may do good faith edit). user:matthew_hk 17:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They created a new account on Commons. Can we block the commons user and delete the image? Altamel (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done, pls ping me if there is more admin help on Commons needed, I should be reasonably active for three more hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: User:87.254.84.46, posting File:Nature 1.png. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: User:178.16.10.94, posting File:D8c.png Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm imagining that this IP is actually a spy, sending a secret signal by doing this, and that the pages and images were "chosen at random" by their superior who's had it out for them for a long time. So now there's some young CIA handler at an embassy somewhere pounding their forehead on the desk as they keep trying to let their field assets know their cover is blown, but the edits just keep getting removed.

Pretty soon, he'll give up, grab a pistol out of his desk drawer and start running across the city on foot while techno music plays in the background, hoping desperately to find his operator in time.

Across town, said operator is looking at a cached diff of one of their assigned WP pages thinking "Is that the 'proceed with caution' butthole or the 'your cover is blown' butthole?"

Meanwhile, right outside his door, some foreign operator carrying a .22 pistol with a huge can is listening to his earpiece telling him "the butthole is live, move now!" in Russian. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm billing you for a new keyboard for the one I just ruined laughing at that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MPants at work That was awesome! I will save the diff where you wrote that, as it is now one of my new favorite things ever. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @RickinBaltimore and ONUnicorn: Most of my jokes seem to go over like a lead balloon. I'm glad this one made someone laugh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Just, let's please not read too much into the fact that I'm rewarding that particular comment with an image of a grinning face superimposed over the shape of a star; we're treading pretty close to the line of appropriate wiki-commentary as is... Snow let's rap 23:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you seriously go with a Porn Identity joke? Bravo, sir. Blackmane (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Acroterion: the image you added to WP:BIL has been deleted so it can be gone from the list. Sorry to hear this vandal is back again. Home Lander (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the reminder, I was going to go back and declutter the list. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Continued, the latest incarnation was 80.65.245.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Again, if admin help on Commons is needed pls ping me. I will be around for half an hour, then half an hour not available, and then again around for four hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) It seem they vandal articles that appears on the front page, as the train accident is a current event, while Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 is today featured article. Matthew hk (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 July this year (and only on that day) 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:D16C:D88C:E83D:7B31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a large number of edits, all related to merges. The majority of them were to turn articles that had at some point been nominated for merging (almost without exception these proposals had not been documented on a talk page or if they had then no subsequent discussion had taken place) into redirects and removing merge-from tags on destination articles, all without actually merging any content.

I think I have now cleaned-up all the mess they made by restoring articles without prejudice to a merge (some of them look like excellent candidates for merging), except Qaum which is currently being discussed at RfD (how I became aware of the issue) but I'd appreciate someone else taking a look as well, as there were some useful edits in the mix (e.g. removing merge tags from a nomination that received opposition and no support several months ago). It would also be useful if someone who understands IPv6 ranges could take a look to see if any similar edits have been made by similar IPs as it seems very odd behaviour for someone brand new to Wikipedia to do on one day never to be seen again. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I haven't left a notification as it seems highly unlikely any message left on the talkpage of an IP that hasn't edited since July will be seen by the relevant human being. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) the ip was stale (last edit in July). For those merge, if controversial, then revert. For finding the range, the super large range is on whois (Sky Broadband) 2a02:c7d::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You can narrow the range by looking at the contribution, then use {{IP range calculator}}. Matthew_hk tc 13:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to tell you, Thryduulf, but the user is still up to the same thing as of 2 days ago as 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), so you might yet have work to do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it took me about an hour to clean up the mess from one day this is going to require more than just me. Especially as I don't have time to look right now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by their last 50 I think they're now just removing old merge tags, and in at least one case they actually carried out the merge. I think it's safe to say they've learned what they're supposed to do, but like Thryduulf I haven't time to check in detail (and there are a lot of edits). I'd like to get their input on this discussion and ideally have a conversation to reassure us that they are carrying out merges properly, and I'm going to ping them on their most recent IP but pings with IPv6 don't work well and they've been idle for nearly 8 hours now - they'll likely have a new discrete IP by the time they come to edit again. I could use help from other users to keep an eye on the range especially around 06:00-12:00 UTC, and if you see them active please leave a note on their current IP's talk page referring to this discussion or referring to my talk page. I'd rather not use an "attention-getting" rangeblock here, but it's an option. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Abel Tiprasa has been active since March 2018 on topics relating to the Indian tribal language Kokborok. My first interaction with the editor was during NPP reviewing his article Kokborok script. The article had hallmarks of POV fork soapboxing while at the same time being poorly sourced. The deletion discussion led to the article being redirected to the main topic about Kokborok. By way of background: a) the Kokborok language is a tribal language spoken by various tribes in India; b) the written system of the language has been lost since the 19th century; c) the official writing systems are Bengali or Latin scrip; d) the choice of script is a contentious issue along a political and tribal divide; e) there is a faction within the native speaker group proposing to revitalise a native Kokborok script; f) since the ancient script is lost, the new script is at this point mere proposal, there are many proposals, none of which are adopted. This is supported by these sources: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6). In this diff the user expressed his view that the deleted article about Kokborok script would serve as platform for editors to share ideas about the future of a new script and develop a script. This is clearly not a purpose of Wikipedia. Other disruptive edits include the arbitrary change of native speakers here, addition of a proposed script from a self-created file here, unsourced POV edits such as this. I appreciate the editor's good intentions, however his edits amount to Soapboxing. In line with WP:CASTE I therefore request a topic ban on Kokborok language and script for the editor. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure we're at the point of a topic ban right now. He was warned about the discretionary sanctions on October 23 [24]. Since then, he has conducted just two edits, both of which are non-disruptive [25][26]. It's worth keeping an eye on, but I do not think action against him is warranted at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: the second of the diffs you provided may be considered disruptive: he re-instated the POV-esque content that was previously removed and which he was warned about. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe. I'd get discussion going with him and see where that leads. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of conversations, such as this, where he called an edit "nonsense" assuming the other person does not speak the language and should therefore refrain from edits. This is continued here. Clear in-article soapboxing here. There is this conversation on my talk page in April about the same topic, referring him to key principles of Wikipedia. Yet the edits along this line have continued. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't disagree with you, but since the notification about discretionary sanctions was made, there's only been two edits. Other opinions may vary certainly. But, I don't see there's a need to topic ban him under the discretionary sanctions when he's barely edited since being notified of them. If the pattern continues, perhaps. For now, I think it's too early. I'm not the final arbiter here. I'm just suggesting trying to engage him in discussion again, given that he now knows about the discretionary sanctions. It's worth a shot. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, however I'd argue that the discretionary sanctions had been mentioned in the AfD in April (in which he participated), the articles are tagged as in scope and there have been attempts to communicate with the editor in March, April and September about the purpose of Wikipedia, however the edit pattern appears to indicate either a lack of understanding or a lack of regard._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to communicate with this editor since November 2017, and have sent about 15 messages during this time. Other editors have sent them multiple messages on the same topic - repeatedly creating unreferenced articles. They have edited their user talk page during this time and at other times, but only to blank their page. They have been editing for two years.

Many of their creations have ended up looking like this: 2018–19 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball season, which has been moved to draftspace three times, but this editor just keeps moving it back to mainspace without addressing the issues. They have been offered help, links to Help:Referencing for beginners, support at the WP:TEAHOUSE, policies on referencing and communication, but they simply refuse to respond and continue to create unreferenced articles. After a year of this editor ignoring m y messages and seeing them ignore so many others, I have run out of other options and feel action needs to be taken.

This was brought to WP:ANI by Barkeep49 here [29] but the discussion doesn't seem to have got underway really and was closed without any decision being made. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this is a problem editor. Has not responded to a single talkpage notice; instead routinely blanks the page: [30]. Has not posted on a single talkpage, period. What do you suggest? Attention-getting block? Force going through AfC? Ban on new-page creation? Etc.? Pinging Vermont, who posted on the last ANI thread. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’d support a requirement to go through AfC, and a block if they ignore that or continue to refuse to communicate. Vermont (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a decent solution, unless someone has a better one. I support that. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that - hopefully it will be enough to get them to engage. If not, a swift indefinite block would be best. Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think their problem is new article creation as there's really only an obligation to communicate when someone raises an issue. This editor appears to be productive outside of that. I would suggest a ban on new article creation given their disruptive recreation of articles and because AfC would mean wasting time of other editors trying to decide what to do with poorly created articles on notable topics. I would support an Afc requirement as a second choice though. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a ban on new article creation is a stronger option, but one that's possibly necessary if the new creations have been irredeemable and time-wasting as he creates them. I support that as well as the most efficient solution. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think now a full ban on article creation is necessary - they've continued to create unreferenced, uncategorised articles since this discussion was opened (e.g. 2018–19 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball season) and haven't commented here. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin) From a cursory glance, many of the newly created articles may fail WP:NSEASONS as well. SportingFlyer talk 06:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what sanction, if any, do you support SportingFlyer? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin) I'd support either an AfC requirement or ban on new page creation - a full ban is probably cleaner - but was mostly just pointing out there may need to be some cleanup, as not all of these articles will be notable. SportingFlyer talk 20:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to administrators: There is consensus among five experienced editors that EspinosaLuisJr1791 needs either a requirement to go through AfC or a complete ban on new article creations, with the latter being the most efficient as it would prevent wasting AfC reviewers' time. Softlavender (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've had ongoing problems for two weeks now with a SPA Jawswade (talk · contribs) who continually adds original research and promotional material to Humayun Akhtar Khan. When I tried to remove the OR, the user engaged in edit warring which led me to left numerous warnings on their talk page User_talk:Jawswade#October_2018. I tried to communicate with this editor via article's talk page Talk:Humayun Akhtar Khan but xe does not care to respond. --Saqib (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might need a topic ban if he can't abide by Wikipedia policies. Pinging Diannaa and DMacks, who have also left him talkpage messages. Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, refuses to abide by WP:V (mostly uncited or not-supported-by-cite) despite saying that the content is cited and supported. I don't know about the reliability of the claimed sources (this topic is not my expertise). And refuses to discuss it? That's not how we build a collaborative encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now a newbie Maniiminhas (talk · contribs) has restored the OR. --Saqib (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the same user reverted again. I blocked them for 31h as a sock of Jawswade and for edit-warring. This is awkward, because edit-warring by itself would not be sufficient for blocking the user, and I can not prove they are a sock, otherwise the block would have been indef. The user also has a lot of noticed for deleted content, and the deleted edits show content was really inappropriate, which suggests WP;NOTHERE, but I got very recently some strong comments on AN which suggest that my understanding of NOTHERE is different from that of some other users, and I am hesitant to apply it in this case. If another sock emerges, the page must be protected. For the time being, I am afraid, by my revert of the edit of the presumed sock I made myself involved in the situation, and another sdministrator will have to make decisions and close this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lad Blackpool (talk · contribs)

They've accused me of vandalism twice. Both times, they misread the edit history because I wasn't the one who removed the content they restored (that's the charitable explanation). [31][32]

And now they're calling me a vandal on their talk page, and calling me a "TRA" which means "trans rights activist" and is a term TERFs use to describe anybody who disagrees with them. [33]

I already asked them to be WP:CIVIL after the first baseless accusation, and now they've shown that their purpose here is not to edit Wikipedia collaboratively, but to be antagonistic towards people they consider their ideological enemy. --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears your last edit to the article was on October 20, and Lad Blackpool is a new user who has jumped right on in editing with an agenda. It's shameful that editors can't be more tolerant and civil here. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added the user's links to the top of the thread here. The editing seems to have stopped; if it continues, it's probably best to just revert and then warn about edit-warring and report to ANEW. Some of their edits could actually have partial merit, and discussion should occur on the talkpage of the article. If the abuse continues, then report back here. Softlavender (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[38][39][40][41]

Questioned about it here and dismissed question here. Also made bizarre attempt to defend these actions by claiming that since women get harassed on Wikipedia, WP:FEMINISM and WP:WOMEN must be particularly interested in the use of the word "fuck".[42][43] I don't know what to say beyond that I can't believe he would think this behaviour appropriate. Could someone please tell him to knock it off?

Also pinging User:Guy Macon who also questioned this on Jimbo's talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) His post on Jimbo's talk page was how I found the RFC (because I have it watchlisted), but yes, it's indeed canvassing.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I commented in the RFC, I figured I'd make that disclosure (since finding the RFC was the result of David's actions), but I didn't think too much of the post on Jimbo's talk page at the time (since I've often seen people ask "Jimbo, what do you think about this?"), but these diffs are troubling. Wouldn't be a bad idea for someone to investigate how some of the participants found the RFC, since that'll definitely influence the discussion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this thread should have been Is "(Delete unwelcome comments and accusations)" a civil way to address good faith questions asked of you at your talk page? I hadn't noticed this until now, but this is seriously not cool. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on one of the projects most respected admin's Talk page. Something should be done, as such a long term editor has no excuse for not knowing better. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 07:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urge to tell David to fuck off... rising... --Tarage (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's rare that accusations of canvassing are this cut and dried, but the blatant misrepresentation of the question quite straightforwardly makes this canvassing, specifically, "campaigning". @David Tornheim: make no mistake, this is an incredibly serious offense that fundamentally destroys the system by which the entire project is governed. I'm removing the messages, and you need to immediately provide us with assurances that you understand that you screwed up big time and that it will never happen again, this type of thing reasonably puts you in indef territory IMO.  Swarm  talk  09:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I refer David Tornheim to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. He did canvass, but I don't see that it had had any real effect. More troubling is the conversation he and I had on Jimbo's talk page[44] where he was a poster boy for WP:IDHT. The question is what to do. Although a short block would be justified, how about letting this one go with a strongly-worded warning? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, when I wrote this I held out some hope that David's recent disruptive editing was just the result of a good-faith misunderstanding (hence my apologizing in advance if it turned out that was the case), but his behaviour since (including not only the above unambiguous canvassing but his responding to me by attempting to ping in five users who he probably thought would disagree with me) has pretty well convinced me that he's trying to be disruptive at this point, and it's somewhat gratifying to see that Swarm, above, agrees with my opinion (unstated, except here, more than a month ago) that he might be en route to an indefinite block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• by claiming that since women get harassed on Wikipedia, WP:FEMINISM and WP:WOMEN must be particularly interested in the use of the word "fuck" Which is correct. Women have been harassed with incivility, especially the 'C word' has been an issue. See the ArbCom case WP:ARBGGTF. It's pretty obvious that abusive language is counterproductive to welcoming a diverse userbase. As for David's comment at Jimbo's talk page: yeah, he could have just used the wording of the RfC instead of the conclusion. It's not a massive strecht to say that if telling people repeatedly to "fuck off" isn't being sanctioned, then de facto we're not applying WP:CIV to that phrase. Also Jimbo's talkpage has so many watchlisters it's hardly the best place to canvass people with a specific POV, and I doubt anyone !voted on the RfC without actually reading what it's about. --Pudeo (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women have been harassed with incivility, especially the 'C word' has been an issue. Which would be great, if the C word (or the B word or the W word, for that matter, although I've never actually seen the latter used as an insult in Wikipedia project discussions) were under discussion; "fuck off" is only gendered insofar as saying "this sucks" is -- yeah, the logic that fucking is not a bad thing while being fucked is, and that sucking is a bad thing but being sucked is fine is an unfortunate relic of a pre-1970s world where sex was inherently about male dominance, but very few people who use these expressions nowadays are even aware of their sexist origins. Furthermore, David's history of permissiveness when it comes to citing Breitbart.com as a source would appear to indicate that he's not actually a great advocate of diversity and welcoming of women and ethnic minorities on this project; it's just a cover. And it's precisely because of the large number of watchers of Jimbo's talk page that telling them that the question of whether "fuck off" is a civil expression is under discussion is problematic: he's implanting his deliberate misrepresentation of the issue on the largest audience he can. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This section says someone is canvassing to get people to comment on an RFC. But the poster, User:Hijiri does not tell us which RFC, instead leaving us to follow likes to comments by the person accused of "canvassing". Can someone say how he misrepresents the question? This question, quoting verbatim, is this: "Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not!" The so-called "canvassing" says " hope you all weigh in on Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Request_for_comment_on_the_specific_term_"fuck_off"_–_sanctionable_or_not! this discussion on whether it is civil to repeatedly say "fuck off" to other editor." How is that a misrepresentation? At WP:Canvass it says "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". His comment just says "I hope you weigh in on" the matter. That is neutral. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

The RfC question is...

"Should the repetitive usage of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable""

...which David Tornheim changed to...

"Is it perfectly civil to say "fuck off" to other editors?"

and you can't see any difference between those two questions?

Note that this was` in the context of a strong consensus that the phrase is uncivil and the user should stop saying it, combined with a strong consensus that in many cases it is not a blockable offense -- exactly what David Tornheim purposely misrepresented. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, MH is hardly a neutral observer here. DT was one of a few editors who defended MH's own grossly uncivil behaviour (and attacks on MPants) during a recent arbitration case, and shortly before I opened this discussion (when DT could probably see it coming), DT directly requested MH contribute more to ANI discussions as a "neutral editor" and "voice against harassment".[45][46][47] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not canvassing - per WP:Canvassing:In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. It is also acceptable to notify Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) . It does not prohibit paraphrasing what the discussion is about. Some editors seem to think it is only acceptable to notify others in the manner delsort does at AfD. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The notifications are required to be neutral and to be focused. Are you claiming that was the case here? I can't see that those requirements were met, so I'd would say that it was definitely CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation: The only way a notification of a contentious RfC is not canvassing is when it is neutral and brief, and placed on an appropriate (non-biased, non-partisan) noticeboard or non-user talk. User talk:Jimbo Wales could conceivably meet the latter requirement (although that's debatable since it is generally a space for ranting). But the first two conditions were not met, so this is indeed WP:CANVASSING, particularly since, after the initial (in this case non-neutral) post, the thread was certain to devolve into rants as noted in my previous sentence. The place to centrally advertise a contentious RfC is WP:Centralized discussion, which the RfC creator attempted to do but was over-ruled. David Tornheim's posting at Jimbo's talk seems to be a POV and non-neutral run-around. Had the user posted merely a pointer to the RfC, without commentary, and insisted that all commentary be held at the RfC and not on Jimbo's talk, that might have been acceptable, but still highly problematical since it's hard to keep rants off of Jimbo's talkpage. Softlavender (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I am the very model of a highly problematical. EEng 23:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 98.113.64.235 (talk · contribs)
• Deconstructive Editor (talk · contribs)

For the IP, an often disruptive and editorializing history: [50]; [51]; [52]; [53]; [54]; [55]; [56]; edit warring at Electoral College: [57]; [58]; [59]; [60]; [61]; [62], to the extent of arguing that the only content in the lede should regard its controversy [63]. Seems to be working toward a compromise at the college article, but the pov in all edits is evident.

The registered account appears to be associated: [64]; [65]; [66]; [67]; [68]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this thread? I suggest OP should be blocked for creating this utterly purposeless ANI. I've contributed more useful content, more much-welcomed links to references, and more cool, crisp prose in the last 3 days than OP has in a lifetime. Yes I created that account. And? OP is a plague on the project; this, I submit, is the real issue here. 98.113.64.235 (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More kindling: [69]; [70]. The fact that I agree is beside the point. This isn't the website for this. 2601:188:180:1481:1034:5A75:D26C:7084 (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And [71]. 2601:188:180:1481:1034:5A75:D26C:7084 (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

frankly, who cares whether or not you “agree”? Nor do I care for your rude innuendo that my statements were “more kindling” when you utterly fail to indicate what precisely was wrong with any of my edits in the first place. Again, I have had enough of your harassment. Read the 3 links I posted from USAToday, Washington Post, and Haaretz regarding the question of whether Trump has contributed to or inspired mass violence with his rhetoric. My prose was nearly verbatim taken from the USAtoday article. The administration took this seriously enough for Pence himself to issue statements in response. Some “kindling”. Please stop following me around desperately looking for anything to report me on.it is harassment, and you are wasting the time of the community, and is ultimately just pathetic and sad. When you have any individual comments on deficiencies in individual edits, I’ll be happy to hear them. Otherwise, I’d ask that you quit wastinf everyone’s time with this obnoxious mass posting of all my edits without any effort to explain your objection to them, let alone to substantiate your baseless bloodlust for sanctions to be levelled against me for unspecified reasons. Enough with this nonsense. The fact that you just posted edits in which I clearly give references for claims that I state nearly verbatim from the sources should show all with eyes to see what a farce this is. Deconstructive Editor (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This IP editor has now suggested creating "Donald-Trump Inspired Mass-Violence" (diff) as a WP:COATRACK for anything vaguely related, which I feel would inherently be a WP:NPOV violation (and possibly a WP:BLP violation as well). power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why not voice your disagreement with my proposal in the relevant talk page? I have sourced a number of articles discussing this pheomenon, including the administration’s denial. Surely the voicing of a suggestion (backed by references) on a talk page is not a reasonable basis for seeking sanctions. Deconstructive Editor (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did disagree on the talk page. Second, I didn't specifically seek sanctions. Third, you seem to be admitting you are the IP editor, is this correct? power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly blocked both of them, as almost certainly sockpuppets of LTA User:Kingshowman. And yes, the IP did say that they were the creator of the user account. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• BrandonXLF (talk · contribs)

There appears to be a history of disruptive edits with templates, none of which I'd have seen but for this exchange: [79]; [80]; [81]; [82]. Inability to acknowledge the initial errors, restoring the warning to my talk page, then saying they didn't know about the policy are all unusual competence concerns for a four-year-old account. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say I only really started editing a year ago. I legitimately didn't know about the policy. I did acknowledge the initial errors, but you told me rather then saying sorry I should just think about my editing this morning, so i stopped using huggle and did just that. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I wrote: [83]. Which sort of underscores the point about competence. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well not word for word but you said Rather than apologize for restoring unencyclopedic content and giving me a spurious warning and take a moment to rethink your editing this morning. Which is basically what I said above (and did). – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have twisted the context by omitting part of the sentence: Rather than apologize for restoring unencyclopedic content and giving me a spurious warning, you doubled down here... And no, you never acknowledged mistakes in the restoration of content to the article, nor the warning to me. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged it mentally. Sure I didn't say, but when you said take a moment to rethink your editing this morning, it didn't imply I should add my acknowledgement to a talkpage. If you still need it: I acknowledge my mistakes this morning and am taking the time to think them over and learn from them I will not be using huggle for the rest of the day as a result. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There have been quite a few problems here. While we don't do WP:COOLDOWN blocks, I think something to force BrandonXLF to change their behavior is necessary. Perhaps 0RR (appealable after a month), and possibly a ban from Template space for the same period of time? power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't done in the template space, but 0RR for a month or two seems like a reasonable approach, I do realize I need to change my editing, doing that would as you say force me too, which I'm all in for. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) The thing I find most troubling is BrandonXLF's edit summary ("unexplained content removal" and warning) even though the IP provided a clear (even valid) reason for removing the content ("rv unsourced, trivial and promotional"). BrandonXLF, if there's any suggestions I can offer, please make it your business to know what you're reverting before you revert it. Falsely labeling the IP's edits as "unexplained content removal" and issuing warnings like this and this is sure to WP:BITE the newbies. I suggest you familiarize yourself more with our processes before invoking them, like for example, users are free to remove warnings from their own talk pages, that and you shouldn't restore promotional content.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mythdon: Ok, for some reason I didn't see the edit summary (I'll be more careful next time), therefore I didn't realize it was promotional content. I will be reading WP:OWNTALK, thanks for these suggestions. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 16:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Also a complete list of our "processes" whenever you got some free time (Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2001:D08:1808:8341::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) (i.e. a single user) is repeatedly harassing Bonadea on Uppsala University ([84], [85], [86]), so I suggest a range block of whatever duration is deemed appropriate. It could be her long-time foe Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte, but might also be someone else (Nsmutte geolocates AFAIK to India while these IPs geolocate to Malaysia...). I haven't notified the IP, in case someone wonders, since they have, in theory at least, millions of IPs to use, and might pop up here as any one of them... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. I don't think it's Nsmutte. GAB^gab 17:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, both. I also don't think it's Nsmutte - there are trolls in many places, it seems. Anyway, as I am a (former) librarian, there are worse slurs than ape. --bonadea contributions talk 19:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone's wondering, Emergency has been notified about IWannaDieLol due to the username. I doubt the sincerity of it, appears to be just a garden-variety VOA, but figured they should be made aware. (Not notifying of this discussion, due to the nature.) Home Lander (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]