Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:04, 26 October 2018

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Hundreds of garbage articles created by blocked user

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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

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)

These really need a Neelix-esque nuke approach. Lugnuts 07:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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~ 11:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

@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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages's worst nightmare scenario. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

• Support a mass delete, to make it crystal clear/easy to see for reviewing admin. GiantSnowman 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
  • As per Misplaced Pages: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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
• 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)
  • @Spinningspark: do you think draftifying everything can be an option? (Kindly see my reply above.) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • No. It will just lie dormant for six months and then get G13'd. SpinningSpark 11:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages articles written on books being used by Misplaced Pages as sources: so people know about the sources they're using. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)

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)

Repeated uncivil verbal abuse in film articles

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 (, ) - vandalizing box-office data
• 27.97.28.205 ()
• 2405:204:D10E:F29C:2487:7A45:2113:988C () - profanity
• 27.61.22.115 () - profanity and box-office vandalism
• Fayismuhammed ()

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 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)

• 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)

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~ 16:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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 (/_Edits) 19:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

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~ 08:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite, Oshwah, Ivanvector. Why are you not blocking them ? Today they have started it in Mohanlal's upcoming films Drama (, , , ) and Lucifer (film) (). 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)

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~ 08:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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 (/_Edits) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

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~ 13:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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~ 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

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 , ; 1971: Beyond Borders , . 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)

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

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

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014)

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014) has the same issues as Protests in Armenia (2018), which were discussed a few days ago, here. The article is unreadable and should not be made visible in this state. I attempted earlier to reach out to the user and help with formatting, but have not been able to start a discussion (nor have others); I'll try again now. Per that earlier thread, the errors seem to be the result of machine translation. This is far beyond my abilities (translation/linguistics/patience-wise), but I thought I should report it. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an existing article, Donbass general elections, 2014. It dealt with both the DPR and LPR elections at the time they took place. It was deemed sensible to keep them together. The new article should be merged back into the old one, which I've now done. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That fixes that article, but I have come to wonder whether Панн has difficulty with English. I have asked on his user talk. His global contributions and user talk page posts here suggest that Russian is his primary language. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Same situation, different article (let me know if I should start a new thread, but I thought it might be helpful to group the info): please see this version of Eduard Basurin, with Панн's recent additions. Runawayangel has just removed most of the article, which I fully support, because the previous version was unreadable. The situation has therefore been dealt with, but it's an ongoing issue that Панн is submitting content like this. Jessicapierce (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to bring attention to this page he has created, which seems to be confusing two different people. --Runawayangel (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be at least one more article with the same issue. --Runawayangel (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The Alexander Ananchenko article cites a reference in an edit summary without actually footnoting it in the text, so something odd is going on; but I suspect the wrong name in the text came from using another article as a template and forgetting to change it. This also doesn't seem to be an uncredited translation from another Misplaced Pages article; on the contrary, the Polish Misplaced Pages article seems to be derived from it. However, he has continued to edit without either responding here or answering anyone on his user talk, and if he does have serious problems with English, that's a serious competency issue. (His history on Commons and on ru.wikipedia both are also concerning; both have blocked him as a copyright violator; but he appears to be doing different things here.) So I'm going to ping in Ymblanter, the only Russian-speaking admin I can think of, in hopes he can talk with Панн. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I left a message at their homepage, I do not know whether it is going to help but at least then we have tried everything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: We still have problems. Since you left your message, the editor has added machine translated text to Alexander Ananchenko, probably from the Polish Misplaced Pages article, which they cleaned up only minimally; here's what I had to do a day later to make it readable. They've also yet again uploaded a film poster at too high a resolution, and have also uploaded another file with a possibly poor fair use rationale; granted, I have no idea myself how to reduce the resolution of a file, which is why I avoid uploading posters, and I would not know how to write a good fair use rationale for a screenshot, but they've been told about excessively high resolution many times and have yet to ask for help from you or anyone else, just as they have not made any statement here. Perhaps the next step is an ultimatum to stop machine translating and an explanation of how to reduce resolution? @Панн: you need to talk to us, either on your talk page or here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Added a note at their talk page which I hope should be pretty clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Refdesk vandal

Hi, the refdesk vandal is active again (Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk subpages). Can someone clean it up? Thanks, Henry 09:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

All reverted ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The vandal (bot?) somehow managed to reach autoconfirmed status before this latest spree. Do we need to increase the protection level of the Refdesks? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty obvious this ongoing disruption is not being solved. It would be a good idea to prevent the same user posting material more than once per minute or two as well. Just fix that up for us, it's destroying my watchlist all this nonsense, particularly when admins don't work Sundays.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am upgrading to extended confirmed, help will be appreciated,. I hope though that they are going to exhaust all the extended confirmed socks soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like they did, pls post here if disruption reappears.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

They had one more ec sock, and six of the subpages have been extended-confirmed protected for 4 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'm a little out of practice with this sort of thing. Henry 09:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

A similar pattern of vandalism has occured at various Village Pump pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Zzuuzz, might have something to add. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Some significant differences, not convinced, says I. -- zzuuzz 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't answer this if it reveals too much, but are we talking about more outing attacks on a particular editor? Or is this something new? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

He's vandalizing the Help Desk and Teahouse too. He is really overwhelming our anti-vandalism network. funplussmart (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Really? In all my years here, overwhelming the anti-vandalism network is something I've never heard of being possible, much less having happened.  Swarm  talk  20:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Particularly vitriolic LTAs consistently attempt to do so. I remember when JarlaxleArtemis was more active as his "Grawp" persona that he constantly attempted to recruit 4chan members to hassle random articles, specifically to try and overwhelm us; fewer and fewer people actually took him up on his offer, however. —Jeremy v^_^v 22:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I read the LTA page on JarlaxleArtemis. It seems to be a very similar situation here: Use of proxies, posting of personal infromation, repeated attacks. funplussmart (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean that this vandalism is forcing us to protect pages (like the Ref Desk and Help Desk) that anons and new users have a need to edit. And so far he has managed to get around edit filters and all other means to stop this. Page Protection is a last resort in many cases, and this guy has forced to 30-500 several essential pages for inexperienced users at this point. I mean we can stop the disruption from this specific vandal, but only if we take actions that cause a lot of collateral damage. I hope that this guy will get tired of this soon, but so far he has shown no signs of stopping. funplussmart (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon Yes, it's the same. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Santanu99: persistent disruptive editing, and obvious lack of competence

Santanu99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The reported user, whose main activity here is scr*wing up articles about Indian institutions of higher learning, should be shown the door ASAP, and not just for a short period of time, but for good, for being a huge time sink, and a net negative for the project. Their talk page is full of warnings for uploading non-free images, making copyright violations (adding copyrighted text found elsewhere; see revdelled entries in their contributions, and recent multiple warnings on their talk page), making repeated cut-and-paste moves of articles, making repeated attempts to redirect an article to another article that only covers a subset of what the article they're redirecting to it covers (see page history here) and repeatedly adding unsourced material to a large number of articles. It's also obvious that they don't know enough English to be able to read and understand the warnings they get, or communicate with others, with their response to getting a final warning for disruptive editing after their latest attempt to redirect Indian Institutes of Engineering Science and Technology to Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur (their second such attempt today, showing they just won't stop...) being this post on their talk page: "GOTO Hell, Lets Try..You have no idea.Misplaced Pages Foundation will loose fund.", which IMHO proves my point about utter lack of competence. - Tom | Thomas.W 11:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Tom, your quote ""GOTO Hell" etc has the wrong diff, could you fix, please? I'd like to read the post, even though it may be kind of moot, as I've indeffed. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC).

Sorry, Bishonen, too many windows open in the browser at the same time. The diff is here. - Tom | Thomas.W 15:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes (brought he from their talk, having just left a message there and seen an absolute kaleidoscope of warnings). I see some of them relate to the addition of copyright material; that's what took me there, as I stripped a load out of Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, which they have proceeded to restore. I wonder how many wasted editorial hours they have managed to consume in the last five years. ——SerialNumber54129 14:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The account was registered five years ago, but only made stray edits until early July this year, that is less than four months ago, but have since accumulated about 1,000 edits here, very few of them really constructive. A look at their earliest edits, from 2014 and 2015, is interesting too, though, since several of their earliest edits have been revdelled, including their very first ones, making it seem like they've been regularly adding copyvios here, from their very first day of editing here and up to today. Kazi Nazrul University, which they added now revdelled copyvios on a couple of days ago, was also the very first article they edited, with now revdelled edits made by them on that article also in 2014 and 2015, showing they haven't learnt anything during the past several years. - Tom | Thomas.W 15:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 15:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: You might want to— ——SerialNumber54129 15:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• This has to be the most stupid attempt at socking that I've ever seen, creating a new account named User:Santanu98 and then using Santana99 to redirect Santana99's talk page to the newly created sock... - Tom | Thomas.W 16:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Santanu98 also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• It wasn't registered? They just tried to redirect their talk to a non-existant page. Which does just about sum it up admittedly. Ah, TW's dodgy spelling there :) yes, that was a rather foolish manoeuvre, wasn't it. ——SerialNumber54129 16:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Err yes it was - "Created on 23 October 2018 at 12:46" ... GiantSnowman 16:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: I know; it was originally spelled differently though. ——SerialNumber54129 13:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

IP posting "porn"

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

(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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

• 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)

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)

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. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 18:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• @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)

		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 23:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

• @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)
  • Thanks for the reminder, I was going to go back and declutter the list. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• 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)

• (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)

Ad hominem at homonym

. EEng 18:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

An ad homonym? erm, no, what I meant to say is: We are very busy here doing very important things. We have no time for frivolity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, Eeng. Look at the thread above this one and ask yourself if we really have time for this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

When I saw this pop up, my question was going to be "Really? Did Eeng put you up to this? Otta known I have plenty of time for frivolity, and maybe some fishing...-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Damn you EEng! Damn you. We don't have time for this. We. Don't. Have. TIME. This post has wasted precious volunteer resources, and frankly, I'm not sure how long it will take to recover. Every minute people spend here, precious, precious work is being done, and you have stolen that from us. Propose BOOMERANG TBAN on the use of any and all humor, broadly construed.  Swarm  talk  19:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this? _Hypercube ✎ 20:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, this is kind of a reminder to close this thread. I've outdone EEng with puns on this one. _Hypercube ✎ 20:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• This thread is succeeding beyond my wildest imagining. EEng 21:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Your imagination is obviously deficient, so sad, so sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A mind is a terrible thing to... wait, what are we talking about again? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

???????????????💵Money💵emoji💵 01:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As one of the late 20th century's greatest philosophers put it, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What's this about hominy? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I hereby block the electrical engineer for a microsecond. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

On what charge? Battery? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If convicted I hope they put me in a dry cell. EEng 18:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If they do, quite a few admins will get a charge out of it. 01:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, watt are we talking about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ohm my! Resistance is futile. You're impeding discussion. etc etc etc. What have I started? EEng 16:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I dunno, but I just saw a Volts Wagon Beetle pulling a mobile ohm. 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the bus, if I don't have to make too many connections. EEng 00:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I amp not sure where this discussion is going. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a current consensus? Blackmane (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Scriptions disruptive editing

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Scriptions
• {{Infobox Chinese}}
• {{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}}
• Template:Infobox Chinese/doc
• involving user
  • Scriptions (talk · contribs)
  • Primefac (talk · contribs) (closing admin)
  • matthew_hk (talk · contribs) (myself)
  • other user in the discussion thread in previous ANI and template?

The user Scriptions made controversial (disruptive ) edit in a template . The closing admin "would also strongly suggest that Scriptions revert to the previous reversion since their changes were contested, if only to show good faith"

However, the user refuse to agree on reverting his change (see template talk), and made this comment in the now closed thread. (Special:Diff/865481962)

:That's not possible because the protection level of Template:Infobox Chinese/Chinese has been changed in the years since my edit – by you. Scriptions (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)}}

It seem there is no hope he wish to cooperate with other user. Matthew_hk tc 13:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Your previous reporting of me for disruption was considered to be in bad faith by the closing admin. Nevertheless, you repeat the bad-faith accusation of disruption above. This is a pure content dispute; nothing nefarious has been going on. Scriptions (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The template was coded this way. pinyin data stored in |p= Cantonese Yale in |y=, Cantonese Jyutping in |j=. The |showflag= was intended to trigger what the code in |showflag= to show which data from hidden collapsible list. Thus |showflag=p was working was as intended to show pinyin. Same logic applies to |showflag=j and |showflag=y. If you want every Cantonese article to show |showflag=y instead of |showflag=j , you change the {{Infobox Chinese}} template in the articles one by one, as well as fixing the backend code of the template by adding the codes for |showflag=y (and other combination involving |y=). Not sabotage the template codes for |showflag=j and |showflag=gd (Guangdong Romanization).

I don't wish to paraphrase again. Matthew_hk tc 13:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As has already been pointed out by the closing admin, this is not sabotage but a legitimate way of doing things. Your idea that this is against some rule is without basis in reality. Scriptions (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

To other admin that not involving the thread. I don't see it is not vandalism that if someone like mdy date format, then edit {{birth date and age}} |df=yes to show MDY instead of dmy. Matthew_hk tc 13:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not comparable. Scriptions (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing admin comment my only mistake in my previous close was not realizing that the page protection prevented Scriptions from reverting their edits. Regardless, I did not force that change and they would have declined anyway. Recommend this be closed (again) and the discussion allowed to proceed on the template talk page. Further disruption by Matthew hk might be considered, well, disruptive. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User randomly reverting my previous edits.

There's a user 2A02:A31B:8444:A800:B4B3:713A:BFB4:B995 who keeps reverting an edit I've made to the page on Heaton Moor, ignoring my contribution to the Talk page, and has now taken to randomly reverting edits I've made to other pages. Who should I report this to, and how do I get him to stop the intimidation? Thanks.

C0pernicus (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It does rather look like stalking. But it is a new account, so it may just be (an odd) coincidence. More likely (given the time frame) is an account you have had interaction with in the past.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a new user that only ever reverts things, and it's already gone over 3RR on one article from the looks of things. Malfunctioning bot?Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

However you should have properly informed them of this ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. What's the prescribed format for informing them? C0pernicus (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

See the text in red in the blue box at the top of this page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Dealt with now, I informed them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Upon second look it does possibly seem retaliatory. See the edit history of 2a02:a31b:8444:a800:514d:b5dd:6b18:2486. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of useless to notify IPv6 editors, they generally rapidly switch between addresses on a /64 CIDR so pinging them on any one of the addresses has about a one in 18 pentillion chance of notifying the right user. This one, 2A02:A31B:8444:A800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), seems to only revert except when they're vandalizing, and has been specifically reverting C0pernicus since about the end of August, and while it's mostly occurring on Manchester-related topics they're also following editors to completely unrelated pages like fricative consonant. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. They're clearly reverting indiscriminately, reverting edits as old as March, and never with an edit summary. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• It's apparently a long-term problem, so a 31-hour block of the range is rather short. We'll hope it helps, but, @C0pernicus: if IPs beginning with 2A02:A31B:8444:A800 continue to stalk you after the block expires, feel free to come back here, or to tell me directly on my page. Or perhaps tell you, Ivanvector? Bishonen | talk 21:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC).

Many thanks, it's useful to know who to turn to. C0pernicus (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

user:2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:D16C:D88C:E83D:7B31

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 Misplaced Pages to do on one day never to be seen again. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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 (/_Edits) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 (/_Edits) 14:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Francis March

I am not sure where to post this, but I hope it gets the attention it deserves here. I noticed a ton of edits to the page Francis March today, all by different redlink users whose only contributions to this site are through editing that page. After running a copyvio, mostly everything "they" have added is a violation of copyright from another source. Requesting an admin take a look into this. I'm assuming they are all socks of the same user but am unsure how to open an investigation into that, and if possible I'd like all their revisions deleted and hidden since they contain copyrighted information. Thanks for the help! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This looks to me like a class project or similar rather than sockpuppeting. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look into it now. If there's copyvio involved, the affected material should be deleted. Deor (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool, just wanted to make sure the IPs weren't all the same. The usernames were following the same format which is what set the red flag off in my head. I'll fix up the references. As long as the IPs aren't the same I guess this request can be closed! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They can be the same if it was a class-project. It seem a good faith meatsock. All need to do is tag copyvio for individual edit and sent a nice (templated) message to them for not just c&p source expect an essential need to have a direct quote. Matthew hk (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclined to agree! Copyvio checks out now, the first problem I had with it was a site that pulled directly off Misplaced Pages. Since it wasn't updated to reflect the current page I didn't notice it at first, but it looks OK now :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not that terrible when using wiki mirror site as circular referencing. It sometimes terrible that primary source (e.g. Italian football club) had c&p it-wiki content, that make you misjudge the text was authoritatively correct. Any way, if those are good faith, then there is no urge to continue this thread in ANI, but may be some venue in teahouse or the talk page of the article. Matthew hk (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Rude & Conflictive User:Mystic Technocrat

I have engaged in editing and talk with this user and they use extremely rude and conflictive attitudes with all their issues and communications. Request Administrator review conduct and/or warn user. Some of their action also border on edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirsentence (talk • contribs) 2018-10-24T20:37:16 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) report edit warring here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. And it would be good if you provide which sentence in User talk:Mystic Technocrat or User talk:Sirsentence are specifically personal attack. Matthew hk (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I am unamused by both of your conducts. Use the talk page, stop using personal attacks, and assume good faith. --Tarage (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

non-scrutiny-evading edits go here...

This is some double-edged comedy. Was I rude? Perhaps. I have attempted to engage the user to discuss an issue on the talk page, and he hasn't...and then tells me to stop edit-warring without discussing on talk page...even though I attempted to engage on talk page OVER A MONTH AGO.
As for the IP clown above...he has some weird paranoid belief that I'm involved with some actual vandals who took an interest in a page he edited, despite no evidence whatsoever. For the past 2 to 3 years, his only activity has been trolling every single edit I make. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
As for the issue at hand, all I want is a meaningful discussion on talk page. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You could have at any point, instead of being rude and aggressive, come here, or spoken to an admin you trust. You did neither. And it doesn't excuse your behavior either. Both of you need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rival Sons Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC) (that went down in flames) Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Unjustified level four warning, etc

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

This came very much out of the blue , followed by this elaboration . After following up, the response I received was this . An unmerited final warning, followed by an inaccurate interpretation of my edit history as vandalism, hasn't been sufficiently explained; 'sorry for your inconvenience' is what one might expect from a corporate phone message. There may be some competence issues; secondarily, the significance of acknowledging an error, especially when flagging someone mistakenly, could be explained by an uninvolved editor. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The user who left those comments is banned from the site, and their sockpuppet account has been blocked. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user is indeffed by a checkuser. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 13:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And here I was WP:AGF. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Kokborok language / topic ban for editor

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 14:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• 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 . Since then, he has conducted just two edits, both of which are non-disruptive . 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)

@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 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages. Yet the edits along this line have continued. _pseudonym Jake Brockman 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

need help; editor blanking article repeatedly

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

the article MasSpec Pen has been blanked more than once by the same user. it pertains to a scientific news item of importance. they are consistently blanking the page and refusing to accept mainstream news sources. please help!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please notify the user. I assume you are talking about Doc James. Also, he is not blanking the whole page, but redirecting it. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 14:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You mean an administrator has reviewed the 'article' and found it to be non-notable, problematic, and promotional? I see no problems. If you disagree then raise at WP:RFD. GiantSnowman 14:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article was correctly redirected, as it was making medical claims that were not backed up by sources compliant with WP:MEDRS. Do not edit war to reinstate the disputed and non-compliant content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute. Your first step in resolving this dispute is not this noticeboard. I encourage you to begin a discussion either at Talk:MasSpec Pen or Talk:Cancer. The latter is likely to generate more input from interested parties. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for tips on how to proceed with dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants

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

I have removed contentious BLP claims that the subject of the article is inspired by neo-nazis and white nationalists ]. The specific line of which did not have any WP:V link at all and is unsupported by the body of the article. While there is no doubt that the subject communicated with such individuals to ask them what they thought, that doesn't mean he was inspired by them. When questioned about it, a source was given, but I do not believe that the source actually says what is being claimed, that this is at best an analysis of that source. As such, per WP:BLPREMOVE, we are required to Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: (1)is unsourced or poorly sourced; (2) is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research). Two minutes after I removed the text, explicitly invoking BLP and asking for consensus to restore per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, User:MjolnirPants used his rollback rights to revert my edits. This is an inappropriate use of the rollback permissions which should not be used to revert good faith edits. Additionally this material was restored in violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE without consensus that it is validly sourced. Debate on if this is validly sourced is currently ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Milo_Yiannopoulos. -Obsidi (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As this is a content dispute your next step is WP:DR not ANI. MarnetteD|Talk 15:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about whether the text should be added or removed, but the behavior of restoring the text without consensus and the abuse of rollback rights, both of which are appropriate for ANI to consider. He has now written a response on the talk page: Read WP:CRYBLP and either provide reliable sources disputing the claim, which has been thoroughly sourced already or fuck off. Seriously, dude, you're begging for an ANI report, and you're going to get one soon with this tendentiousness. -Obsidi (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's still not an issue for ANI, which is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. If he is edit-warring, warn him on usertalk and report at WP:ANEW. If he is violating DS or GS, warn him on usertalk and report at WP:AE. If you feel it is a BLP issue, then ask/report at WP:BLPN. If it's a verification issue, then ask/report at WP:RSN. If it's anything else, discuss on articletalk and see what the consensus is, and if you don't like the consensus, then utilize some form of WP:DR. One/two edits is not a sufficient reason to open an ANI thread, because as MarnetteD stated, it's just a content dispute, and one lousy use of rollback (which is not sanctionable for one instance). Softlavender (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I cannot warn him on usertalk as he has banned me from his talk page. This is already on WP:BLPN. I would revert him, but then I will get accused of edit warring (so far I have only reverted once), see below here Writ Keeper is already saying I am edit warring with only one revert so far. -Obsidi (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Usertalk bans do not apply to mandatory warnings and notifications, which WP:ANEW warnings are, just like the usertalk notification you just gave him for this thread: . -- Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"This is already on WP:BLPN." So you admit you are forum-shopping, apparently specifically to either/both (1) get MjolnirPants in trouble for a single edit (or at most two edits) (2) get your way – in a content dispute which is already being discussed extensively both on the article's talk page and at BLPN? Softlavender (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I admit nothing of the kind. I came here to discuss conduct issues, not the content of the article which will be decided by BLPN, not here. -Obsidi (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Then I refer you to this: . -- Softlavender (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You're missing some important context, which is that this material has already been challenged, answered, reverted, and restored recently, which is making this look like more of a slow-burn edit war than a simple case of BLP enforcement. MP was probably too zealous in reverting to the status quo--and definitely didn't need to use rollback to do so--but it makes it understandable. We're supposed to err on the side of caution when reverting for BLP, it's true, but MP's assertion that this is validly sourced isn't unreasonable, as evidenced by the BLPN discussion; this isn't a clear-cut BLP violation. I'd trout the both of you for edit-warring, with MP getting a slightly bigger end of the troutstick for the rollback, and call it a day. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The previous revert was not based on BLP (or at least no claim to that was explicitly made), my revert was the first and only to make an explicit BLP claim and it is the only revert that I have ever done to the page. As such, I do not believe I was edit warring. And I'm not claiming that MP's claims that it is valid are unreasonable, consensus might end up deciding that he is right. But until it does, I made a good faith removal of BLP material, and it should not be restored until consensus decides it is valid. -Obsidi (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. To quote the edit war policy: The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy (...) Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. (emphasis mine) Later in the same section: When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution and, in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war and 3RR noticeboard. Given the earlier disputes about that line, which you were of course aware of, you knew that it would be controversial whether your reversion would fall under BLP, and given that discussion was already underway on BLP/N, your revert was unnecessary. So, no, I'm not buying that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The actual quote starts with Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. I have not used the exemption from 3RR, as I have only reverted once. My revert is necessary to remove what I in good faith believe to be BLP violating material until consensus has been reached. -Obsidi (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I have precisely zero expertise or authority, but Obsidi, I very much agree with Writ Keeper. You seem (to me, at least) to be very enthusiastically barking up the wrong tree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

...No, it doesn't. The section I quoted, Misplaced Pages:Edit_warring#Exemptions, doesn't mention the three revert rule anywhere in its body, except in reference to the name of the ANEW board. 3RR isn't relevant to this, as I never brought it up. Your revert wasn't necessary, because it's not clear that this is BLP-violating material, which is what the BLP/N discussion is for. BLP isn't a license to kill (read: edit-war) on BLP pages. I know you reverted in good faith, which is one reason among others I'm not considering a block at the moment. But that doesn't make you right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the similar language in WP:BLPREMOVE. I do not believe I was edit warring, so I do not believe that the exception applied. -Obsidi (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that before engaging in this forum shopping Obsidi was asked to provide one or two reliable sources that actually refuted the reliably sourced statement the page includes. They responded by providing a list of some 80 headlines tangentially related to the subject which they insisted they could not narrow down because it was all behind a paywall. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping, I came here to discuss behavior, not if the content to should be added or not. BLP does not require that those who dispute the statement provide a RS to refute the statement in the article. I said, in talk, that as far as I could find, there is no RS that ever uses that language. MjolnirPants said I was lying about that (specifically and I quote Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans. I don't believe this shit for one second.), and so I provided the list of every single source I could find with those words so he could verify what I said (that none of the sources that use those words actually says what is claimed). I am not required by BLP to provide a RS that refutes the statement in the article. -Obsidi (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Was it a good faith revert? Or was it Obsidi following MPants around because they are angry about previous interactions? Grandpallama (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not "following MPants around" I regularly watch the noticeboards, including BLPN. Which is where I first saw this dispute taking place. You will notice that all my edits around this were originally exclusively on BLPN. I didn't care if MPants was there or not. -Obsidi (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming so, but your mileage may vary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm struggling to even see this as a good faith report. You tangle with MPants in a few places, write a whiny complaint on his talkpage (which is what resulted in him banning you from it), and then subsequently show up on a page you've never edited before just to undo an edit by MPants that is part of a minor editing disagreement a few days earlier. You should seriously take the advice GreenMeansGo gave you (even if you didn't like the way it was delivered) and spend some time doing more mainspace editing and less time bringing people to AN/I or in front of ARBCOM. Grandpallama (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• This was clearly a content dispute in which Obsidi is apparently using the BLP exemption to mask POV-based edits. If there is a behavioral issue here, it lies in that behavior, not in that of MjolnirPants. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also this seems like an attempt at pre-emptive reporting before you pulled a report. MPants said this to you at 14:33. Your very next edit, less than 20 minutes later was this. Which means you had basically exactly enough time to write your complaint after reading that MPants was considering going to AN/I if you didn't stop your tendentious WP:SOUP at Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Honestly this seems so specifically retaliatory that a boomerang might not be the worst idea ever. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I was writing my complaint before I ever saw MPants write that (which is why when I noticed it, I posted it on this forum as a reply). -Obsidi (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would recommend to close the topic before it escalates into a boomerang.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day mate, I'd like to talk about this here throwing stick...

For starters, let me address the rollback thing: I didn't mean to. I was literally trying to check out something else and hit it, and there's no confirmation dialog (WHICH THERE SHOULD BE DAMNIT) so it went through. Now, I had every intention of undoing Obsidi's edit, because it was based on some rather bad-faith argumentation (see below), so instead of re-rollbacking or re-rollbacking and then undoing, I just left it and went to talk, where I edit conflicted and then changed my response to what you can see there now.

Next, this is a clear-cut case of WP:CRYBLP. Obsidi is lying about what the sources (notice the plural and see: , , ) are saying: They are explicit that Milo solicited ideas from neo-nazis and white supremacists, and that Milo engages in neo-nazi and white supremacist behavior, yet obsidi is insisting that they merely claim he "associates" with neo-nazis and white supremacists. Obsidi then used that as an excuse to WP:CRYBLP, and announced his intention to edit against the consensus, and then quickly proceeded to do so.

But putting that particular issue aside for the moment, I'd like to say a few things about Obsidi.

• This is an editor who has proposed that we shouldn't call widely debunked conspiracy theories "conspiracy theories" because it's not fair to the people who believe them.
• He has also tried to argue that the conspiracy theory which gave rise to the Cigarette Smoking Man (remember that dude from the X-Files?) and the Men in black is actually true because a couple of Vox articles have sarcastically referred to it. Obsidi had also been slow edit warring over this at the article, see , , & . This seems to have stopped, but it still paints a picture of an editor unfamiliar with.. Well, how to read a source.
• Obsidi has also started an RfC that he then immediately opposed, which other editors noticed looked suspiciously like Obsidi was trying to make a point rather than actually accomplishing anything.
• This is also the same editor who has made fewer article space edits in his entire (11 year!) wiki-career than I have since August. Of this year. And not even the beginning of August, but, like, around the 23rd or so. And when he does edit article space, he always, takes a right wing POV .

I'm not above suggesting that Obsidi is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and is, instead here to indulge in their desire to stir up drama and WP:ADVOCATE for various right-wing causes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Obsidi is indeed a problematic editor who is probably going to end up with some sort of topic ban if he continues on his current course. Softlavender (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but what topic? And even with a topic ban, if they just continue to go around on the back-end, stirring up drama about policies they've never used in practice and consensuses they don't know how to read, then how does that help? I'm usually all for substituting a topic ban for a block, but in this case, I think the best interests of WP are just to block this guy and be done with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I hear you, that's why I didn't mention a topic. If a topic ban cannot cover all of his disruption, then an indef for DE, POV-pushing, and TE, etc. Softlavender (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No disagreement, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not lying about what the sources say. None of the sources say that Milo was inspired by neo-nazis and white supremacists. (Go look at them!) Yes, he solicited ideas and asked them questions, but I do not believe that means he was inspired by them. Saying someone is inspired by neo-nazis is a horrible claim to make against someone who merely asked them for their ideas on a piece to be written about them. I was not editing against consensus, there was not yet consensus on this subject.

To respond to the other issues that MPants brought up:

• I strongly believe in NPOV policy. That we shouldn’t say something is a conspiracy theory (which says there is no reliable evidence for that belief), unless it is fringe to believe there is such evidence. A minority view, on the otherhand should be respected. This is NPOV policy and all I have advocated for.
• What I argued is not a conspiracy theory is that there are “government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy.” For which I believe this New York Times article provided the proof. This is the same view publicly expressed by the House Majority Leader in the Hill . I do not believe this is a crazy view fringe.
• I started the RfC after the sentence has been removed, and after I objected, it was forced back into the article . I started the RfC to establish consensus on if that sentence should be removed (for which many people agreed with me that it shouldn’t). Maybe I should have phrased the RfC so that I was supporting keeping the sentence rather than opposing the removal, but that difference isn’t to just make a point.
• I have 2,576 edits, most of which are in WP or talk namespaces, because usually I like to discuss the changes and let others actually add them to the articles. I’m not here to rack up barnstars or celebrate how many edits I have. I only get involved when I think the WP processes are breaking down and the policies of WP are not being enforced. My point isn’t to advocate for a viewpoint, but to advocate WP policies. Look back at my edits, you will see I am rarely getting involved unless I think there is a policy problem. I care about WP policies and that they are accurately enforced. That is why I am here.

Am I a right-wing person? Yes, but that doesn’t mean I am here to violate the NPOV and other policies of WP. Almost all my edits are to advocate FOR such policies when I think they are being violated.

I started this with a focus only on this one topic (the Milo page), and what I saw as violations of BLP policy. But if we are going to go beyond that to broader questions of behavior, then I would like to bring up the incredibly uncivil behavior of MPants. Just in this very instance he accused me of Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans.. Or when he told me to fuck off, and said other people just bitched. But this isn’t an isolated instance. Just go back through his talk page edits and they are FULL of him saying incredibly rude things to people all the time. -Obsidi (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

And the appearance of "but MPants is mean to me" declarations absolutely vindicates my belief about where this filing came from in the first place, and why a boomerang is the proper course of action. Grandpallama (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about me at all, there are a ton of edits to all kinds of other people where he has been rude. Feel free to ignore all the comments he directed at me, and look at the rest of his history. -Obsidi (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• 40% of Obsidi's edits are to WP:space, and another 40% are to talk pages. While a high number of TP edits usually indicates a keenness for discussion, the concomitant 184 edits to articles in nearly 11 years' tenure—is less positive. ——SerialNumber54129 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I tend to rarely edit articles directly instead relying upon talk pages, that is quite true. But also look at how many edits per month. You will see that sometimes I am very active, but usually I have other things to do than worry about WP and I have 0 edits for years at a time. 11 years isn't long when you don't edit at all for many of those. -Obsidi (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block per WP:NOTHERE based on the evidence I gave, above, combined with the fact that Obsidi is still insisting that the sources don't say what they obviously say in his response to the refutation I gave above; this is either a severe lack of competence or severe tendentiousness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block largely because this isn't the first time. Obsidi did the exact same thing - the tendentious talk arguments, the WP:CRYBLP and the slow edit-warring with regard to Tucker Carlson and the advocacy of the Daily Caller for the White genocide conspiracy theory. Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• I only get involved when I think the WP processes are breaking down and the policies of WP are not being enforced. - this sounds very much like Obsidi is here to push a point of view, not to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps that user should try getting involved on non-controversial topics. I don't currently support an indef block, but agree that it looks like one will be coming soon if Obsidi's behavior doesn't change. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• I propose a topic ban for both parties? Maybe just Obsidi? Indef block is a bit extreme. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 16:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block for persistent DE, POV-pushing, TE, and NOTHERE behavior which has disrupted Misplaced Pages too long at this point. Softlavender (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Incivility

Have to comment here after the NAC. I was surprised to see no attention given to complaints about MjolnirPants's incivility by Obsidi. Quite something to see him regularly make comments and edit summaries like this: Bull-motherfucking-shit. She-goddamn-nanigans. I don't believe this shit for one second, fuck off, Fuck off with this hypocritical butthurt, fucking bullshit, fuck off and don't come back, fuck off with that shit, bitchfit removed. Fuck your bullshit and your templates. Seriously; fuck off and don't post to my page again, If you disagree with it, you should go fuck yourself and pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person etc. ScienceApe was just indefinitely blocked and had his talkpage access removed for similar comments. So are you giving MjolnirPants some kind of a special privilege of not having to comply with WP:CIV by turning a blind eye? Any comments @Bbb23:? --Pudeo (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't what this thread was about. This was a quickly trumped-up thread to get MPants in trouble over one or two edits that had substantial support on the article's talkpage, and was part of a longterm pattern of disruption and POV-pushing and battlegroundishness on the part of the OP, who only under duress threw in some additional charges. If you want to open a new thread, on MPants and present a case for incivility, you are welcome to. I personally don't think it will get very far, but that's just my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The inappropriate comments were part of the complaint, but the complainer got hit with a boomerang. Such comments add nothing constructive to Misplaced Pages, offend other editors, and make the writer look like a low class fool. Better to stop them. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No, they weren't part of the original complaint at all. Softlavender (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, second post by the OP Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"I know what I'll do! I'll express my dissaproval at someone's perceived incivility by calling them names! That'll show em!" Presumably Legacypac, soon before writing the above comment.

Seriously, dude, go look at the context of those edits. In every case, it was me dealing with some tendentious childishness. If you expect me to never sound salty about anything, you've got some wildly misplaced expectations. I can think of at least one editor (hint hint) who just succumbed to their frustration and lashed out with a personal attack worse than anything I said above, whom I just forgive for it because really, who cares?

P.S. That last diff was me referring to the claim "The Holocaust was a Really Bad Thing". And I stand by what I said in that diff 100%. If anyone reading this ever meets me in person and insists that the Holocaust was a good thing, I will very likely beat you to within an inch of your life, or die trying. Racism and genocide are kinda sore spots with me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not call you any names, I gave the same advice I give to the kids I teach - speaking low class makes you look low class. People take you more seriously if you speak/type in a respectful way. Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You did call me a name, you were just careful to couch it as an opinion, which many people often mistake for carefully phrasing it as not being an insult. Just because it's opinion doesn't mean it's not insulting. What you need to do to avoid insulting people is to not say that they are "low class fools" in any terms. You might say that they have engaged in some foolishness, or that their comments lack class. But "I think you're a low class fool" is no more civil than "you're a low class fool".

Also, as advice, it's really quite shitty advice (well, maybe not so much for a kid, but certainly for an adult), so forgive me if I don't take it. Perhaps if you tried thinking in adult terms instead of kid terms you might come up with some better advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh lawd. Arkon (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: "dealing with some tendentious childishness" is no excuse. Such language is never helpful, and should have no place here. Paul August ☎ 21:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. You wouldn't fight a fire by pouring gasoline on it, right? ansh666 21:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please look at the entirety of the posts and threads (not just the few words quoted), grasp the tone and venue and circumstance, and understand that on own's one talkpage such retorts are par for the course in such circumstances on Misplaced Pages, even for a large number of highly respected administrators and even arbitrators. Softlavender (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Being "par for the course" doesn't make it helpful. Paul August ☎ 21:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it is the norm, and therefore not sanctionable. Cussing on one's own talkpage when dealing with BS is not sanctionable. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying it's shameful, whether sanctionable or not. Paul August ☎ 21:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

All things being equal, if my saltiness at my talk page encourages other editors not post edits like those I was responding to, then mission accomplished. Note my big red edit notice. I'm not here to quibble and argue about who was being meaner to whom, and my usual response to being insulted or being the recipient of some rudeness is to either ignore it or lampshade it and move on. I would humbly suggest that more editors should be like me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Bbb23 doesn't get ping notifications (he turned them off). The issue was resolved by the disruptive party being blocked. Hence the close of this thread. If someone wants to open up another thread about MPants, please create a separate thread. His communications to the indef-blocked editor on his very own talk page (and a couple on the endless Milo threads) are not going to gain any traction, especially given tone and circumstance and context and venue. I suggest this matter be dropped unless someone wants to open a new and separate thread with some actually sanctionable evidence. Softlavender (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The first post is my "case". It doesn't matter to me whether the title has two or three =-symbols. And most of the personal attacks detailed in my message are not directed at Obsidian, but editors in good-standing, like admin Northamerica1000, who was also told to "fuck off" in the diff I included. And what's alarming is that these diffs are just starting from September. --Pudeo (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If the first post is your "case," then I would move to dismiss for improper venue. Dumuzid (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on what? I could have also reverted the non-admin close. Also ANI threads don't have to be formulated like ArbCom requests. The incivility is chronic and intractable and as such is within the scope of this noticeboard, and also mentioned in the above thread. --Pudeo (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Because this is not an incident, of course. This is you trawling through my contributs, cherry picking out those times that I got salty with someone who was being a pain to try and get me sanctioned because you don't like me (your opinions of editors with liberal political views is no secret, buddy). I would further note that I have made 1,882 edits since September first. If, as you say, this is just my incivility since then, then it represents 0.425% of my editing, assuming that my attitude has remained constant over time (it hasn't: I've been dealing with a lot more POV warriors the past few months than usual). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The message to Northamerica1000 was a response to being templated, which is known to rile some people. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact, Northamerica1000 templated me and reverted me because I participated in a running joke with another admin. Ironically, me and the others (there was more than one other) were making fun of officiousness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I remember that. Came across to me as possibly being a potential tactic to potentially game the system. The user could then theoretically continue to engage in questionable behavior, and if warned about it by me, could then state that they didn't want me posting on their talk page. Of course, this may not be the case, with the rude response simply being an angry retort. A similar type of post was posted by the user in this diff, listed above. At the very least, hopefully MjolnirPants can consider the notion that such statements are uncivil, and go against the grain of assuming good faith. Running around and telling various users to "fuck off" all the time is quite sophomoric. North America 21:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I will say this: I'm very unlikely to consider the feeling of an editor who singles me out for participating in a joke to revert and then template (without ever considering the fact that they just engaged in pompous officiousness in response to several editors mocking pompous officiousness) in the future. I'm far more likely to consider how pointlessly uncivil it is to revert someone and template them for participating in a running joke. And I'm very likely to revert them with an angry retort (well, a snide retort, really, but you can't be blamed for not reading the right tone into some plain text). Sorry, that's just my nature. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang for Pudeo? The OP of the original thread was the latest in a long line of bad-leground editors attacking MPants and opening frivolous ANI threads on him; re-opening the thread after it's already been closed as such is pretty disruptive at best. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Certainly not a boomerang. MPants' comments on their own talk page probably are not sanctionable, but they shouldn't be encouraged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Meh. I was pinged. You know I love you MJ, but you're not gonna break anything if you tone it down about 1.7 notches. Maybe you get it right, but maybe you don't, and maybe someone you got it wrong on just gets the impression that Misplaced Pages is a place where a bunch of assholes act like a bunch of assholes to one another, so please go back to Facebook. Gallows humor doesn't translate well over text, and we're not in the freezing mud shooting the shit with the other sergeants, as much as I enjoy and loath those moments. At the very least, it will avoid threads like this, and if you don't think that users who are not so well integrated into the organizational culture would be long since blocked for the same thing, I think you're kidding yourself. GMG 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"and if you don't think that users who are not so well integrated into the organizational culture would be long since blocked for the same thing, I think you're kidding yourself." I think you've hit the nail on the head, GMG. And to pick up on power~enwiki's comments above, these comments are very clearly sanctionable under our policies and the consensus of the vast majority of the members of our work community; if "Fuck you and you better hope I don't find you on the street someday" is not a violation of WP:CIVILITY, I can't fathom what comment would be, and why we'd even bother to have a civility policy to begin with. Surely even the editor who made such a comment would, if competent, recognize the inappropriateness of such threats and invectives--hopefully before they hit the edit button, but certainly at least once they have calmed down. If an editor can't even own up to such issues after the fact, there's an WP:IDHT and basic WP:CIR issue that will have to be addressed by the community eventually.

The reason it takes so long at present is two-fold: 1) the massive differential between what is tolerated (with little to no consequence) of long-term contributors and what would get a new editor immediately indeffed, as GMG notes, and 2) the fact that this single noticeboard responds to the majority of complaints about such behaviour, and there is a collective of editors here who have more or less set-up camp to push back against any efforts to contain such temper-tantrums--not because they are actively colluding to cover eachother's back, but just because they share an ideological belief that they should always be able to react to a situation and "call at as they see it", and as their perspective and emotional state inclines them, without any restrictions on their comments whatsoever. These editors steadfastly refuse to internalize any piece of WP:NOTFREESPEECH and decry any effort to reign in editors with a similar perspective and predilections as 'bureaucratic nonsense' or 'hand wringing by easily upset editors'. "But that guy really was a fucking asshole, so it's perfectly ok to call him that, whatever WP:NPA says" they insist, or: "When I say that I'm going to find somebody and make them regret what they have said, nobody really believes its a real threat!"

These sentiments are not just in conflict with the explicit directions of policy and community consensus, they demonstrate a kind of willful ignorance of the inexhaustible number of reasons that such comments corrode our established processes, undermine the work we are here to do (and make the work that does get done so much more onerous for everyone involved), drive experienced contributors off the project and discourage new ones from taking their place (contributing to an editor retention problem that has grown to an outright existential threat to our whole endeavor), create liability for the project, and frankly just debase our reputation for maturity and reliability, embarrassing the rest of us with their lack of self-control. That's to mention just a few of the possible consequences that take place on project; one only needs to look at the headlines in the news this week to see the broader consequences of what happens when unchecked hostility becomes a part of public discourse for too long.

Most of the (very small, but very vocal) minority who leap to excuse such comments every time they appear here (provided they come from the "right" people) come from others who are recognizably the same hotheads who have been the subject of a similar thread recently and probably will be again some time soon (though good luck convincing them there is a connection between their own propensity for being brought here themselves and their perspective on WP:NOTFREESPEECH/WP:NPA when defending others here). However, even for that hypothetical editor who just objects to any checks on violent or angry rhetoric on-project for purely philosophical reasons because "the greater good" demands unrestricted ability to speak ones mind, I would say the following: I respect your belief and believe there is some merit in it, but you're either going to have to temper that absolutist perspective in order to conform with the standards adopted by this community, or find somewhere else to volunteer your time, because we decided a long time ago (and most editors in good standing here continue to feel) that there must be limits in this work environment."

And this is a work environment, make no mistake, even if we are all here as volunteers; this isn't just us getting together with some chums for a hobby, and there's more at stake than our individual rights to blow off steam and tell others what we really think of them. And I highly doubt that most of our editors can get away with telling their co-workers in their professional life that they are going to come after them if given the opportunity. Frankly, if you're someone making those particular kinds of comments to anyone, anywhere, at any time, I hope you pay a consequence for it. It never helps a situation, whether at work, on the street, on facebook, or on Misplaced Pages; it only adds vitriol into the world. In any event, this community has rules, and we've been doing a bad job in recent years of holding editors to those standards (and applying those standards equitably to all members of the community). In particular, any threat of violence (whether conditional on finding that person first or not) ought to be grounds for an immediate block, and indef if it happens more than once. Any other course of action is infeasible and unsustainable for this project. Snow 00:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup. --Jayron32 12:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Can we close this? This is stupid. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Urge admins to issue a sanction regarding MPants at work making these threats of physical violence. Even if rather ridiculous, threats of violence should never be condoned and must be sanctioned. Considering MPants at work seems justified and/or fails to agree that their comments are unacceptable, the only option I see is a 72 hour block. If it happens again I urge an indefinite block.--MONGO (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Your comment brought my attention back to the threats of violence as I forgot about those when I made my original comment.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think MPant's behavior should be looked at. This way of communication is unhelpful whatever the personal failings of the other parties. I also think it's draconian to suggest WP:BOOMERANG on Pudeo given what they've shown that this is long-standing behavior (some of these diffs are from September and clearly shows this isn't exclusive to the MPants/Obsidi thing). Don't get me wrong, I'm clueless to the whole MPants/Obsidi thing (I haven't read anything above this but that's already actioned no need to delve further into that), but we shouldn't excuse these comments just because the other side is disruptive as it doesn't accomplish anything but create a more hostile editing environment (the same can be accomplished by acting reasonably when dealing when disruptive editors and is the best way to show the other side is being disruptive). Given that MPants continues to be 'justified' in their behavior, I'd fully support sanctions against MPants as well.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Since this got unclosed, I just want to say that Snow's rant above is ignorant, arrogant and chock full of lies and personal attacks against not just me, but against a number of other editors. If someone wants to give me shit for incivility, that's fine, but don't sit here and engage in outright hypocrisy over it. You've got an editor engaging in blatant incivility, relying on their status with the community to excuse them, all in the service of complaining about an editor whose status with the community excuses incivility.

The claim that I ever threatened to track anyone down is complete bullshit. Complete bullshit. I never said anything of the sort, and Snow is lying when they say that I did.

Snow also apparently lied about the nature of the comment: claiming in the edit summary that they edit conflicted with the close, except that the close was more than an hour before the edit was posted. So Snow decided to add to a closed discussion, knowing I couldn't respond without re-opening it.

The claim that "there's an WP:IDHT and basic WP:CIR issue that will have to be addressed by the community" is a petty, immature personal attack. Claiming that I refuse to listen is pure willful ignorance (I responded to GMG's post on his talk page after this section was close, agreeing with most of what he said), and the CIR thing is just juvenile.

The claim that my behavior is only (and by implication, always) excused by a circle of friends is just as empty. Me and softlavender have almost always disagreed at ANI. Not always, but most of the time. Me and Bellezzasolo have never interacted before. Me and Granpallama have had a single conversation, and GMG is the closest thing to a friend I have in this thread, yet he told me to cool my jets. I think Tarage and Hijiri are the only editors I have a good relationship with who said anything in support of me.

The rest of the comment is just more of the same. Empty rhetoric, assumptions that Snow knows my own mind better than I do, and bald-faced dishonesty. Tarage has hit the nail on the head, but then, that should have been recognizable to anyone as soon as someone showed up to call me names right after this was brought up.

For those of you interested: This is the kind of bullshit that gets me salty. I've been dealing with petty, immature lies about me for the past few months, and you actually act shocked that I respond without a filter from time to time?

The one thing, above all else, that I can't stand is petty, pointless drama. And that's exactly what this whole thread is, from Obsidi's first report to Pudeo's (who's got no dog in this fight except his political views, surprise surprise) cherry picked diffs. So if ya'll want me to calm down, this dumb thread is decidedly NOT the way to do it. I mean, Jesus H. Christ, do you really think you can insult, lie about, and needle someone into being more polite? That's just phenomenally ignorant. I already told GMG I'd work on being more chill with the bullshit pushers. Continuing this stupid thread is pretty much the definition of "counter-productive". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Where did Snow say MjolnirPants 'ever threatened to track anyone down'. The closest I can see is '"Fuck you and you better hope I don't find you on the street someday"' and 'And I highly doubt that most of our editors can get away with telling their co-workers in their professional life that they are going to come after them if given the opportunity' and 'any threat of violence (whether conditional on finding that person first or not) ought to be grounds for an immediate block' which aren't the same thing. Is there some other post by Snow I'm missing or has Snow's post been modified? Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You just answered your own question. If you don't see it, then I'm not going to debate you on it because you're intentionally not seeing it, so there's no point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• As everyone ought to pretty much know by now, admins aren't too keen on blocking people for dropping f-bombs, even very long clusters of them, and if racism and antisemitism are things that get you riled up then congratulations, you're not an asshole. Going back and forth about it is pointless drama. But that being said, MPants at work, this ("pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person") is a direct threat of violence, and I don't care about context or emotion or whatever else, or whether or not you think you intended it to be read this way, if I see you write something like this again I will block you, and it will be for a good long time. There is no reason to write threats like this on Misplaced Pages. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Since someone brought it up: no, I'm not going to block now for a comment that was written more than a month ago. But don't do it again. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

...There is no reason to write threats like this on Misplaced Pages. Fair enough, but as I said before: this was directed at a hypothetical (not real) editor who disagrees with the statement "The Holocaust was a Really Bad Thing that We Should Never Do Again". I'll keep it to myself from now on, but I stand by that statement 100%. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't stand by it. You should retract it and admit that you were wrong. There are real editors who disagree with the statement "The Holocaust was a Really Bad Thing that We Should Never Do Again". They are racist idiots, but threatening them with "pray to whatever deity you worship that we never meet in person" just plays into their hands. This is the result of advocating violence to promote political goals. Please take it back and go back to ridiculing the racist idiots rather than threatening them. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm never going to apologize for harboring a perfectly rational hated of out-and-out nazis. I can do "turn down the aggresiveness a notch or two", and even "keep that extent of your opinion of nazis to yourself", but I will never think it's a bad thing that I would rather cold-cock a nazi than debate one. Not in a million years. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree thank you to Pudeo for filing this. I consider Mpants incivility a serious problem, which was completely ignored above. I have seen it directed at others and at myself. He said, "I don't need to bother reading whatever you have to say, as it's bound to be bullshit." I warned him to stop. His response was "Sure thing. As soon as you stop writing bullshit."

I think it equally outrageous that Obsidi--an editor who had been here since 2007, in good standing, with no prior blocks--was indefinitely blocked less than two hours after he filed a complaint against Mpants. I could not even tell what behavior was so horrible that it could constitute "long-term disruption", and I saw no evidence of repeated warnings. There were also no diffs provided. To me that shows a very serious problem with how this AN/I board functions.

I no longer see editors being given an assumption of good faith. It appears to me that they are being abused with incivility, eliminated for complaining about it--not because they break rules--but because they disagree on content. We need more admins and neutral editors with eyes on this notice board, because this has really gotten out of hand in recent years. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

This is about User:Kintetsubuffalo's behavior using user warnings and his refusal to discuss it.

User:TheWowaDepp's very first contribution to Misplaced Pages was an apparently unconstructive edit to Kyrgyzstan. It wasn't blatant, but it was worthy of a vandalism warning, so I left a level 1 warning on TheWowaDepp's talk page.

Twenty minutes later, a level 4 vandalism user warning appears on TheWowaDepp's talk page. It has no signature. At first, my intention was to add {{unsigned}} to it, but then I see that there have been no further contributions whatsoever from TheWowaDepp since his first. I identified the edit as being from User:Kintetsubuffalo. I reverted it with edit summary "Unsigned, no intervening vandalism." Then I went to Kintetsubuffalo's user talk page to explain. Before I could post, Kintetsubuffalo reverted my reversion with edit summary "don't edit others' comments. vandalism is vandalism" and then made a subsequent edit to post-date and sign the original post.

I left two messages on Kintetsubuffalo's user talk page Each was in turn reverted by Kintetsubuffalo with edit summaries "why belabor this? move on" and "what part of "move on" did you not understand?" .

In the situation in which I encountered Kintetsubuffalo, he posted a level 4 vandalism warning subsequent to mine and with no intervening contribution, and it was unsigned. If done intentionally, this would contravene the behavioral guidelines Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith.

There is the larger issue of Kintetsubuffalo's behavior.

He has done exactly the same thing before. A new user makes an unconstructive edit. An editor (or bot) reverts the edit and leaves a lower level user warning on the user's talk page. Then, with no intervening edits at all by the new user, Kintetsubuffalo leaves a level 4 vandalism warning. He doesn't sign it. This has the obvious effect of stepping on the editor actually addressing the vandalism, and unjustifiably warning the vandalizing user again when there is no cause to do so. An editor assessing whether a block is justified might think one incident is more than one. That the post isn't signed only compounds the confusion.

Kintetsubuffalo also makes a routine of creating user talk pages with {{vandalism4}}. The correct template for giving a user an immediate assumption-of-bad-faith warning that their next edit will result in a block is {{uw-vandalism4im}}, so Kintetsubuffalo is using the wrong template. Also, none of these posts are signed either. Besides that, while there are certainly times when the highest level warning should be given immediately, Kintetsubuffalo hardly ever gives a user warning at a level less than this. It is just not plausible that Kintetsubuffalo is assuming good faith as required by the guidelines.

Regrettably, Kintetsubuffalo refuses to discuss his behavior. Not even that he is forgetting to sign his posts or using the wrong template. The result of Kintetsubuffalo plain refusal to discuss his behavior on his talk page is that we are here instead. --Bsherr (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking that the admins force Kintetsubuffalo to have a conversation with you about all the things you think he has done wrong? Because that's highly unlikely to happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No. --Bsherr (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you want to have happen? --Tarage (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the OP is raising this user's rude and unwelcoming behavior so a wider group can figure out a solution. That seems quite appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted clarification because there was confusion of intent. This is a common question asked on confusing filings is it not? --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac put it quite well. As for corrective edits, I think Kintetsubuffalo's duplicate user warnings should be reverted, and his unsigned posts signed. As for Kintetsubuffalo himself, if the community agrees that there is a problem, I want his behavior to change. As for how that should be compelled, I think that will depend on how Kintetsubuffalo responds, what the community thinks, and what the administrators here agree to be best. I think it's premature to propose anything specific, even though this is not the first time Kintetsubuffalo has been addressed here. --Bsherr (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, if you're looking for specific corrective behavior, in my opinion it would be that Kintetsubuffalo should (1) sign his posts, (2) refrain from giving user warnings for edits for which a warning has already been given, (3) refrain from using {{uw-vandalism4}} as a first warning in contravention of its documentation, (4) have discussions on his user talk page, not in edit summaries and reversions, and (5) follow Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers and Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. --Bsherr (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur with those recommended steps. I handle a lot of spam, vandalism etc while working with AfD. That is more Level 4 warnings posted in a short time than I've used in years of editing. Frankly if someone really deserves a Level 4 vandalism warning, the correct course of action is reporting them for blocking. This pattern of behavior is troubling. I'd like to see this user explain themselves. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. That collection of LV4 warnings is ridiculous. Look at User talk:74.218.186.106 - this user made a test edit, then reverted it. This one is probably a good faith edit. They got Level 4 warnings. Yes, admittedly most of the IPs are vandalising, but unless it's competely egregious we don't go straight to level 4 warnings. That needs to stop. However, given the "instructions" at the top of User talk:Kintetsubuffalo, I'm unconfident we will get an explanation. However, they've been informed of this thread, so we'll see. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment). Either he (Kintetsubuffalo) did not know ~~~~, or he intentionally skip it. I would expect people to response me back when i send the warning, either they response in personal attack, or feeling rude on level 0 warning and ask for clarification. Matthew hk (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, for those level 4 warning. I had fixed some by signing for him, adding {{shared ip advice}} and send welcome (canned) message, but for the rest, as well as if he continuing doing so, WP:BRI? Matthew hk (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note. Kintetsubuffalo has removed the ANI notice from his talkpage with the edit-summary "yawn", and has edited this morning without addressing the issues here. This is what I expected, given their talkpage. The question is, therefore, where do we go from here? Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Meh ban them from issuing vandalism warnings and have done with it. That list provided above is ridiculous. If they want to play the bully online there is always someone with a bigger stick. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that seems to be the best idea. They seem inclined to ignore this complaint, which means they're likely to just continue with this excessive templating.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy

Uncivility and namecalling at Talk:Anthony Bourdain after POV pushing. Edit appears to have a pattern of poor behavior here. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see a week long block, even though it's unrelated to the previous edit warring block, the user clearly has issues with civility as seen by the numerous warning on their talk page. --Tarage (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For someone calling a jerk for them ignoring something they requested of me...? I admittedly lost my cool in a situation where a user wasn't being constructive. Must that warrant a block?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m involved. The pattern isn’t good and the editor clearly has no patience. Generally, I prefer to play out more rope in such situations. If there is a block, make it brief or consider a TBan instead, or just trout him with a warning. Albeit, I foresee a bad ending. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You made a request for another reason to include the quote, which I followed through on. I politely asked for a response, you ignored it and changed the subject to what would happen if I added the quote without consensus. Can't you understand why I lost my cool? You insulted me by not even considering the point I was making!Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t make the complaint and I asked for leniency. We edit based upon WP:CONSENSUS. You were not making headway toward that goal, which I merely pointed out. If you lose your “cool” so easily, perhaps you should edit less controversial articles. I suggest you simply say you will be more polite in future and understand the concept of consensus. Hell, do that, and with the OP’s permission, I’ll close this filing myself. O3000 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

All I wanted was for my point, which, again, YOU requested, to be considered as part of discussion. I was trying to add to the discussion, and just wanted my point to be properly considered by all parties, including and especially you. I do understand the concept of consensus, which is why I wanted my point given its proper credence, and will try to be more conscientious in the future.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You guys do whatever you think is right, I just wanted to report it. Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, from reading the thread on the article talk page, I'm not sure you understand that people can carefully consider your arguments and still disagree. At least if you are arguing that your arguments weren't given proper credence. zchrykng (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, when you call another editor a "jerk!!!", an "obstructionist", and a "WikiZealot", all in one single comment, you are not editing collaboratively and you are motivating scrutiny of your editing patterns. Excessive use of exclamation marks is an obvious problem, but bullying other editors is much worse. Work toward genuine consensus instead. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Serial BLP-violating IP, part 5? (with an account this time)

We've had ongoing problems for months now with an IP user (110.22.50.32) who is obsessed with Australian state-level conservative party powerbroker Marcus Bastiaan and is continually adding BLP-violating rubbish to his article and those of anyone associated with him.

About a month ago, he was blocked for six months by Ymblanter after two shorter blocks failed to get him to stop. He reappeared a week or two later as 49.177.138.206, which was also blocked by Ivanvector for sock evasion. The IP had continued adding bizarre rubbish like this to the articles of anyone vaguely associated with Bastiaan. At this time, the Bastiaan article was long-term semi-protected due to the neverending issues.

Cue user User:Smokeyfire, who has suddenly appeared with exactly the same editing passions and distinctive editing style and odd grammar within articles. He's added claims about Bastiaan branch stacking to his high school article, created an article on a non-notable political candidate seemingly for the purpose of attacking him for having ties to Bastiaan's wife, weird trivia like an MP attending a boring-sounding function in 1999, etc.

Looking at his edit history in further depth, he's actually the original creator of the Bastiaan article, with similar types of edits well before we started noticing the perennial problems with the IP. It seems like this was the original account before the IP edits - it's pretty unlikely that there would be two users with this very niche obsession and same uniquely weird editing style and grammar.

Can this account be blocked as well? It seems like this one never ends. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Usual escalating clearly disruptive behaviour/insults once notified of this discussion too, as occurred most of the other times. (And again.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked them for 2 weeks for personal attacks (they have been blocked for 72h for personal attacks before), as a short-term solution, but we also should think of a long-term solution such as a topic ban or even a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think a site ban is definitely warranted - they're already violating your previous block despite having been blocked once for block evasion already. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel that at this point, another administrator would need to look at this. In any case, either a topic ban or a site ban would require an approval at this noticeboard.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like they've quit. Lugnuts 12:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• The person editing from the account is obviously the same person as is editing from 110.22.50.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at least, probably the others as well, and that makes this block evasion. Block upped to indef. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

User forcing their edits through

jmyrtle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is forcing edits through on the Hot Wheels World Race article, despite being told that their additions are excessive; Their additions are a plot section at 3,500 words, when MOS:PLOT mentions that for feature films, 400-700 is enough, and this is a direct-to-video title. Eik Corell (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

To start, I issued a final warning... But the history of this and related articles suggest that's some socking and block evasion going on. -- ferret (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards