---

oh and that guy was wrong, his link doesn't say it clearly at all, but that isn't why I'm posting this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, but the problem is that you don't see when this was posted in its current layout unless you archive it. https://web.archive.org/web/20150901161859/http://www.wwe.com/inside/industrynews/7706710 Nickag989^talk 20:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the article on the article page. That is not what this report is about. You insulted me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, but not on purpose. :P Nickag989^talk 20:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nickag989 has already been warned several times for this single occurrence, so let's just close this topic and move on. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

problem is that he doesn't accept his actions. "Yes I did, but not on purpose." did he accidentally slip and hit the I key followed by D, I, O and finally T? no respect for others, no respect for rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)That's one problem, yeah. The other is that you've raised the problem here, got a couple admin and adminoid eyeballs on it, got the fellow (quite properly) warned; next time it comes up, all you, or anyone else ,has to do is post a diff to it and a diff to this section at ANI. In the meantime, give the fellow a chance to improve himself, or the rope to hang himself, whatever his druthers. Drop it for now, though. Anmccaff (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a persistent pattern of abusive incivility? If it is, then please provide diffs to establish that. If it isn't then... well... it's not the answer you're looking for, but if you stick around here long enough, you'll realize that most everyone eventually loses their cool over something. I've been called a Nazi, Klan member, ISIS sympathizer... you name it. Can't get your feelings that tied up in it. We're here to build an encyclopedia; we're not here to build a social network of folks who all love each other. TimothyJosephWood 20:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as long as I know what the standards are and what is and isn't acceptable, then I'm sure it's fine. I now know that calling people idiots is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.141.235 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not alright. But we have a longstanding thing here where we don't sanction people as punishment; we only sanction people if it is to prevent damage to the project. If there is a pattern of this kind of behavior, then sanctions will prevent that pattern from continuing. If it was a one time lapse in good judgement, then sanctioning the editor actually hurts the encyclopedia, because it doesn't prevent any imminent harm, and it actively prevents someone from improving it. You and I aren't important, and neither are our hurt feelings. The only thing that's really important is the encyclopedia. TimothyJosephWood 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

124.106.141.235, he already has been warned and has apologized to you. I don't know what more you're hoping for. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was once suspended for 5 days for calling someone an "idiot" just as the OP is complaining about. However, standards have fallen dramatically in the intervening years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You've been blocked more times than I have! EEng 01:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was there no WP:Boomerang discussion here. The horrific insult of "idiot" was preceded by the edit comment of the complainant here of "edgy"? are we 14?. Is it not possible that the IP editor, who has since vanished, and seemed to know far too much process to not be an experienced Wikipedian, was in fact an idiot, and that User:Nickag989 nailed it? Nfitz (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Joefromrandb has been blocked 8 times in less than 5 years, for his continued incivility and continued battleground conduct. And yet, his behavior continues to worsen rather than improving. His hostility and disruptiveness have in my opinion crossed into net negative, and he has reached the point of a WP:CIR block for his inability to work collaboratively with others. I therefore propose an indef block with WP:STANDARDOFFER. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as nominator. Softlavender (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Apart from all that I have already said above, comments like these[16][17] that not only distracts users from discussing content but also misrepresents the position of next editors are a part of WP:BATTLE. Capitals00 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as noted above, I've had my differences with Joe. What has happened here, however, does not warrant an indef block. Lepricavark (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: It seems you haven't checked his recent edit history or seen the other diffs I provided. Anyway, I can provide a few more here. He was blocked for a week for calling people a troll[18], he came off from a 1 week block on 21 June and started calling people a troll again and again,[19][20][21] while violating 3RR.[22][23][24] Capitals00 (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that none of these recent incidents, individually or collectively, rise to the level of an indef block. Lepricavark (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals00, you may want to strike your allegation that I "broke 3RR", because it's demonstrably false. I'll AGF that you just made a mistake, and will strike it out with all due expediency. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you had violated 3RR, I am assuming that you are going by definition of "4 reverts in 24 hours", but edit warring is not limited with that. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the diffs you have provided, he did not violate 3RR. Playing fast and loose with the truth is not going to help you. Lepricavark (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are not basing the proposal on "what has happened here". We are basing it on nearly five years of ever-increasing hostility, warring, incivility, vulgarity, disruption, trolling, vandalism, and a blatant unconcern and disregard for behavioral norms or Wikipedia guidelines/policies, and an apparent attitude that he can do what he likes without consequence. He has clearly crossed into net negative. If you want more evidence, that can be provided. Softlavender (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is the makings of an ArbCom case. You are ignoring the actual (minor) complaint in favor of a death penalty based on matters not in evidence. ArbCom is thattaway... ---> Carrite (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not minor when disruption is long term. Look the entire complaint as well as diffs provided by me and other editors regarding Joe's conduct. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although I'm not sure I have the right, being an 'injured party' and not an administrator. Looking at the pattern of blocks, the majority were in 2013 and only renewed this year. The sarcasm displayed on the user's talk page certainly indicates that a one week ban is not regarded as anything more than a negligible slap on the wrist. However, I'd be inclined to suggest a shorter block as a counterproposal and only proceeding to indef if there is a resumption of such behaviour after that. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I invite everyone to have a look at Talk:The pot calling the kettle black, where this user suggested, among other things, that I "confine myself to the Simple English Wikipedia". My response to him or her was quite restrained. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - block. Reverting the close of a non-administrator ain't a firing offense. Why non-administrators are permitted to close AfDs is a mystery and they are definitely NOT supposed to be closing controversial AfDs. As Joe notes, doing so is a form of supervoting. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't got blocked so many times just for reverting an AFD closure and only once, but instead for WP:CIR issues, it is more than apparent that since after coming off his 24 hour and a one week block last month he is carrying out same conduct on multiple occasions. You can start an RFC on Wikipedia_talk:Closing discussions if you don't agree with the rules of closing discussions. Capitals00 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No ANI complaint is complete without a straw man. I actually DO agree with the rules of closing discussions, hence my opposition to the close. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you had agreed with the rules of closing discussion you would be challenging it on WP:AN rather than edit warring over the close. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Indef is asking too much for fighting against a contentious close. While I don't think the close was completely unreasonable, I agree with Carrite that controversial AFDs should be left to admins, and generally are, which tends to prevent some of these issues. The authority for this is listed [25] here, not on some talk page. That doesn't excuse Joefromrandb behavior, but an admin closer is typically better equipped to deal with problems that arise from controversial closes, via having the tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as well. While I stand by the way I closed the AFD, as weighing the arguments in the AFD this is the consensus I found (and if an admin disagrees with the outcome, I am perfectly happy for them to revert my close - I'm human, and I don't claim to be all-knowing). I didn't think much of the comment of the user who reverted the close and don't think it justifies an indef. While I disagree that purely because I am not an administrator, it makes my closure a supervote, I realise everyone may not see it this way. I saw an old AFD. I reviewed it and found a consensus, and closed it. Some disagree. That's fine by me. I'm not really that active here anymore. But I don't think any blocks are needed. here. Steven Crossin 20:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think his total contribution (as of say the past year) has crossed into net-negative territory. Ethanbas ^(talk) 21:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. See his talk for reasons, yes, over years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjjjdddddd (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - Sorry but indef is IMHO overkill, I also agree with Carrite, Dennis and Gerda - The AFD shouldn't of been closed by a non-admin, That being said I don't agree with how Joe did things (He should've gone to DRV) but all that being said there wasn't any uncivil or snarky remarks and personally I'm not seeing any battleground mentality so blocking as a whole would be rather pointless and this ANI thread as a whole is pointless. –Davey2010^Talk 22:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that Deletion Review is the correct way to address these things; Joe did things incorrectly. Are you getting this, Joe? Carrite (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review? Not WP:DRV but WP:AN, article was not deleted. Capitals00 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the instructions for how Deletion review works before correcting the veteran editor. Lepricavark (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is for deletion discussions and not for those articles that can be accessed through the history by any user, WP:AN is for that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that on WP:DELREV? Maybe it's there, but I don't see it. Lepricavark (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-deleting deletion discussions supports what I am saying. Capitals00 (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. DELREV provides a list of instances in which it can be used. The very first bullet point states the following: if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Lepricavark (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either way this discussion is now irrelevant because a request has been already opened on WP:AN. Capitals00 (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a convenient way to avoid admitting that you are wrong. You've been wrong quite a few times in this thread. Hopefully you have learned something from this experience (i.e. don't make reckless CIR comments, don't accuse someone else of incivility while being uncivil yourself, etc.). Lepricavark (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out? I am not blocked for incivility or warned, that when there are people who have a share of same complaints. Actually what you called an "essay" is representing the usual standard. Find me some requests on WP:DRV that concerned a Afd discussion that resulted in redirect? WP:AN is for that. Capitals00 (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page calls itself an essay. That's not merely my personal opinion. And I'm not going to find anything for you. I'm not sure what your second sentence was supposed to mean, but your claim that I "had a hard time learning English" was certainly more uncivil than Joefromrandb's edit summaries that you were complaining about. Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, now I am. The close clearly ran afoul of both deletion policy and NAC guidelines, but I'll save the details for deletion review. I was reverted at the article in question by User:Razer2115, who suggested "deletion review, reopening the AfD, or ANI". I chose suggestion number-two. It's truly comical how Capitals00 is playing the role of the injured party here, when he or she was at the very least, my counterpart in this edit/revert-war. That's the kind of shit that I truly can't stand. Thank you, Carrite, for explaining this. I learned something here, despite the best efforts of some of the drama-seekers. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is something that you didn't learned just few hours ago from sure user called Razer2115. Without looking at your prior history of disruption, I would say that you are aware too that this is not the only AFD, like other user noted. You had reverted another NAC hardly 2 days ago.[26] You seem to be developing a habit of reverting NACs. Capitals00 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was hard enough to understand your points back when you were still using English. Lepricavark (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you had a hard time learning English. But that's really not what we are discussing here. Capitals00 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. And I suppose you think that was a civil comment. Lepricavark (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Things weren't done as well as they could have been, but even the closer isn't unhappy about being reverted - and I don't think any block is called for here, certainly not an indefinite one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose--Checking his contribs., somehow this user don't like the idea of WP:NAC(albeit, even on RFC's!) but as many have observed, his net contributions are yet to veer into the negative.An indef is thus an over-kill.Winged Blades ^Godric 02:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- per Carrite, above. This is a classic case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut which is hugely perdicable when one bears in mind this particular nominator. I dread to think what Softlavender would've done with the bit, something that they so desperately crave. Cassianto^Talk 09:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- per Zeb, above. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose a severe case of overuse of a sledgehammer here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

First and foremost, before diving into the problem, I would like to say that @Abequinn14: has recommended that we take this situation to the Administrators' noticeboard. [27] Due to user:ContraVentum clear WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior that has currently led him to receive a 48 hour block, in which he violated WP:1RR which is enforced for any articles related to the Syrian Civil War.

Now with that out of the way, the problem began on June 21 at the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article where user:ContraVenum falsely claims that a consensus was reached for WP:QUESTIONABLE sources and information on a Template that he and his friends created to replace the info box which was a clear violation of WP:T3 (An admin had taken down the template for WP:T3 violation) . [28] He then continues his stubborn behavior of not wanting to take this issue to the talk page and reverts my edit [29] claiming that he updated the info box, [30] in order to avoid at that time a WP:1RR. I then go and ask him in one of the edit summaries to lets take this to the Talk Page in order for us to avoid an unnecessary edit war. [31] In which, an administrator monitoring the situation increases the page protection to only administrator use for the next 7 days. [32] Which was perfect for us to hash out this issue, but he was no where to be found during that timespan. An as soon as the 7 days administrator protection wore off he goes and does three reverts in a span of 24 hours [33] [34] [35]. During that time he starts a new topic of discussion calling it (CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything) which was a clear personal attack in order to tarnish my good name. Even though he did all of this I participated in the discussion and debate until he clearly started to belittle, and degrade me as a person.[36] [37] I went and reported his behavior and clear violation of WP:1RR to user:Bbb23 in which he agreed that it was deserving of a block for 48 hours. [38] An now in this span of his 48 hour block another administrator has already acknowledged that the title of the topic of discussion he created (CC22, please account for your dishonest statement before reverting anything) was a clear personal attack against me and had nothing to do with the topic of discussion and changes the title too (Usability of sources like criticalthreats.org) . [39] Now, I'm hoping as his block ends that he can be blocked from editing indefinitely from this topic as he as not provided anything better or beneficial to the article and for the last month he has vandalized the info box with biased inaccurate sources and has shown no effort in cooperating with other editors. Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skip your personal attacks on me and get to the core issue / the actual dispute in this long edit war. The matter is that Chilicheese22 has been mass deleting reliable sources, essentially reducing the article from this version [40] to this version [41], i.e. among other things most drastically deleting a whole separate warring faction in the infobox, even though summarizing the reliable sources would require having to list said faction. There even exists a separate article with references itself about the Southern Transitional Council, which CC22 is very insisting on removing from the infobox. I have never got an actual rational explanation from CC22 about what is wrong with the sources used, for instance sources such as criticalthreats.org and alaraby.co.uk, and yes, even The Guardian. The furthest I've come with him in getting an actual explanation is him stating that all sources "are at best WP:QUESTIONABLE". Then I try to make him account for why the sources are as bad as he claims them to be (see talk here), but I'm met with a slurry of ad hominem and guilt by association argumentation, meanwhile CC22 never actually makes a rationale for every single source he has deleted (see the talk again). This is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and obstructing the consensus process by CC22 repeatedly reverting every insert that I do, never substantiating his actions, and laying the burden of accounting for the use of every WP:RS onto me, in order to evade explaining rationally what is his problem with stated sources. CC22, you could as well delete 100% of the article and then ask me to type a full rationale for every single one of the 319 refs of the article as to permit using them - but of course Wikipedia doesn't work this way. You must account for your drastical deletions to the article.

So, for the admins reading this, please consider the mass deletions in the article. Essentially, I'm annoyed that Chilicheese22 is doing these deletions, while never offering an actual explanation of why every source is bad as he claims them all to be. If CC22 is unable to account for his claims, I want CC22 to stop the deletions, and if he does not, I would like sanctions placed onto him. These are my wishes. --ContraVentum (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I thought you choose not to comment on what I said because all I have stated were the facts and the truth. I have no idea what you were reading, but I was not attacking you, simply explaining your deceiving actions. Now as for your WP:QUESTIONABLE sources, how about you tell the actual truth, you were adding sources like worldbulletin.net to add belligerents onto the info box which made politically and militarily no sense. An if you bothered to read my comments on the talk page I clearly took apart your argument. [42] [43] (i.e. Eritrea supporting the Houthis when it has a military base to train UAE backed forces in Yemen [44]) Which if you bothered to read the link from an actual reliable sources that I placed clearly contradicts your "theory" of Eritrea supporting the Houthis. Now as for the Southern Transitional Council you continue to be deceiving and making it seem like this is a complete new faction that has just entered the war in Yemen. When in reality it has always been the Southern Movement which has been a KEY Hadi ally in Yemen. Not only that, but you go as far as putting it in a new belligerent section as if it controls land when all the real evidence you need is its not a reflection of the Yemeni Civil War map. An if you bothered to look at the Map there are only three sides in the war ( Houthi & Allies, Hadi & Allies, & AQAP). Furthermore, you make it seem like that you are the one that had brought these sources when in reality you are trying to use sources that are currently there in order to add this new section. An that's what you have failed to explain, it has nothing to do with the 319 references in the article. That's why I am asking for you to give an explanation and if you can't I am asking for you to be banned from editing this topic, as you have vandalized and disruptively edited this page. Chilicheese22 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Abequinn14 (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I asked you Chilicheese22 now and have been asking you 1000 times... why should criticalthreats.org, alaraby.co.uk, the Guardian etc. be deleted? I'm simply summarizing those sources, period. Regardless of what you believe I might have of "agendas". By your massive deletions in the infobox, you're denying the existence of the 1) Southern Transitional Council, 2) the al-Hizam Brigade, 3) the Hadhrami Elite Forces, 4) the recent split between Southern Movement and Hadi government, 5) the existence of the Hadramout Tribal Council, 6) the support of the Hadi Government by 6a) Egypt, 6b) Somalia, 6c) Djibouti and 6d) Eritrea, and 7) the support of the STC by UAE. This is all well-sourced information. CARE to elaborate on a reasonable motive of such deletions?? No you don't. Instead you're filling me and everybody else with horseshit in diarrhoea-mode. It's ridiculous you're wasting my time arguing endlessly about this. I convince myself that you must be taking the piss on me, dragging me through long-standing edit wars and now the immense Wikipedia bureaucracy in my attempts to save the article from your damaging actions. So you can just keep the article brutalized by your erasures, a shame for the Yemeni Civil War article but I don't have further desire to discuss with complete morons in order to make consensus/compromises. --ContraVentum (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For admins: Please close this thread. I've got no intentions to further discuss this topic, nor contribute to articles regarding Yemen topics. So a kind of self-imposed topic ban. If this is the kind of trash people one has to deal with, then this is not a place for me. Chilicheese22 can keep his way, and everybody will be happy, yay.. --ContraVentum (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you clearly live in your own little world and refuse to read my comments I've bolded the important stuff since I know your such a "busy person" and "I don't want to waste your time". Anyways, if for once your a man of your word then I call on a admin @Abequinn14: @EdJohnston: to implement a topic ban on you, since it won't make any difference because you already said, and I quote "I've got no intentions to further discuss this topic,contribute to articles regarding Yemen topics. So a kind of self-imposed topic ban." Furthermore, you don't have the best of records for keeping your word and this isn't your first time having a meltdown and disappearing for a couple of weeks before returning in order to avoid sanctions. As you can see this was another meltdown you had a couple months back and returned a few weeks later. [45] Chilicheese22 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wew, what do you know of keeping promises? You're honorless scum. Talk to my hand. Yours sincerely, --ContraVentum (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4FamibkUH4 --ContraVentum (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:::: Also I am calling for an indefinite block and sanctions to be placed on User:contravenum until he apologizes for calling me "a trash human" "an absolute degenerate" and "a piece of filth" on my Talk Page [46] Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

good boy. nice that WP has a model pupil like you. I mean, how would WP survive without your divine contributions?!? --ContraVentum (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:ContraVentum 48 hours for personal attacks for 'trash human' and 'piece of filth'. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this account (User:ContraVentum) just does not much more than just harass. It's just a troll, just rebutting his useless edits with harassment. An indef block is needed. Abequinn14 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abequinn14: Totally agree, couldn't have said better myself and he is just adding more evidence against himself through his talk page. Anyone that opposes should just go and check his talk page [47]. Honestly he is continuing to expose himself Chilicheese22 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please do not do anything to encourage accusations of WP:ADMINSHOP, Chilicheese22- edits like [48], [49], and [50] step close to it, to say the least. At least while this discussion is in progress. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 15:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Ok, I have one question how is this [51] WP:ADMINSHOP when I was just asking a question. An the other two I apologize for (Even though this one was more of me questioning the length of the block [52] I apologize for this one if any offence was takin) as you could see it was in the heat of the moment when I was being insulted. Chilicheese22 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Please do not do anything to encourage accusations' is the point. — fortunavelut luna 15:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Understood and appreciate that. Chilicheese22 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'If any admin @Black Kite: @EEng: @Boing! said Zebedee: can take a look at the situation that has transpired and look at the rant that User ContraVentum had posted in his talk page (already deleted it, please check edit history of the talk page [53]) and give your opinion on the proposal down below as there is clear support for an indefinite block against this editor, who has done nothing, but vandalize the article, show the inability to work with others, and disrespect other editors who have differing opinions from him'.' Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: indef block & Topic Ban

ContraVenum (This includes his other account 176.23.1.95 admits this is his account here [54]) has shown the inability to work with others and has shown his true colors when not being able to reach a consensus with people that defer with his opinion. He has received his second 48 hour block in a week and I am proposing that he receives an indefinite block until he can prove to us that he has changed, by apologizing to me for his derogatory terms and promising that when adding large amounts of information he will take it first to the talk page. Also, since he has proved that has not done anything beneficial to articles related to the Syrian Civil War (i.e. Yemeni Civil War) he can never be allowed to edit them.

• Support, as nominator. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, it should prevent his useless edits. Abequinn14 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support block, not TBAN Agreeing with Hijiri 88. Abequinn14 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Way too extreme for a single uncivil remark. I haven't read the above (multiple!) walls of text, and I doubt any admins will, but I did see the bit about how this indef block proposal was made specifically because CV is refusing to apologize for calling the OP "a trash human". Present evidence of long-term disruption, in a form people are likely to read, or present a more reasonable proposal. Making a single WP:DICK comment normally results in a short block, which User:EdJohnston had already administered before Abequinn's !vote above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition withdrawn If LP is one of the honorless scum, then I can guess I probably would be too. I still have no intention of reading the above wall of bold text, so I don't know whether I want to explicitly support either of these proposals, but I will point out that a TBAN is redundant if an indef block is also in place, assuming he is blocked for the same behaviour that led to the TBAN. Yes, bans are harder to repeal than blocks, but he wouldn't be unblocked unless he convinced an admin that the disruption would not continue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one would never think of you as "honorless scum" but does "Absolutely degenerate" fit? (just kidding of course) Credit for insult creativity... but ya, he ain't here to build anything useful. The TBAN would only apply if he gets the block lifted, which seems unlikely. Legacypac (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been compared to Hitler because my view of the Book of Genesis is more in-line with that of the Jewish Publication Society and Christine Hayes than that of some Christians in the American Deep South. And I'm pretty sure some bona fide neo-Nazis have called me "degenerate scum" before. (I helped crack some Nazi dog-whistle codes back during the upsurge in fascism on English Wikipedia last fall, and it wouldn't surprise me if they talked about me that way on their off-wiki fora.) A lot of the time people just seem to be building on standard epithets rather than coming up with anything new, honestly. I mean, the same user who compared me to Hitler has also called me a bunch of homophobic epithets, but you would think with their obsession with sex they could come up with something more interesting than "fag". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as one of the "honorless scum" Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Reading through the editor's rant on his talk page was enough for me to conclude they are not here to build an encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - After reading through the same rant that TheGracefulSlick read, I can conclude that they aren't here to build the encyclopedia. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 22:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block, not redundant/pointless TBAN I too have now read the rant referred to above (permalink) and agree with the above assessments. I would say, though, that NOTHERE users don't need to be TBANned; that would just clog up the logs at WP:RESTRICT. In the event that he apologizes and is given the WP:OFFER, then a ban can be proposed as part of the terms of said offer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

On 2 February 2017, Tenebrae and I were advised to "avoid each other".

Since then, I am the one who has respected this advice. The same cannot be said of him:

• On February 21, 2017: he changed my edits.
• On February 22, 2017: he reverted my edits.
• On March 11, 2017: he replied to my comment in the article's talk page. (I did not respond.)

On April 6, 2017, Tenebrae was reminded by another editor of the ANI advice and warned about staying away from me.

• The latest: on July 4, 2017, Tenebrae changed edits made by me in article's section: Controversy. Including the un-linking of WP pages.

There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia to edit. My edits can be avoided by Tenebrae. I know there are some who will interpret the ANI advice as merely a "suggestion" and dismiss my bringing attention to this situation as "she doesn't like this editor" ... and ignore the bigger picture, which is: what's the point of advising two editors to stay away from each other if one of them doesn't? The ANI advice ends with: "the best way forward...and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone."

I am asking Admins to walk the talk. I am asking for the ANI advice to be enforced. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the following:

• On February 22, 2017: he left me a message on the article's Talk page @ 03:24 about an editing preference not found in MOS:FILM. (I did not respond.)
• On February 22, 2017: he undid my edit in MOSFILM ... which he then self-reverted @ 04:18,.
• On March 11, 2017: he changed content back to the edit made by an IP-only editor that I had reverted.

And of greater significance:

• On 23 February 2017: he filed a false-accusation ANI against me.

Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is hounded, it has been me by Pyxis Solitary, who has taken me to ANI before and been told they had no case, that I was doing nothing wrong, and that in fact they were in the wrong. Their hysterically hyperbolic claims include saying "*Tenebrae changed edits made by me in article's section: Controversy. Including the un-linking of WP pages" when — and please, go see that edit for yourself — the bulk of the edits were un-italicizing company names like Twitch Film, WXVU, Collider.com, Townsquare Media, Showbiz411, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and others that are plain and simple not italicized ... see their very Wikipedia articles, bluelinked here. I hate to say this, but I think WP:BOOMERANG is called for when they and Softlavender deliberately introduce grammatical errors into an article. And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??--Tenebrae (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those reading this ^ comment for the first time: it was reposted below, near end of the thread. You'll find my response there. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose topic ban on Tenebrae from the article Carol (film). This is clear stalking and harassment, which began 6 months ago. Tenebrae, stay away from Pyxis Solitary or you will be hit with a one-way IBan or worse. Softlavender (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) Needs more evidence, preliminarily opposed to TBAN That "advice" was issued in a non-admin, heavily-INVOLVED closure by a user who was themselves no doubt partly responsible for there being "no consensus [...] and the only activity in the thread for a week [being a non-constructive two-way back-and-forth]", since they have a somewhat notorious penchant for TLDR walls of text, which in your case appears to have (inadvertently) filibustered the discussion. Such advice is not enforceable on its face, and if there has been hounding going on for the intervening five months the evidence above is extremely meager.

Softlavender's proposed TBAN would miss the point anyway, because, if the problem is "hounding" rather than a content-based dispute (during which, again, the last ANI thread didn't reach a consensus on whether one or the other had violated any policies), the hounding would just continue on a different article. If Tenebrae is right on the substance, then if anyone should be TBANned it is not them. I don't know if they are right or wrong, as I haven't checked, but Pyxis Solitary hasn't said anything on that one way or the other, just saying that Tenebrae has violated non-binding advice issued by someone who probably shouldn't be issuing that kind of advice given their own history of involvement in cases that definitrly did involve hounding.

Now, if hounding, however slow-motion, has been going on and can be demonstrated, and Tenebrae's edits can't be justified based on some policy or guideline, then an IBAN might be a reasonable solution.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae has been harassing Pyxis Solitary on the article Carol (film), making up his own "rules" and insisting an inexperienced newbie abide by the non-existent rules, since six months ago; that is demonstrable. The fact that he continued to do that despite the well-reasoned advice and close of that ANI, and continued doing so just now, is proof that he is continuing to harass Pyxis Solitary for no good reason. Since the harassment has been confined to that article, a TBan on that article is the simplest solution which will cause the least sanctioning of the offender at present. Softlavender (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Hijiri, your snipe "given their own history of involvement in cases that definitrly did involve hounding" is clearly involved on your part (your quarrels with the party in question), so if anyone should recuse or should have recused themselves anywhere, it's you, here. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's nothing wrong with commenting on an issue in which one has a personal bias. The only reason I didn't declare mine up-front was because I felt it was obvious -- the majority of his comments on the ANI archive Pyxis Solitary linked were actually about me, although you need to un-collapse for them to be searchable. The problem is making involved closures. But I don't even see that as a problem in and of itself (a lot of editors disagree with me here). I just don't think advice issued by an involved editor in their non-admin closure can be held as binding. (Yes, one can read bias based on personal experience with a unilateral piece of advice by an admin being taken as a binding editing restriction there as well, if you want.)

^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say Tenebrae has been harassing Pyxis on that one article and should be TBANned (PBANned?). But I don't see any evidence of that. I see two edits that show a disagreement over whether something should be italicized and a talk page comment about the use of the phrase "make love" in the plot summary of a film. Again, I have my own strong opinions on film plot summaries and could go into how both editors are wrong but Tenebrae is "less wrong", but that's beside the point. They are not subject to an IBAN, so none of these edits are violations in themselves. If you want to propose an IBAN, fire ahead.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no involvement here, in any way, shape or form. I had no involvement with the article or dispute in question and had never so much as seen the name of either editor before that ANI thread. I believe that even a casual reflection of that thread by literally any member of the Wikipedia community (other than you, Hijiri) will demonstrate that the entirety of my involvement in that discussion was as a manifestly uninvolved third party community member making every good faith effort possible to get the two parties to reconcile the matter amicably, or at least turn down the heat a little bit (neither was capable of even briefly discussing the other without recourse to inflammatory descriptions of the other's conduct and motives, and this went on for quite some time). For two weeks, the thread languished on ANI and almost not a single comment by anyone but the two parties slinging accusations, with me occasionally attempting to find some common understanding between them and encouraging them to try an RfC, arbitration, or some other community resolution process to the content dispute, since it was clear that no one in this forum saw behaviour that they were prepared to act upon.

After almost a week without any movement on anything, both parties asked for the discussion to be closed and though I knew they were destined to come to a loggerheads again before too long, there was clearly nothing more to be done at ANI at that time and I obliged. Even then, I only acted after a week because no one else had closed the discussion and the only activity keeping it from getting auto-archived by the bot was one editor or the other trading a barb every other day, until both asked for a close (but then continued to bicker over who was actually asking for it...) Here, for the record, is the entirety of my comments in the close (which I marked it as a non-admin closure):

"At the behest of both parties, I am closing this. There has been no consensus as to whether canvassing took place and the only activity in the thread for a week has been the two parties trading broadsides as to who has more failed to assume good faith on the part of the other (which, if I am to be frank, makes both look something less than self-aware). Regardless, there seems to be no administrative purpose for keeping the thread open longer, especially in light of the fact that it is just encouraging both to entrench further.

I have previously offered to administer an RfC on the content issue as a neutral third party and that offer stands. Said RfC will be broadly promoted in appropriate community spaces by me, to attempt a large turn-out to offset any lingering canvassing concerns and to keep as much of a buffer between Tenebrae and Pyxis Solitary as may be managed as the issue is debated. Both parties are advised to do their best to avoid eachother and, if they absolutely must communicate, to keep their commentary focused on the content issue, to avoid talking about eachother, and to be scrupulously civil. This is the best way forward, I feel, and maybe the only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone."

Pretty neutral and uninvolved, I'd say. I didn't (and do not) favour either party to this dispute (I think both departed early from AGF in their difference of opinion and neither made much of an effort to find their way to to it at any point that I saw). My advice in the close was plainly just that: the best advice I felt I could give the parties moving forward, and I don't see any flaw in it; I advised them to avail themselves of our dispute resolution processes and (failing their doing that), I advised that they avoid eachother or at least kept their comments focused on the content/policy issues and to avoid speculating on eachother's motives. I certainly never phrased my comments as anything but advice, and I believe it would take a very inexperienced editor to see them as anything more binding than that.

Any and all of these details are easily verifiable by way of a read of that short thread, for anyone who wants to weigh the veracity of Hijiri's accusation here. Hijiri, if you think this constitutes WP:involved behaviour, you need to actually read that document, because this kind of work (coming in as a third party who has no previous experience with the dispute or the parties involved and trying to get them to focus on resolving the content dispute instead of lobbing accusations) is at the exact opposite end of the spectrum from "involved" conduct. Your ill-will towards me because I have in the past criticized your own conduct in a way you thought was unfair does not constitute free license to completely fabricate an accusation of misconduct against me which is without merit or sense. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, by "involved" I meant in the Wikipedia sense where your closes are not binding decisions because you had already commented extensively in the thread. I didn't mean yo were involved in the dispute prior to the thread. As for your other attacks on me, I'm not going to respond to them except to note that I have read them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have the first notion of what that term means "in the Wikipedia sense", nor the kind of conduct the policy is meant to safeguard against. A contributor is INVOLVED when they have been a party to a particular dispute, have a strong association with one of the parties or have worked closely in the topic area. Sometimes, if an editor has been particularly zealous in their expressed opinions to the subject matter of a thread, they may be involved. Basically, if there is any reason to believe you have a conflict of interest in the close, you're involved; otherwise, not. You're the only one who seems to think I for some reason was not neutral in that close, but your argument basically comes down to "I don't have a high opinion of them", which is why your accusations (as usual) are getting zero support. No other editor but you could have looked at that close and saw it as non-neutral and problematic: I'm confident that statement will hold up for anyone here who reviews it. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main point of such advice is surely the hope that editors it's directed at will take it on board and we won't have to implement any formal sanction. However as advice, it's clearly not binding so it can't be violated as such. This doesn't mean it's impossible to sanction someone partly as a result of advice. Harassment is a problem and it's possible someone could be sanctioned for it in some way, and any advice offered beforehand is likely to be considered when the community (or in those cases where it applies, an admin) considers sanctions to protect wikipedia, if they find there has been harassment. In this particular case, I don't think a block or community ban is likely. A formal iban could be considered, but I'd suggest you need more evidence. In particular, has there been anything else since March to now? Because if there's only this one edit involving you from then until now it sort of looks like Tenebrae belatedly got the message with only minor slipup. I'm reluctant to even call it that, since a single edit challenging you, if the edit was good, after about 4 months is IMO not necessarily a problem when there is no formal iban. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what kind of situation merits enforcing an ANI advice for an editor to keep a distance? Does a noncompliance need to happen every month? Every-other-month? Is doing it periodically acceptable? Is it not enough that two editors are told to stay away from each other ... in an ANI closure ... but one of them doesn't? The word "avoid" means "keep away from, stay away from, steer clear of, refrain from". Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: Exactly what kind of situation merits enforcing an ANI advice for an editor to keep a distance? It depends what kind of enforcement you want. Technically, for the reasons I outlined above (non-admin, involved closure, explicitly stated as non-binding advice), the advice cannot be "enforced" to begin with, but assuming you want to propose some kind of new sanction, and use the fact that one user had earlier advised Tenebrae to step away as one piece of evidence, you have the following options:

• If you want a mutual interaction ban, then you need to either get the Tenebrae's consent for a mutually voluntary ban (which is sometimes the easiest path if neither of you like each other and you would both rather build an encyclopedia) or demonstrate a pattern of harassment that has no reasonable policy basis. Whether or not you think your edits that Tenebrae reverted or challenged were good, Tenebrae did cite apparently rational, non-"I don't like you" reasons for doing so in all the diffs you linked above, so you have not demonstrated a pattern of harassment as of yet.
• If you want a one-way interaction ban ... well, I will tell you that the burden of proof would be much higher and you would probably not get what you want even with a tremendous amount of evidence of a long-term, consistent pattern of stalking. I have never seen a one-way IBAN imposed off the bat, and this recent discussion should tell you what the likely outcome would be.
• If you want a page ban or topic ban for Tenebrae, you need to demonstrate that their edits were unambiguously disruptive and/or were only made to get under your skin. Again, I've looked at the diffs above and that does not appear to be the case: if you think MOS:FILM or some such disagrees with his edits regarding italics, you should prove it, and his arguments against the use of the phrase "make love" in place of "have sex" seem fairly reasonable. Note that if you propose a PBAN or TBAN against someone based on their being consistently wrong on article content, and the evidence actually suggests you are the one who is wrong, you open yourself up to yourself being sanctioned instead. I am not saying I think you should be sanctioned (I honestly have no idea); I am just pointing this out as a caution.
• If you want Tenebrae to be blocked, the same criteria for immediately above apply, although I will tell you that editors normally aren't blocked solely for being wrong on content issues. You would need to demonstrate that Tenebrae was deliberately making up "rules" solely to harass you, that he violated our BLP policy, or some other serious issue like that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Hijiri's behavior in this ANI regarding other editors (and his history in other ANIs) ... can this ANI please be addressed by WP Administrators?
Either a directive in an ANI closure has validity ... or it doesn't. Admins accepted the closure of the ANI by a non-Admin and the issuance of advice to both parties to avoid each other, with a warning that it was the "only option that doesn't end in a sanction for someone". If this advice was inherently meaningless, then what was the rationale for permitting it to be made? I don't have any articles Tenebrae edits on my watchlist. I don't go out of my way to undo or tinker with Tenebrae's edits. I don't respond to his comments directed at me (regardless of how he interprets my non-response). Unless something is done now, this will continue to become a lose-lose situation for me — the only one of the two parties that took the ANI advice seriously. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: You should strike your first sentence. It is an off-topic personal attack, and I have seen people get blocked for less. I offered you good, helpful advice, and you spit in my face like this? At the very best, you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I tried to explain to Pyxis, politely, why her behaviour in this and another thread was inappropriate and could be viewed as canvassing, and she essentially told me to eff off. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may jump in, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with asking for admin eyes on this, or with saying why one is doing so. The comment criticizes your actions, not your person, and is therefore not PA. "Extremely uncivil"? Please. Not by any interpretation I've seen on this site. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: As I said above (At the very best, you are behaving in an extremely uncivil manner), it's open to interpretation whether the above remark is a personal attack or just a WP:CIVIL violation. The former view is in line with the definition at WP:WIAPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence [are a form of personal attack that is never acceptable]. Saying that I have behaved poorly in some unspecified other ANI threads (when I had never interacted with Pyxis before yesterday) or even in this thread (when all I did was point out that Pyxis has apparently misunderstood that "advice" is not a binding sanction and that she had not provided any evidence of Tenebrae engaging in anything more disruptive than disagreeing with her over a style issue and the wording of a plot summary) is not appropriate. Asking for admin attention is fine, but she should first give some sort of evidence of disruption. ANI is not for hashing out content disputes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, asking for admin attention on the administrator's noticeboard is fine, period. No reason should be required, and perhaps they were in error for giving one, I don't know. If so, it's a minor distraction from the main issue of this thread. The user's reasonable question, If this advice was inherently meaningless, then what was the rationale for permitting it to be made? was not addressed, and instead you seized on a perceived slight, interpreted it in the most negative light possible, and blew it out of proportion. Nobody has spit in your face in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My god this thread is like a black hole of drama. It keeps sucking new people in to cause more drama than before. Can I suggest that this be closed because absolutely nothing good is coming from it? --Tarage (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose closure without admin attention to the OP's questions, which appear (to me) to be made in good faith. If "nothing good is coming from it," maybe that's because that attention has not yet been forthcoming. If an admin considers the OP's position and deems it without merit, that's as much due process as the OP should expect; but I would expect that much in their place. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that the person who opened the "black hole" be closed (or whatever WP calls it) from this topic? Because all you have to do is go up ^ 16 signed comments to see who set the drama into motion.

I deserve to have my voice be heard by Administrators and my petition addressed by them without any one individual derailing the discussion. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating advice with directive. I view a directive as a statement requiring some action or inaction, that if contravened will result in a sanction. "Advice", on the other hand, doesn't carry quite the same weight. It isn't meaningless — if someone is advised to stay away from someone else and they do not, they are less apt to get the default assumption of good faith if the interactions are problematic. The closing statement clearly used the word "advised" which is not a directive.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxis Solitary Unfortunately for you, I believe that S Philbrick is correct that the crux of your problem lies in the closer's choice to give advice rather than direct you and Tennebrae to stay away from each other. Of course, that choice was really the only option available to them, since the closer was a non-administrator, and really can't give out such direction because they don't have the wherewithal to back it up with a block if it's not followed - this is the downside of a NAC close of a interpersonal dispute on AN or AN/I. This highlights two things: (1) More admins need to get involved in closing that kind of thread on the administrator boards, and (2) Non-administrators should have second (and third) thoughts about making a close that requires admin capabilities to be enforced.

As for the trouble between you and Tenebrae, I think that your only option is to re-open the issue as a request for a formal Interaction Ban between you, if you have the stomach for that, and if you think the evidence is sufficient to support such a request. Just be aware that the existence of this thread will have sapped much of the community's interest in pursuing this matter, and that the closing of the previous discussion may be an indication that no admin sees the problem as being as dire as you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

(1) If Administrators allow non-admins to close ANIs: they should stand behind what they allow non-admins to do. (2) If non-admins close ANIs with unenforceable "advice": Admins should edit the closure statement to state that the advice is "not enforceable". (3) As well-intentioned as non-admins may be, Administrators should be the only Wikipedians that close interpersonal ANIs. (4) If someone wants to be an Administrator: prepare to do more than just wear the hat. (5) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Pyxis Solitary talk 22:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've covered a lot of ground there, and only you can decide where you want to put your energy. If you want an IB with Tenebrae, or a Topic Ban for them, you've got to do what has to be done to get it, and you've been told what that is. If, instead, you want to tilt at windmills in an attempt to change Wikipedia's culture or standards or procedures or processes by simply complaining about them, nothing's going to happen - I can pretty much guarantee that. It's your choice, the ball's in your court. This thread? You should really consider dropping the stick, because it's extremely doubtful that anything you're looking for is going to come from it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, thank you for pulling so much dead weight here and managing to do so eloquently what I somehow failed to do in my much longer comments. Hopefully the OP will listen and this mess can just be closed. I'll add that I don't necessarily think an IBAN or some such is a bad idea. Softlavender is right about most things, so if she says Tenebrae has been hounding that's at least enough to raise an eyebrow; I just don't think there is enough evidence of that here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this ANI is related to the previous interpersonal ANI closed on 03:34, 2 February 2017, this ANI ... this time ... should be closed by an Administrator. The support expressed by editors who have taken an interest in this situation has been greatly appreciated. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is such an extremely long and involved thread, and I have barely if at all been on Facebook for days, so I'm going to repeat here, for convenience, what I posted above at 6:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC):

If anyone is hounded, it has been me by Pyxis Solitary, who has taken me to ANI before and been told they had no case, that I was doing nothing wrong, and that in fact they were in the wrong. Their hysterically hyperbolic claims include saying "*Tenebrae changed edits made by me in article's section: Controversy. Including the un-linking of WP pages" when — and please, go see that edit for yourself — the bulk of the edits were un-italicizing company names like Twitch Film, WXVU, Collider.com, Townsquare Media, Showbiz411, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and others that are plain and simple not italicized ... see their very Wikipedia articles, bluelinked here. I hate to say this, but I think WP:BOOMERANG is called for when they and Softlavender deliberately introduce grammatical errors into an article. And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??

--Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: User:Softlavender has a sharp tongue and I've seen her be very wrong about some minor conduct issues in the past (requirement to specifically use diffs as evidence when other types of evidence are acceptable or even preferable, the appropriateness of bringing up an editor with whom one knows the person one is addressing has an IBAN, etc.), and I've seriously considered emailing her about this problem to find out how her interpretation can differ so radically from everyone else's, but I've never known her to consciously act in bad faith. "Hounding" is a complicated issue -- I first encountered the term in my interactions with JoshuSasori (talk · contribs), who claimed I was "hounding" him by feigning an interest in a certain topic and going around editing a bunch of articles he had edited just to get under his skin, but later community consensus was that he had been hounding me by reverting all of said edits immediately because I was the one who had made them, and that his having the pages on his watchlist was not an excuse since doing so because of one's watchlist was functionally the same, in terms of our harassment policy, as doing so by means of monitoring my contribs -- so it's entirely possible that you could be right that Pyxis is the one hounding you, and Softlavender could be, in good faith, going by the assumption that Pyxis's edits are not disruptive and your reverting her more than once indicates "hounding". Assuming this is the case, Softlavender would still be very much wrong on this point, but saying I think WP:BOOMERANG is called for when ... Softlavender deliberately introduce[s] grammatical errors into an article is not a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"it's entirely possible that you could be right that Pyxis is the one hounding you"

Carol is the article where Tenebrae and I first disagreed about an edit. It was my contributions to it and in related List of accolades received by Carol (film) sub-article that led Tenebrae to file the unsubstantiated ANI of canvassing against him. Find one article in Wikipedia where I have "hounded" Tenebrae. Provide the evidence ... or stop inventing scenarios. Pyxis Solitary talk 02:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert Tenebrae's constructive/good-faith edits solely because Tenebrae was the one that made them ... well, it might technically meet the "criteria" defined at WP:HOUND, but only because it took place on one article rather than many. By the same token, if your reverting/challenging Tenebrae's edits is not hounding because it was localized to one article, the same is true for Tenebrae's "hounding" of you. I don't need to provide evidence -- the diffs in your first post here clearly show Tenebrae making rational arguments in favour of not using italics or the phrase "make love" in the plot summary. If you revert those edits because you don't like Tenebrae, without any policy- or guideline-based rationale, that is at the very least WP:BATTLEGROUND, even if not WP:HOUNDING. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your nitpicking a single sentence in a cautionary message addressed to the user with whom you are in conflict and taking it out of context as an "accusation" against you for which I should provide evidence (again, even the text you quoted included the words "it's entirely possible") is just more evidence that you are more interested in picking fights than in building an encyclopedia. You are not making any friends with comments like the above, and are in fact rapidly losing them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Drama Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to involve yourself in this ANI. You talk smack about other editors. You try to derail an ANI and you attempt to obfuscate the crux of it. You make accusations about me (for those who aren't aware of it: check out the message Hijiri 88 posted on my Talk page on July 6) and allegations about my editing history. But when asked to piss or get off the pot? There's no there, there. Tenebrae knows my editing history on Carol. Heck, anyone can look at the revision history and see who did what, when. Ask him to help you find the revision history in any article that backs up his accusation that I've "hounded" him, and your allegation that I probably have. Or else ... you're just a troublemaker. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to involve yourself in this ANI. Yes, I did. I was working under the flawed assumption that making a neutral comment to the effect that "You have not provided evidence of hounding. The previous ANI close was not an enforceable sanction. I need to see evidence before I support a sanction." would not lead to this one-editor abuse campaign to which you have since subjected me. I will probably make the same mistake again, but abiding by the fourth pillar is not a flaw for which you have any right to condemn me.

You talk smack about other editors. Evidence? The quote you gave above was taken out of context. I said at the top of this thread that "if hounding [...] has been going on and can be demonstrated, and Tenebrae's edits can't be justified based on some policy or guideline, then an IBAN might be a reasonable solution" in response to your claim that Tenebrae had been hounding you, and I said essentially the same thing to Tenebrae. None of this is "talking smack".

You try to derail an ANI and you attempt to obfuscate the crux of it. What "crux"? Literally every uninvolved party has told you the same thing I have -- that there is no basis to this thread, since you came in assuming that the non-admin close in February constituted an enforceable sanction.

for those who aren't aware of it: check out the message Hijiri 88 posted on my Talk page on July 6 Yeah, check it out. The OP's vicious string of attacks against me began immediately after I posted my first neutral comment in this thread, and within a few hours I was sick enough of it that I was begging her on her to talk page to stop.

You make accusations about me [...] and allegations about my editing history I think you're projecting a bit. You've talked a lot more about my "editing history" than I have about yours, and none of it has been accompanied by diffs or any other kind of evidence. Nor, naturally, is your claim about me making accusations against you.

But when asked to piss or get off the pot? There's no there, there. Umm ... what? I don't get it. Are you just making toiletry references now because grossing me out is the only thing you haven't already tried? I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe it's a region-specific metaphor, but still.

Tenebrae knows my editing history on Carol. Well, yeah. And I'll bet you know his, too. But neither of you have provided a whole lot of evidence on the matter. The burden of proof is on you because you opened an ANI thread and requested sanctions for Tenebrae, while he has done neither.

Heck, anyone can look at the revision history and see who did what, when. I'm sorry, but that's not how ANI works. You need to gather specific evidence of disruption and present it in an easily comprehensible manner. I'm sorry if no one told you this before your coming here, but that's just how things work around here. BMK told you the same thing here. You really should just let this thread get archived, and then start preparing a report supported by concrete diffs (perhaps in your sandbox) and come back to ANI once it is ready.

Ask him to help you find the revision history in any article that backs up his accusation that I've "hounded" him I'm sorry, but once again the burden of proof is on you. You chose to open this ANI thread on Tenebrae and ask for sanctions against him. If he had opened an ANI thread on you and asked for sanctions, I would say the same thing to him.

and your allegation that I probably have. Please re-read my comment. I (very deliberately) said "possibly", not "probably. I said the same thing to you further up: it's possible he has been hounding you, but I'd need to see evidence of that.

Or else ... you're just a troublemaker. Believe what you want, I guess. You've wasted a lot more of my time over the last two or three days than I have of yours, and (in the other thread Amaury started about you further up the page) you somewhat callously forced me to remember one of the most traumatic experiences in my life (something for which you have yet to apologize, mind you).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drame, 戏剧, dramma, नाटक, драма, ドラマ, دراما ... in any language ... by any Wikipedian ... still equals = drama. Pyxis Solitary talk 00:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it 100% clear you didn't read a word of my above carefully-reasoned and polite response, you clearly don't know anything about linguistics. I don't speak a whole lot of those languages, but I can tell you with certainty that ドラマ most often refers to TV miniseries (and also applies to longer foreign shows like Friends and Game of Thrones that don't tend to be produced in Japan at the same rate), and 戏剧 refers to the theatre. I am not just having a laugh at your expense here -- I am seriously questioning your competence to edit Wikipedia if you don't realize that the English word "drama" has a number of completely different meanings and the one you are referencing is recent slang and is not likely to come out when you type the solitary word into an MT program. If you don't understand that "drama" as you are using it here is slang, then are you writing slang into Wikipedia articles as well? That would support Tenebrae's assertion that your article edits violate MOS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Drama. Pyxis Solitary talk 05:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And, really, Pyxis Solitary ... an ANI over grammar??"

I make this clear to you and anyone else reading this: an ANI is the only area where I will respond to a comment from you directed at me.

You and I were told to "avoid each other" in the interpersonal ANI referenced in the first sentence of this ANI. Translation: avoid Pyxis Solitary = stay away from her edits. You change and/or undo an edit by Pyxis Solitary? Translation: you're not staying away from her. You leave a message or comment for Pyxis Solitary in a Talk page? Translation: you're not staying away from her.

There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia to edit. Translation: find the ones where you will not feel the uncontrollable temptation to change and/or undo edits made by Pyxis Solitary. Find a way to connect editing with personal boundaries.

As for that ANI (Assistance needed with repeat violations of ANI warning) you alluded to? It, too, was about the same matter of this ANI: your not staying away from me.

Today, tomorrow, this month, next month — two, three, or four months from now ... "avoid" = keep away from, stay away from. Tenebrae: stay away from me. Pyxis Solitary talk 23:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this dispute is primarily about the page Carol (film), perhaps both editors should be blocked from editing that page. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea that bears considering. From what I have seen of this battle of wills, I would suspect that neither Pyxis nor Tenebrae would agree that the article is the primary cause of their inability to get along. But it was the initial flashpoint between them, and one which neither seems to have ever disengaged from afterwards. At the very least, a pageban will rescue that particular article from further disruption and may have the additional benefit of reinforcing (for each editor) that there is nothing to be gained from keeping in eachother's orbit.

On the other hand, it is not the current site of disruption, and it might be argued that a topic ban would be inappropriate under those circumstances. While I cannot say with any certainty who is pushing the disruption here harder (I have a notion of who may be the more aggressive party, but no longer have the time nor inclination to keep chasing down the particular details of their arguments), I can say that neither has come off smelling like roses here; in my opinion, anyone siding overwhelmingly with one or the other probably has not had the benefit of observing earlier episodes between these two. At the very least, each of them trod pretty hard on AGF from word one.

As the closer of the earlier discussion, I can tell you that when I provided the advice that each disengage a little and focus more on the content and less on eachother's motives (advice I still standby, not withstanding the fact that Pyxis interpreted it as a basis for alleging inappropriate behaviour on Tenebrae's part, in a fashion over and above the status that ought to be afforded to a procedural close of a discussion that had almost no community input), I knew with a fair degree of certainty that I was talking into the wind. It still seemed like the best (and maybe the only) thing to say, given the circumstances, and the only way they might have avoided further escalation of their interwoven disputes. But it seems it only delayed that outcome. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Tenebrae and I are both blocked from editing Carol, then I won't be subjected to Tenebrae periodically thumbing his nose at the 2 February 2017 ANI advice to "avoid each other" (regardless of his reason for doing it). However! The ANI closure "advice" by a non-administrator, which led to my twice seeking redress here, must now become an enforceable "warning" from an Administrator. And if Tenebrae takes his hubris to another article I'm editing and starts to do the same thing there ... Admins will need to block him from continuing a conduct of undeniable antagonism and conflict. Pyxis Solitary talk 06:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Can we have some editors look at this and comment on what should be done? As seen here, back in late February, Petergstrom was topic-banned from editing medical and religious topics for six months. From what I see, that topic ban is not yet over. Despite this, he recently violated it here and here, and two times before that (as seen in this link). I ignored it the first two times, although two other editors did not and warned Petergstrom about it. Sure, Petergstrom's topic ban is almost up, but it's clear to me that he's never respected it anyway and is biding his time until it expires. Other editors and I recently brought the Human brain article to WP:GA status; Petergstrom's editing regarding this article is one of the things I cited in the aforementioned topic ban thread. I find it odd that he would show up and edit it a few days after it's been brought to WP:GA, and especially when his topic ban is not yet over. I would have taken this matter to 5 albert square, who closed the aforementioned topic ban thread, but he hasn't edited since June 18th. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was TBANNED from medicine, and religion, neither of which are related to the human brain edits. I find it odd that you find it odd that me editing the page had anything to do with you, or the WP:GA status. In fact, until now I had no idea it was nominated. Whatever, if you want to believe everything that happens has some sinister cause that is related to you go ahead. In fact, what if I am really a government agent/and or alien that spreads mind control nanochips via chem trails? While I admit the Bipolar disorder edit was a violation, it was removal of spam. The human brain was not a violation.Petergstrom (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You described your edit on the Bipolar disorder article as the removal of spam. Can you explain how this edit by Masterlet is spam? Cjhard (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was spam because it was a whole new section for one sentence from psych new central. Psych News Central. Furthermore, the [59] cited by the article was WP:Primary and WP:OR. Petergstrom (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Human brain article falls within the WP:Med and WP:MEDRS scope, which is why it is tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles at the top of the talk page, stating, "Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles." I'm not sure how you figure that the Human brain article, which is a WP:Anatomy and WP:Neuroscience topic, is not a medical topic. The only reason that it is not tagged with the WP:Med banner is because it is already tagged with the WP:Anatomy and WP:Neuroscience banners, and because WP:Med wants to limit what shows up on its medical articles list, since that list has been overpopulated before.

So the reason you stayed away from the Human brain article for this long is not because you thought that it falls within your topic ban? I don't think so. And the Bipolar disorder article also falls within your topic ban. As for your edits having anything to do with me, a number of editors were clear that some of your edits did have something to do with me. In any case, I did not focus on your edits in relation to me, other than the fact that the Human brain article was noted as a point of contention on the topic ban thread about you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for anyone wanting quick access to that previous thread, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stayed away from the human brain article for so long, because I was avoiding you and wikipedia in general. Don't even assume to know my motivations as you have consistently done in the past. The human brain article is not a medical article, even though it may be tagged with MEDRS, it is still not part of wikiproject:medicine, just anatomy and neuroscience. My TBANN does not apply there. The bipolar article is within my TBANN, but was nonetheless a removal of spam. In retrospect bringing it up in the talk page so another editor could do it would have been better. Furthermore, one of the two pages(the other being OCD) I am accused of violating my TBANN by editing is the Lactic Acid page. This has nothing to do with wikiproject medicine, or religion, so I don't know why that was reverted.Petergstrom (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care much about why you were avoiding the article. I do care about you respecting your topic ban, which you have disrespected four times now. The topic of the human brain is a medicine topic, as anyone can see from looking at what the article entails. It is indeed why the article is tagged with the aforementioned template. It is why the GA lists it as a "Biology and medicine" topic. If it were not a topic that falls within medicine, we would not require WP:MERDS-compliant sources for that article. It currently not being tagged with the WP:MED banner does not make it any less a topic within the medical scope. I already noted why it's not tagged with that banner. Furthermore, your ban is "broadly construed" to combat the very "it's not a medical topic" defense you are using now. As for the Lactic acid article... So when the editor reverted you on this, the editor did not know what he was talking about? The material you added does not fall under the medical scope? Should I ping the editor to make their case on why they reverted you? And either way, the point is that you keep violating your topic ban. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that articles that were not of interest to wikiproject medicine are still medicine. I was under the impression that a chemistry article and an anatomy article were free from my TBAN, however given my little experience with wikipedia, I guess "broadly construed" is broader than I would have guessed. Petergstrom (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban states, in part, "6 month topic ban for Petergstrom for medicine and religion with a warning that it will be swiftly re-applied if the pattern of editing continues." Even if we were to state that the Human brain article is not a medical article (which, given the overwhelming medical material in that article, I don't see how anyone can state such), you are not to edit anything that is under the medical scope. This also means that if the Bicycle article has some medical content in it, you are not supposed to edit that medical content. The edit that Jytdog reverted you on (yeah, I've gone ahead and pinged him) is medical material. All that stated, we all make mistakes. As long as you continue to adhere to your topic ban, I am willing to drop my complaint on this matter. Your topic ban is almost over, as you well know; I simply do not like how you seemingly did not take it seriously. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the record, anatomy articles are commonly of interest to WP:Med; it's why WP:Med lists WP:Anatomy as a related project, and includes anatomy at WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. It's why anatomy discussions are sometimes held at WP:Med. Some WP:Anatomy editors are also WP:Med editors, and that includes me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petergstrom, and now you are at Talk:Psychopathy again. Why do you think that the Psychopathy article, including its talk page, is outside of your topic ban? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not credible for an experienced editor such as Peter to claim that edits to Obsessive–compulsive disorder, Bipolar disorder, and Talk:Psychopathy fall outside a topic ban from medicine. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not allowed to go to the talk page? Really? I thought an edit ban meant a ban from editing pages. Not from taking part in discussion. Would I seriously have done that if I knew it violated a TBAN? Right after we had a discussion here to. Petergstrom (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad. I read the WP:TBAN topic, and it contains talk pages. I don't really have much to say...oops?Petergstrom (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least you checked the policy and show recognition of the error. Should we assume that same recognition applies equally to the OCD and bipolar edits? If that is the case, then I suggest that this thread could easily be closed if you could commit to voluntarily extending your non-involvement with the medical topic for another few months. It shouldn't be much of an issue, since you've edited very little since February until this month. There's lots of other topics for you to contribute on, after all. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would be lying if I said that at the time of those edits, I didn't know whether there could be controversy or ambiguity. I knew I was pushing it. I now recognize that it was in clear violation of the TBAN. Petergstrom (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it like this: With a talk page for a medical article, you are discussing medical content, which can lead to changes being made to the article per your suggestion(s). Although you are not technically making the edits, you are making them by proxy. Another reason to avoid the talk pages of pages you are banned from is because these bans are also often due interaction with others, which was part of the problem. In this case, editors complained about your interaction with others; it wasn't solely about your editing of articles.

Take a look at the branches of medicine noted in the Medicine article; you can see that anatomy and neuroscience are branches of medicine. You don't have to take Wikipedia's word for it; you can Google it. A lot of WikiProjects limit their scope; it makes sense for WP:Med not to focus on anatomy or neuroscience articles when WP:Anatomy and WP:Neuroscience exist. This obviously doesn't mean that these topics do not fall under medicine simply because WP:Med is not focused on them.

I'm still not convinced that you should be editing medicine or religious topics, but you will get another chance to prove yourself soon enough. It will not take another few months until your ban has expired. Just another month and some days. We can close this thread if it's the case that you won't violate your topic ban again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Real History Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Real History Man, a new editor whose sole interest seems to be editing to insert references to a self-published book [69] in 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, which makes a number of extraordinary claims about the invasion. Acknowledges a link to the author [70], where they attack other editors as trolls but be aware that you are wrong and that you are biased, prejudiced, bordering upon 'troll' if not already way past that mark. The editing seems to be more about book promotion and it seems clear there is a WP:COI, a suspicion shared by Hohum [71]. Bringing it here for further scrutiny. WCM_email 07:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see obvious signs of a conflict of interest, in addition to blatant personal attacks. Quick question: do the statistics presented in the self-published book contradict the other sources? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 10:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that matters. The user is probably at least capable of accessing the other sources, and if he wanted to cite them he would. This means he is essentially using Wikipedia to advertise his friend's book, rather than using his friend's book to help build an encyclopedia. The username also sets off NOTHERE alarms. promoting and representing the historical truth (in the diff above) is dead giveaway, and the scare-quotes around "claims" (showing a disconcerting lack of intellectual skepticism and dismissiveness toward those who do) are also concerning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to DarthBotto, the book claims to completely rewrite the official history common to both sides increasing 1 killed and 3 wounded to >100 killed and many more wounded. It claims there was a cover up of the real number of Argentine casualties. The work is clearly an WP:SPS and can't be used as a source anyway. WCM_email 11:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wee Curry Monster: It's not really relevant to this case, but your last sentence is not technically in line with WP:RS. SPSes can be used for non-extraordinary claims (again, nothing to do with this) if their authors are reputable authorities (no idea if the author in question is a reputable authority on anything). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries I'm aware of that, the other problem is we can't verify the author is a historian or reputable as this appears to be their only published work. The work was also crowd funded by an appeal on social media. WCM_email 12:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since he frequently writes in sentence fragments I have a feeling he's not a historian. EEng 12:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wee Curry Monster" I myself am a historian of WW2 and especially D-Day and I do happen to be a friend of the author through his work. It is a work which you have not read. Having met his publisher I know the book is not self-published, however when that business was sold, he did take the opportunity to buy the rights to it, hence your constant changing to 'self-published' from 'published' is erroneous.

The book is written effectively by all of the participants of that day and I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them myself and seeing so much of the evidence. Something you have not. The history on this page is riddled with inaccuracies and, as you will see, I have contributed to almost every single talk discussion to correct people or answer their questions...this all comes from one place: "The First Casualty" - The book in question.

The author is absolutely a Military Historian and accepted as such by the entire Military History community. Indeed he is one of the best I have known. Qualifications mean zip in our industry. We write the books which the boffins study and then get their degrees and doctorates with. If your history is good, the rest is so much paper. Ricky D Phillips' history is outstanding.

I truly fail to see how a faceless person who spends their days on Wiki can claim to know more than the men who were there, whose words are all in this book. I particularly like how Mark Gibbs was 'encouraged to think' he had blown up an Amtrac. Have you met him? How encouraged was he exactly, do you know? You don't. I know he hit it because I have held a big piece of it with a rocket hole through it, which the author brought to the book launch. I know he - and others - destroyed it because I have seen the photos, read the quotes from the British and Argentines who saw it during and after. I know the Argentinian forces lost an LCVP Landing Craft blown up that night with about 40 guys on it. I know the guys who blew it up and the guys who dragged it onto the beach later. It is still sat on its back as they found it in the narrows with a big rocket hole in its side.

So please tell me, do, how being 'better at Wiki' makes you more qualified to pronounce upon a history you have no knowledge of? I have googled you and the words 'troll' appear everywhere next to your name so I feel that the tag was justified. You are more concerned with being 'right according to you' than in the truth. The truth is that if the other 'qualified historians' you espouse were as good as this guy, we wouldn't have waited 35 years for the truth. So please go ahead, be 'better at Wiki' and safeguard a tired old lie if that makes you feel better. Myself and the military history community shall keep on doing what we do until this sad old tale is consigned to the bin.

You may now rest easy, I shan't change it back because doubtless you'll have a line of code for that. It doesn't make you clever or educated, indeed it makes you a block to what history is all about. A subject which, from a good look at your own work, you know a lot less about than you pretend to. I will now consider this at an end, having told you and your peers what a true know-nothing you are. If you wish to troll and malign someone whom I and so many others in our field hold in esteem, then that is on you. There's your resolution and you're entitled to it. I hope Wiki keeps you happy. In my industry it is our lowest denominator. You may consider yourself schooled by an old man who knows a few things. Real History Man (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The central problem is your statement that this all comes from one place: "The First Casualty". If The First Casualty is the only source, then it's not accepted historical scholarship. It would be different if the author were an established expert in the field, or the book was published by a reputable university press, but that's not the case, despite your protestations. And we're not interested in your personal experiences – see WP:OR. The more you write, the more clear it is that you don't know how actual history is done. (For one thing, it's not an "industry.") EEng 20:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he gives the game away in his account name. He's the "Real History" Man, all the rest are obviously peddling fake history. This is on a par with all those account names with "True" and "Truth" in them, here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or push WP:FRINGE theories. If Real History Man is only here to push the book he owns the rights to, that is to violate WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI, then he's WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. He should get an official warning to knock it off, and if he ignores it, he should be indeffed toot sweet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, for the second time in as many days I find myself thanking you for putting what I said above (The username also sets off NOTHERE alarms) in much clearer words. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fake history! FAKE! SICK! Ribbet32 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal experience contributes about as much historical credence as the talking mice at the beginning of The Legend of the Titanic. Even in this diatribe you left, you lay down a number of personal attacks and fallacies, as well as a professed conflict of interest that bars you from the page. I recommend that Real History Man receives an indefinite topic ban. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto: Is there any point in topic-banning an SPA? NOTHERE editors are generally blocked. It saves space in WP:RESTRICT logs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I suppose I may be clinging to some faith that the account has an interest in history beyond promoting their buddy? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 10:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any user name equating to "truth" in some way is typically here for only a short stay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This user is continuing to edit war in the article, and has now started to make not so veiled outing threats "(You should know that, WCM you'r not as faceless as you think)" diff. (Hohum ^@) 18:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about BATTLEGROUND behavior! EEng 19:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, have studied in a History Department, Real History Man is wrong that credentials are meaningless there. Second, looking through his history, I see he's been here since May and still hasn't gotten the hint to WP:DROPTHESTICK. A clueless newbie is one thing, but eventually, time to WP:RBI. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, absolutely nothing in a Google search on "Ricky D Phillips" shows any professional credentials for that person, except for sites started by or connected with Ricky D Phillips. There he calls himself a "Military Historian", but there's nothing to back it up, simply his assertion: no CV, no listing of his professional qualifications, nothing at all. The book, of course, despite what Real History Man writes above, is self-published, since the publisher listed, BEIC Books Ltd., is, according to their website [72], "brand new", and they list only one book as being published, The First Casualty. That presumably means that reputable firms which publish military history passed on it.

So, "Real History Man", fringe position, self-published: obviously not a reliable source, and should not be used in any way on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prima facie evidence being clear that Ricky D Phillips and his book The First Casualty are not reliable sources, I have removed from the article the material based on it. If Real History Man wants to make the case that it is a reliable source, I suggest he go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and make his argument there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that ol' Ricky is BEIC's Managing Director [73]. Honestly, these people must think we're fools. EEng 05:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hide these edit summaries and vandalism. Use revision delete. They say [REDACTED] - Oshwah and the edit summaries are vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:50C7:4200:488C:74BF:13BF:EF9B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:6000:50C7:4200:A8BF:64A4:4366:5C99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:F180:0:97:97:7CC:C049:EF7F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.252.229.43 (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the alert. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello

I am here to report MJ500 (talk · contribs). Cursory examination of his contribution log does not suggest that this person is a vandal. Yet, he has performed edits that no sane editor with his level veterancy does. I propose his account might have been compromised.

It attracted my attention today when I discovered he had rolled back the Microsoft Windows article to an arbitrary past revision without an edit summary: It reverses recovery of many links, reverts both corrections, and returns an old faulty revision of the infobox. The editor is not a vandal, but this is definitely vandalism.

When I posted a notice in his talk page, he reverted the notice with a denial, then committed an act vengeance: He reverted one of my recent contributions to OneDrive article with a fake edit summary.

I have discovered other questionable actions in his contribution log:

• This edit has a fake edit summary and seems very much like the run-of-the-mill vandalism: [74]
• This edit is very suspicious and unbecoming of him: [75] It looks like something total Wikipedia virgins do.

I propose a temporary ban or block, until he changes his password and promises not to do any of these again.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MJ500 has promised to stop edit warring on OneDrive. I'm not convinced this is a compromised account. Could just be a bad day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I didn't even mention OneDrive edit warring here. (Just mention the first revenge action.) These edits are done on 1, 4 and 8 July; that'd be three bad days. Also, the Microsoft Windows revision I introduced the first? Experience tells me that it is no accident and no deliberate reversion due to a dispute. You can't let a cat on your keyboard and get a result like that. And then say I did nothing?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's some suspicious activity on the account, but it could just be a new editor who's trying to learn how to edit Wikipedia. I'd like to hear from MJ500, but it seems like we may have to wait. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why you call the Farewall Baghdad edit run of the mill vandalism or having a fake edit summary. It looks to me much more like the editor noticed something which was only changing dates and reverted them asking for a source something which is often quite resonable except in this case they didn't actually look enough to notice these date changes were simply in the template and formatting of dates in the template. Completely stupid sure, and if this continues WP:Competence could come into play but not run of the mill vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: What you say could have been true if it has been an edit, not a revert. You see, sometimes, vandals revert something and pick a canned edit summary too. In doing none of these, active thinking has a role. In this case, simply the style of two access dates had been changed. The dates are the same. This isn't something for which someone asks for the source, unless he or she is just clicking pseudo-randomly. Now, if I had seen this change alone in one's contribution log, I'd have assumed good faith. One lone error like this could have easily been a result of multi-tabbed editing. But as James Bond would say "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time is the enemy action." —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the date in a template had changed, as had the date style in the templates. Let me be clear, there were 3 changes and one did change an actual date from June 2015 to June 2017, not just a date style. The fact you apparently didn't notice this would seem to be a good sign that people do make mistakes when looking at stuff. Of course by the same token, someone could fail to notice that the dates in the later 2 cases weren't being changed per se, but simply had the style adjusted anyway so it's actually moot to my point. As I already said, if such mistakes happen too often, WP:Competence may come into play but I'm not seeing that yet. After all you've only presented 4 or 5 edits, and they aren't even that similar in style but rather seem to indicate a fairly careless and inexperienced (they have only been here a little over 2 weeks with fewer than 500 edits although they did immediately blue link their user and talk page suggesting some experience and yes a classic sign of a problem editor) editor.

I don't understand what you mean about an edit not a revert. The fact that it was a revert is precisely the point. As I already said, they saw someone messing around with dates and blindly reverted without properly looking what exactly was happening namely that a date in a template had changed, and also the date style in 2 other templates something which does not need a source. Clearly active thinking was involved, no one ever denied that, but they didn't look or think enough before reverting which as I've already said, is a problem, but doesn't seem to be an indicate of vandalism nor am I seeing any signs of a fake edit summary.

The edit summary makes sense when you consider what they apparently thought they were reverting, i.e. an unsourced changed of dates even if they weren't. It's something I've done myself I'm pretty sure except if there is no source, I add a source tag or sometimes just remove the dates altogether, or when I can be bothered, looked for a source. If the dates do have a source, I do of course check the souce before reverting. But yes, reverting unsourced date changes is something that happens all the time, so again I don't understand why you think it's vandalism.

And actually there's a bad good reason why reverting unsourced date changes is so common, unfortunately changing dates is a common form of silly vandalism. Actually I'm pretty sure there's a edit filter which tags such edits. (Or maybe one of the vandalism bots automatically reverted them at some stage.) And it's such a common problem that I'm pretty sure some people aren't as careful as me, if they see an IP or inexperienced editor (not Lugnuts) changing a date, they simply revert, even for example if there's a source, they don't check it. I say this because I'm pretty sure I've come across cases when an IP or inexperienced editor is trying to fix a mistake or historic vandalism by adjusting a date sometimes even to what the source says only to be unfortunately reverted. I WP:AGF that MJ500 has encounter this before and so is trying to put it into practice but failing badly at it.

Clearly it was inappropriate here but that's possibly only because they didn't look at what the date changes actually were namely not something that required a source and only one of them was even a change of a date but that doesn't make it vandalism.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that what MJ500 did was to ask a source for the change {{Use dmy dates}}? Let's compare: I said that no thought went into the revert. You are saying MJ500 did think, only he is such a ... (I apologize in advance for using these two words) ... retarded imbecile that does not know a maintenance template does not require a source? It seems I assumed a significantly better faith in this colleague of ours than you did. The have such low opinion of others is uncivil.

But I say no. His collective contributions to Wikipedia shows his neither a retarded imbecile nor misinformed and misguided. He clearly knows what a maintenance template is. The sabotage he did to Microsoft Windows and OneDrive articles is itself the evidence of my claim.

Like I said, third time is the enemy action. —Codename Lisa (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa, it's a personal attack to refer to another editor as a retarded imbecile. You should say developmentally challenged imbecile. EEng 01:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, MJ500's user account was created on 21 June 2017 - they haven't even been on Wikipedia for three weeks. This looks a lot like someone who's made some mistakes trying to improve Wikipedia and has been met with a very WP:BITE response. I don't know why you believe this user is a veteran - maybe you've got them confused with someone else? Marianna251TALK 00:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you playing the devil's advocate or something? Severe damage was inflicted upon Microsoft Windows article and retaliatory action was taken in OneDrive article. I did neither of those when I was a newcomer. (When I was newcomer, I promoted an article into WP:FA status!) You need more than just WP:BITE. He has enough knowledge and experience to trace my contribution log and take retaliatory action. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm assuming good faith towards both of you, but it seems you are not assuming good faith yourself towards MJ500. If you upgraded an article to FA as a newbie, you are the exception, not the rule!

What you do seem to be assuming is that MJ500 followed your contributions from the Microsoft Windows article to the OneDrive article. OneDrive is a Microsoft product, so it's reasonable to think that someone who edited a page on one Microsoft product might also be interested in editing other Microsoft- and Windows-related articles. Even if they did follow you, though, familiarity with Wiki-type sites does not necessarily equal familiarity with Wikipedia and Wikipedia policy/procedure and does not preclude them having a genuine concern about your edit. (I had edited Wikia fansites and used Tiddlywiki before I joined Wikipedia, so I had good experience of Wiki-type sites, but I couldn't have told you the difference between a BLP and a hole in the ground.)

To quote WP:VAND, vandalism has to be deliberate. MJ500's edit to Microsoft Windows was odd and unhelpful, but its being an odd type of edit makes me lean more towards it being a mistake or accident rather than deliberate vandalism. I'd have reverted, but also left a note on MJ500's talk page querying the reason for the edit rather than give a warning. I definitely wouldn't have started with a level 3 warning and no other explanation of why it was issued - no wonder they reverted the warning. Moving on to the OneDrive page, MJ500's edit summaries were obviously referring to you changing the section heading "Client applications" to "Client apps", which hardly counts as being "fake". Yes, they reverted instead of making an edit, which deleted your paragraph and was not the right thing to do, but you never explained that to them. I have come across new users who think that they're not allowed to change part of an edit someone else has made, but that they are allowed to undo the edit if they think there's a problem, leaving it to the original editor to make the change. I'm not saying that is what's happened here, but it's about as likely as vengeful vandalism.

Overall, I feel WP:BITE (or maybe WP:PLEASEBITE) is more than sufficient to summarise this situation. I've skimmed through MJ500's edit history, which shows a few other mistakes that have been politely pointed out to them, and as soon as that happened, they changed their behaviour. More than anything else, that says to me that MJ500 is an inexperienced new editor who's trying to help but occasionally needs some guidance. Better to assume no clue before assuming bad faith/vandalism. Marianna251TALK 11:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marianna251: I have come across new users who think [...] the original editor to make the change. Mind-blowing! This level of stupidity deserves proper celebration in some sort of hall of fame. (Well, on the second thought, no. That would be a personal attack.) But if you say you've seen this, I'll waive this case, in the spirit of WP:ROPE. After all, one must never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war on OneDrive has apparently been resolved, and I see nothing else actionable here. I also note WP:BITE regarding newbies. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content deletion without explanation (as occurred in OneDrive) is vandalism; not to mention how it has the appearance of a retaliatory action. I assumed good faith and downgraded it to the possibility of compromised account. But this fellow Wikipedian needs a talking-to. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Wanye2004 (talk - contribs - CA) is using enwiki and commons for (crosswiki) self-promo (presumably of his band, see WP:YAMB). See this AFD page, and the 3 articles linked: this is a bio about himself, The Shine Season Billionaires (speedy deleted days ago) and Dreams Worth Much Than Money ar two albums by him. User has the habit to remove prod/afd notices (01, 02), and is probably using an anon sock (75.110.149.8, same kind of edits on the same pages edited by Wanye -just an example-, possibly static). On commons he uploaded 13 files (including .ogg) about his productions and was indef banned.

After my report at WP:AIV, he was warned by an admin. His edit after warning was this, another afd tag removal. And he was blocked for a day. Sufficiently warned, in write only and, btw, Draft:E.V.O.L. was deleted as blatant hoax. IMHO clearly WP:NOTHERE. Per crosswiki self-promo spam and, at this point, vandalisms in write only after repeated warnings, I request for an indef ban. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• All deleted as obvious hoaxes. No reference to anything outside WMF projects. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeffed as NOTHERE per the above and my own deeper look at this editor's history. I can't find any evidence of constructive behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have been subject of intimation by two users, who also happens to be sysops. I hereby request uninvolved admin to sanction an indefinite WP:IBAN between me, and Ferret; and other ban between me, and Sergecross73. I also request, if possible (based on their behaviour), to formally caution them about intimidating good faith users.

The intimidation can be seen on User talk:Usernamekiran#Crowdfunding, with diffs for previous few intimidation in that conversation.

As me, and these two editors do not edit/work in similar fields on enwiki, the ban will not affect anybody. Thanks, and I apologise for the inconvenience. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I've only talked to this person twice, and it was merely alerting him to WP:POINT. I don't recall any other reactions. I have no idea what would escalate this to the point of an iban. I'm just glad I saw this on my watchlist, as I was not notified of this discussion. There was just a delay in him notifying me. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For reference's sake, here and here are the only two interactions I've ever had with this editor, to my recollection. Its absolutely ludicrous to claim it's "intimidation". Ferret was warning him about a single ill-conceived edit on an article I don't believe I've ever edited in my life. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The user reverted a good faith edit with a long detailed edit note as "Unexplained content removal" with Huggle. I reminded him to make sure to read edit notes, nothing more. As for the other diffs the user linked on their talk page, they are related to a prior ANI posting that lead to this notice from Floquenbeam to the user, and refer to me warning him to stop messaging another editor who had requested he cease contacting her via talk page. The current talk discussion is the only time I've written to the user since that April incident. Not sure what else there is to say about it, I simply don't ever interact with this user, except in those two cases where they landed on my watchlist. -- ferret (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have made that fact clear in reply to Sergecross73 on my talkpage, that me and ferret never interacted after April. In first diff provided by Sergecross73, Sergecross73 accused me of playing games, and getting revenge, and indrectly implied I am here to disrupt wikipedia. All I am asking is an interaction ban. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, you're not going to get an interaction ban for a single instance or two. You can (kindly) tell them to stop and go away, or otherwise ignore them, but an interaction ban is likely not happening unless this is a recurring issue, which this does not appear to be. (non-admin comment) SkyWarrior 18:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, I did, and I still believe that. You literally wrote a note that says, if the discussion looked rude to passerby, that you gave Ferret a little taste of his own behaviour. That's textbook POINT. But even if it wasn't - worst case scenario, I was completely wrong. That doesn't lead to an IBAN. This proposal shows you have no conception of the IBAN protocols. It's just further wasting of the community's time over a minor goof-up of yours that you already conceded was a mistake. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Yes, i did say that. And i said it because I wasnt being rude. I communicated with ferret in the way that he did to me. If a person initiates communication with you after two and half months (all by his own), and then if you use similar vocabulary/style to communicate with them, then it is simply how the world works. There was nothing about "getting back at him", or "getting revenge". This how normal humans respond: based in previous conversations with that oerson. I wouldnt have placed this IBAN request if it wasnt for your message after everything had gone quite. As I mentioned on my talkpage, you stirred it up again. So, it looks like you are wasting the time of others. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't place the blame on me here, regardless of the degree of "rightness" my warning, this objectively doesn't warrant an IBAN request in the least. This is a completely invalid request that should have never been brought to ANI. I'm done responding here for now, as there's no way any Admin is going to take action on this. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And why you guys so keen about avoiding the ban? Simply accept it, let an uninvolved sysop make it official, and lets move on. No further wasting of time. Or are you guys interested in talking with me? If I wasnt clear before: I do not want to interact with you at all. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I want to clear my name in public forum? Also, because it's not rooted in policy. I'm an admin. I enforce that sort of thing, you know? Rest assured, I have no particular intent on interacting with you in the future. I can't imagine wanting to collaborate with you on a particular project, nor do our interests tend to intersect naturally historically. Unless you need further basic policy warning from an Admin, I wouldn't expect us to cross paths anymore. (Nor was there every any reason to suspect otherwise.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) I agree with SkyWarrior. I don't see behavior that warrants an interaction ban.

There seems to be a tendency on your part to misconstrue and blow out of proportion the manner in which you are being addressed, based upon the labels that you added to some diffs that don't seem relevant to the manner of speech. You seem to be casting aspersions against these two on your talk page and here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Here is this IP's edit filter log. It has had numerous edits disallowed (triggered filter 826 repeatedly) and DatBot has reported the IP to the AIV bot reports subpage ELEVEN times. —MRD2014 02:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MRD2014: Agreed. This is absolutely ridiculous. The IP is running totally rampant with no admin blocking it. It's been over an hour and nothing has been done. I've been rollbacking all their current edits. But this is ludicrous. Somebody's gotta stop this guy. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, they've tripped so many filters so fast that it was hard to interpret if the log was actually changing because all you saw was their name. I missed some unconstructive edits by other users because of that.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP has been blocked by Acroterion. —MRD2014 03:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

User has changed page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniil_Kvyat 4 times to reflect the subject's middle name to Torpedo. I have given him a warning but keeps changing it back to the uncorrect middle name. User seems to be persistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbert2000 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dilbert2000. I have warned the IP. Should they make the same changes again, please let me know and I will report them to the admins. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 04:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the user at IP 111.92.25.150 has again vandalized the page (22:34, 9 July 2017‎ 111.92.25.150). @Callmemirela:

Blocked 24 hours. A Google search says that this may be a legit nickname, but it's clearly not his middle name, which the IP is blanking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

User:Yashodip Bhadane (talk) has continued to create biographical articles about himself despite multiple warnings not to do so. To my knowlage, his page article Yashodip bhadane has in some form or another been nominated for deletion 8 times, and deleted 7 times. Requesting that action be taken, with my personal recommendation being an indef ban. SamHolt6 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a topic ban solve the problem? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A global block is what's required, his user page spam is being pulled over from meta. I've blocked locally, a topic ban will work if the user has interests other than self-promotion. He's been doing the same thing at many wikis including wikinews, mr.wiki, wikiversity etc, there's nothing other than self-promotion across the many many wikis he's been to. —SpacemanSpiff 06:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some salt needs to be sprinkled, liberally Blackmane (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Morning,

Please could I request that the title of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Clarendon_Sixth_Form_College entry is change to say "Clarendon Sixth Form College". The college has now relocated and is no longer based in Hyde.

I have updated the content within the body of the Wiki however the title is incorrect.

Kind regards,

Carl Boyd Digital Technologist @ Tameside College. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlboyd (talk • contribs) 09:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - request was completed by another use a few hours ago. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

201.93.25.35 has been making racist homophobic misogynistic personal attacks in both the contents of their edits and in their edit messages. The user was blocked before in March of this year (perhaps for similar behaviour? There are no visible edits).

They haven't edited since the most recent warning against them, but their attacks are pretty extreme. Can they be blocked, and have some or all of their edits revdeleted? Thank you. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their edit summary from a few hours ago actually makes me kind of proud of being Swedish (which is a weird sensation, since national pride is not a Swedish characteristic!) With my bias thus clearly revealed, I agree that this is not somebody who is interested in building an encyclopedia, only in POV pushing. --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP, who is very bravely using a proxy, for six months. Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

I think an administrator needs to flip some sort of switch. The list of pending changes shows that one article, Lennart Poettering, has been pending for hours, but when I click to review, there's no pending changes protection on the page. Can someone please take a look at this? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a genuine glitch. Last edit was by an IP, yet the software wasn't allowing review of the changes. I made a null edit (adding a space within a commented section) to correct the problem. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

This message appears to be well outside the bounds of the incivility permitted here. I removed it, but I believe it should also be revdeleted. Admins, would you please? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]