Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

• 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Drinkreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP has, over the past few days, removed material from articles and talk pages related to various mixed drinks. He has at various times claimed copyright violations and made vague threads of legal action (e.g., [25] [26]). His most recent claim today is that the discovery of a reference is intellectual property: we can't use a reference because he found it first ([27] [28]). Finally, he has threatened to continue his disruption across multiple IPs ([29]). His current actions show no intent of trying to collaboratively work through things; he appears intent on disruption and content removal.

It is apparent from contribution history that this IP has formerly edited as Drinkreader, so this pattern of behaviour has been occurring off and on for the past four years. I suggest that it is time for an indefinite community ban of this user, so that any further disruption can be reverted on sight with an immediate block of the IP. Is there support for this? —C.Fred (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really what you consider collaboration? You have yet to even suggest wiki articles to where as i can make better corrective edits within wikipedias guidelines. All youve done is threaten to, and currently attempt to ban me. That doesnt sound like someone open to helping new editors contribute to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is claiming a copyright violation from a book they wrote in 1803? Or are they claiming that, having republished this quote in their own work, that they can then claim copyright of it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you mention that, you wouldnt have half the references you have on all the cocktail pages of it werent for me. WHO DO YOU THINK THEY GOT THOSE REFERENCES FROM? So, even if you ban me, ive still contributed indirectly to dozens of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia appreciates your additions of references. Note this text below the edit window: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• support indefinite community ban of this user-block evasion, legal threats, combative attitude out of the gate. We'll get along fine without him.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Drinkreader--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• support indefinite community ban Saying "if i decidebto be disrruptive there isnt a (expletive removed) thing you can do about it.

[30] is about the most blatant possible admission that you should be banned. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• support indefinite community ban per norm Harassment of other users(and me), see my comment near the bottom of this section. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<keyword>you</keyword> thats just it ivan, someone else, irrevocably agreed to release my contribution(s) without accrediteding sources, yes many original sources are present on the pages. Again, how do you think they got those? They just looked, when half the pages are far outdated and inaccurate by 500, and some 200 year old drinks are accurate to the year? How do you think thats possible? Hmmm.. somebody must have spent an awful lot of time researching to figire this out. Ive read so many cocktail amd recipe guides from 1522 (yes, in latin, in my hand) to today. Ive written over 250 articles on cocktails and cocktail history and ive written 72 books, and am editing my 73k. Im the real deal. If you saw your lifes work being plagiarized and destroyed and inaccurately presented wouldnt you be a wee bit upset?

If you said something about cocktails, i could not only tell you if its true or not, i could tell you the original source where you got that info. Its literally all i read and have read. Seriously, try me. Ill answer right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also they have been harassing other users as well, Look at User_talk:Drinkreader, and at this edit to my talk page [[31]]Look at the bottom. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indefinite community ban and suggests that the IP in question needs to learn what copyright actually covers. Protip: not shared secondary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• From this edit: "Fucking stealing ass assholes. Fuck you. You all act so fucking tough behind a keyboard. I will drop my location and we can see whats up."

Watch out, we got a badass over here. LOLOLOL I love an internet tough guy, but that's no reason to let someone who obviously can't even imagine what it means to act like a grown up edit here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, do they credit for someone else finding the same sources as them?Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why indef?

You dont owe me anything, but why assume things will always be the same? Do you not think circumstances change which inturn changes demenor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked (anon) for one year. That said, IP, if you think you have a legitimate concern about your own work being directly copied in Wikipedia (not just that we refer to it) then please contact WP:OTRS by emailing permissions-enwikimedia.org. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blackgaia02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous ANI discussion can be viewed here. For simplicity's sake, I shall refer to this user as BG02. I am very bothered by this user's uncollaborative behavior, frequent dismissal of rules, and generally rude behavior towards other users, even going as far as threatening another user to kill themselves. BG02 has previously acknowledged his behavioral problems in his last chance unblock request, yet over the years, he has continued the same type of behavior. Even his signature (talkpage if you dare) indicates that he is an inapproachable user. Please also note that BG02 has been sufficiently warned about his abusive behavior recently. Please view the following diffs:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

Note: There's plenty more instances of abusive behavior, but I do believe listing 10 diffs (mostly) from this year alone is enough is state my case.

Given that the user has already been given a final chance, and is showing no signs of improvement at all, he should be indef blocked per the agreement in his last chance unblock request. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel about the same as Sk8erPrince as seen above. —JJB^ers 16:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at these diffs, I also concur. Holy smokes.--Jorm (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• My first thought is: none of this is very recent. The user's last block and the "last chance" unblock discussion are from 2013. Only one of this list of diffs occurred in the last month, and that was itself pretty mild. The user does seem to have ongoing conduct issues especially within the past year, however. I'm just not sure there's anything for admins to do with this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, BG02's last chance unblock discussion was in 2013. Yet, he broke the promise he made; I am pretty sure he understands that continued outbursts will result in being reblocked. Over the course of 5 years, BG02 has continued to belittle other users and ignore Wikipedia policy, noted in this diff. Additionally, Farix has warned BG02 one final time this year, which is gracious enough on Farix's part, since he could have just went ahead and reported BG02. From my perspective, it seems that BG02 has ignored the warning, and continued his spree of abusive behavior. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You got off of an indefinite block less than two weeks ago, and this is what you get up to? --Calton | Talk 20:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to kindly remind you that BG02 is the subject here, and not me. Yes, you are right. I recently got off an indef block, but unlike BG02, I value second chances granted by administrators. Regardless of my personal history, it doesn't make my report any less valid. Problematic users are still problematic users, either way. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work that way Skater. Opening an ANI thread means your behavior is just as much in focus as theirs. I'm likewise not amused that you're diving head first into the drama boards two weeks after coming off of an indef. In the future I'd rather you go to an admin you trust and then them file it. --Tarage (talk)

I thought a user that is unblocked is to be treated just like any other contributor, unless they violate the terms of their unblock again. By your logic, Tarage, a user that was blocked before should not be reporting other users? I can't see why relaying my report to an admin is a better option, considering that I could compile my own report and post it myself. And to clarify, I have no prior interaction with BG02, but I find his abusive behavior very disturbing. Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I would like to say, as an admin, that I try with greater or lesser succes to not sound pushy, aggressive, or imperative. Try to be polite until the time for politeness has passed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that we don't care much about 2013. So long ago, who remembers. At the risk of sounding imperious, Tarage is right in saying that when one brings a complaint here, their edits and behavior are very much of interest of the denizens of this place. They have been know to hurl boomerangs. Has anyone tried to reason with the editor in question?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence, Sk8erPrince, of you attempting to engage the user in discussion. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I have not attempted to engage with BG02, because I do not wish to be at the receiving end of his personal attacks. BG02 has displayed a pattern of abusively replying to other users and sending death threats to any contributor that he thinks is in his way, or proves to be an inconvenience to him (at least, in his perspective). I do not believe BG02 can be reasoned with because he has been warned one final time in June 2018, and since then, has made no improvements in editing civilly in a collaborative environment, which is what Wikipedia is. So to answer your question, other users have tried to reason with BG02, but to no avail.

Additionally, although the last chance unblock request dates back to 2013, the conditions of that unblock are still in effect. The diffs listed above shows that BG02 is in violation of those terms; 9 out of 10 of them are from this year. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to per-emptivly judge someone guilty of attacking you BEFORE they attack you. You always engage. --Tarage (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His recent past interactions all point to a strong unwillingness to communicate civilly. I do not wish to subject myself to the possibility of being cussed out. It's like deliberately walking into a lion's den just to get bitten. Sure enough, that's just a possibility, but I have listed what he has done, and there's no denying nor excusing the excessive amount of abuse in the diffs. Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you're absolutely dead set on ignoring everything else I'm telling you, next time you find yourself in a need to report an editor, run it by an admin you trust first? I really don't want things to go south for you so quickly after you were unblocked. --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting aside the fact that Sk8rPrince was only recently unblocked, that list of diffs is problematic, considering they go back quite a number of months this year. I'm not sure I agree with Ivanvector that there isn't much that admins can do with this. At a minimum, BG02 should get a reminder of the 2013 unblock agreement. A less merciful admin could certainly block them for violating those terms. Blackmane (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I would go with a reminder and asking them what is going on first. Engagement, discussion and then maybe a block. Five years? I think blocking someone on an issue that has lain dormant for 5 years would be a bit trigger happy even for me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I have gone with the reminder and inquiry. Blackgaia02 has not edited since 6 hours before this thread was started. The last time personal attacks were raised as an issue on his talk was in June. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Blackmane, I don't disagree with what you said, and I should have said "I don't see anything for admins to push buttons over". Reminding the user they have been told to keep it civil as a condition to remaining unblocked seems a perfectly reasonable admin response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 09:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Ivanvector. I'm not good at this interpersonal stuff. On reflection, I see I may not be the only one. Probably the nature of the interface or something. FWIW, Blackgaia02 replied on my talk page. He's at a loss. Perhaps those of you who are good at interpersonal dynamics can help.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ivanvector:Apologies if I came across as being overly critical. That was not my intention. The thrust of my point was that the discussion had descended into more about the complainant than about the user being reported. Even though a glance at the diffs did show some problematic behaviour from BG02. I may stop by Dlohcierekim's TP to make a comment. Blackmane (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with the basics of what Sk8erPrince has laid out above. Back in April I had a debate with this editor over the addition of unsourced content (which they repeatedly refused to source) and ended up warning them that I would have to report them here if they kept acting contrary to their unblock agreement. If the warning in June is any indication, apparently they chose to ignore that. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the diff that shows BG02's unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia policy. And this is the message GS has posted on BG02's talkpage. It is apparent that BG02 has been sufficiently warned about the possibility of a reblock. Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in light of the many comments above, you could stop posting in this thread? You made your report. Your participation here is controversial. We can handle it from here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate the recent rules here, the whole "you need to put a source or else its nuked or removed" especially in anime articles. The fact people are always being so high and mighty by reverting said things such as genres added and such like removing HUGE chunk of characters in a page. Just because adding a picture not related to the article, genre not related to the article, character sections that regarded as cancerous by people like TheFarix and removing facts due to NOT SOURCED offends me, insults me, depresses me to the verge of losing hope to this site. So what, I should delete all the articles I made because all of them are violations of Wikipedia's "Anti Fandom Law"? Look, I am not happy and not in a good mood on actually stating opinions because I felt someone pointing a gun over my head if I add an "unreliable source". I don't have my freedom anymore over which is content and which is not :<.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you don't believe that sourcing "rules" should apply to you, or the areas you're interested in?--Jorm (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The "recent rules" you "hate" are merely a sign of the maturing of Wikipedia. For better or worse, we are now the English-speaking world's first stop for quick information on the Internet, so we now have a much heavier obligation to make certain that the facts we present are accurate. That means that more and more information is going to be required to be sourced, and if it's not sourced, it's going to be deleted. You can look back fondly on the good old days where one could play a bit fast and loose and slip in a bit of {factual) OR without sourcing it, but those days are unlikely to return: in fact, it's much more probable that sourcing requirements will get tighter as time goes on. I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years from now, no new information will be allowed to be added to an article unless it is accompanied by a citation from a reliable source.
  We are never going to be a site that welcomes "fans" with open arms - Wikia exists for that. Perhaps you would be more comfortable there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That site never ever want to accept me either. Even if I did one edit as what I did on their "Gundam Wiki". Wikia is also starting to go on the route of wikipedia, I don't belong there too.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Indian anti-corruption movement is currently in something of an edit war state. I dropped notes for Drmies and RegentsPark but they would appear to be offline. I am a little concerned that this might be the return of people associated with WP:LTA/IAC, which suggests reporting here.

I cannot revert at the article any more but have tried to communicate the person who is removing stuff through edit summaries, a note on their talk page and notes on the article talk (with ping). It probably need protection but there is a peculiarity, too: although it is ages since it was last protected, the remover has pretty much done the standard routine of clocking up a minimal number of edits at an innocuous article before moving over to this one, almost as if they thought it was still protected. Weird but help/advice would be appreciated. Should I even notify them of this thread, as I would usually do?

A word of warning: if it is the LTA then do not get involved unless you are preferred for a shitload of trouble, possibly including off-Wiki stuff. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor reverted and warned. If they edit the article again without gaining consensus on the talk page first, I'll block indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Floq. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CU was warranted but delivered no results--not really surprising if it has been quiet for a while. Note that I have not previously, to my knowledge, run CU on IAC accounts, certainly not to the extent that I remember any of the details. One of the CUs with more experience in the matter might take this up--if it gets worse, I suppose. Thanks Sitush. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for running a check, Drmies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, the Crusader of the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement "Anna Hazare" was almost back in action and was in the news lately, hence the rise in the interest of editors on that page. I don't believe for now that this is LTA yet, but more admin eyes would certainly be helpful. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As I said at RP's talk page, I don't think this is the LTA either (and I tangled with that one a fair bit). There isn't the sort of aggressive legalese that was IAC's hallmark. This is just plain old axe-grinding. Vanamonde (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If edit warring, content disputes, and disruption like this have been an ongoing occurrence with this article, why not resolve the matter by applying extended confirmed protection to it? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they (or someone with the same aim) is back there deleting swathes of stuff. I've alerted Floq but I don't think they're online. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sitush has reverted my stable edits and keeps reverting when I restore to the last stable version (mine) instead of his prefered version. He also seems to think that IP editors ought not to edit at wikipedia. FWIW, the involved User:Ramesh8888 may have a WP:COI through sharing a surname with Anna Hazare. 103.30.142.163 (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not familiar with the LTA but have warned the recently active IP user (103.30.142.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 103.30.141.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), and will block/protect if the disruption and aggressive conduct continues. Abecedare (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Which it has, Abecedare. I've semi'd the article for a month. If the IP-hopper continues to harass Sitush, any admin who sees it will hopefully block. The range is 103.30.140.0/22, so far. Bishonen | talk 10:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Blitzcream has been performing whitewash edits on the Salt Bae since their account was created. The Blitzcream account was created shortly after an incident regarding "Salt Bae" and Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. Over 60% (25/41) of the edits made by Blitzcream, which is most likely WP:SPA when WP:DUCK is applied, involve "Salt Bae" or related discussions. The user only attempted to diverge from the article and make other edits once WP:SPA was brought to their attention (see diffs: my tag regarding possible WP:SPA and some of the first edits made by Blitzcream involving an article other than "Salt Bae"). The user Blitzcream also seems experienced with Wikipedia policies regarding edit conflicts, raising questions on whether they have specialized in contorversial articles in the past.

Their first edit reverted by addition of content regarding the incident. Blitzcream's first edit falsely stated in their edit summary that a source did not contain criticism against "Salt Bae". To further support the content, an additional source was added regarding the incident and it was once again reverted by Blitzcream, with the user pushing to delay the addition of content by creating an unnecessary talk page discussion. I explained that my edits did not mention so-called "political displays" (which was one of the main reasons Blitzcream reverted) and that the content only contained the responses of individuals provided by reliable sources. I attempted to add the content once more in the most NPOV wording I could think of in order to avoid further conflict. This, of course, was reverted by Blitzcream. After continuous reverts, I continued to try and discuss how wording could be improved without censoring content. After that and other options, Blitzcream again falsely stated that "Salt Bae" did not receive criticism in the sources. I explained to Blitzcream that I attempted to make the wording suitable for them, but the reverts continued. After the constant whitewashing and reverts, I left a final message clearly showing the content of the sources while using direct quotes and warned them to cease their disruptive edits. I added the information back to the article with multiple sources and updated details. This was reverted. I added the information again with simple, NPOV wording to serve as a middle ground and to end the conflict. This was reverted.

So this is why I have decided to direct this conflict here. I have dealt with WP:SPA and WP:COI users before, especially on the Smartmatic article, and would be grateful for any help as this is unecessarily stressful and I do not wish to edit in conflict as it only wastes time that can be spent improving Wikipedia. Thank you for any feedback and I will make improvements where they are needed.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am struck by the amount of effort being put into arguing if a guy who puts salt on meat is a communist or not. That is all. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. Sorry. I know you have 12k edits to Blitzcream's 40, but believe it or not, I'm not seeing it. For example, you're inserting the claim that "Gökçe has ... been criticized for his political displays": the examples given in the article, and by extension, the sources, are referring to miscellaneous instances of criticism on social media. I mean, that's not typically something that's considered to be encyclopedic. At least, it's debatable whether and how such things should be included in an article; a reasonable content dispute ripe for WP:DR. What else has he done? Slightly de-emphasize classifications of "Kurds" in favor of actual nationalities? Really not seeing this.  Swarm  talk  07:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: That is the thing. The content added is not stating that Gökçe is being criticized for his "political displays". It is stating that he was criticized for serving a luxury meal to the president of hungry nation. Whether or not that is a "political display" is up for interpretation. I have asked for suggestions of wording that would be more NPOV and avoid political issues, but the only action that Blitzcream has taken is reverting and censoring the content. As the article currently stands, it is a half-truth saying that only Maduro was criticized when Gökçe was also denounced for his actions as well.

Regarding the edits surrounding the Kurdish background, those were only minor edits, though Blitzcream still maintained an antagonistic approach towards other users as well. Blitzcream described edits by Lkasso1 (who is just as new as Blitzcream) as being ""Turkish/Kurdish nationalism bullshit". Their behavior makes me think that they are not here to build an encyclopedia.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the reverts at Salt Bae, and other than maybe reminding Blitzcream about edit warring to watch their reverts, I don't see much here that's actionable nor do I see anything that constitutes a gross violation of policy that warrants action here and now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thank you for taking time to look this over and providing feedback.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaLater - Of course; always happy to help :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like a collision between an internet-famous person (where virtually all sources are likely to be hyperbole), WP:BLP, and a national environment where virtually nothing is free of some kind of political overtones. Reminding people to keep tot he talk page until there is consensus seems like the way forward here. Of course, I would nuke the article. Internet-famous is synonymous with not-famous in my view, but I recognise I ma in a minority there. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe. On the other hand, when Temasek Holdings, the Singaporean state investment arm and another company jointly invested US$200 million in the parent company of Salt Bae's steak house chain, valuing the parent company at US$1.2 billion, most sources mentioned him sometimes in misleading ways [32] [33] [34] [35] (well previous 2 are from before the agreement, I couldn't find any content after the announcement & to be clear I didn't restrict to mention of Salt Bae) [36] (this is from before, there are sources after but this one is less sensationalistic with actually discussion of possible reasons for the investment but still mentions Salt Bae) [37] [38]. They seem to continue to do so [39] [40] [41]. And while notability is not inherited, see also [42] [43] [44] [45] which perhaps reflected the way internet fame can intersect with real world fame. Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons, we have discovered that User:Livioandronico2013 has been abusing multiple accounts to (a) evade their indef block [since November 2017] and (b) to cheat at Featured Picture Candidates for several years in over 300 nominations. The other accounts are User:Σπάρτακος and User:Architas which are now also blocked on Commons. Earlier this year, Livioandronico2013 used their Wikipedia account to attack me on Wikipedia. See this AN/I post and was blocked here for a week. You might want to investigate if these accounts have been used to cheat or disrupt Wikipedia and consider blocking some or all of them. -- Colin°^Talk 08:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Livioandronico2013 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Σπάρτακος (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Architas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The first account is indef-blocked on Commons and the other two are checkuser-blocked, also on Commons. They are not blocked on enwiki, and they have zero page overlaps outside of article space and the few articles they have edited in common are only a handful on each, and separated by years; that is to say they have not "cheated" in any discussions. The only technical violation of policy that I see here is that Architas edited once while Livioandronico2013 was blocked back in May, but I personally don't think that's worth actioning now. At best, maybe a one-account restriction is in order here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 09:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've left a note at WT:FPC regarding this matter. I'll keep an eye out for socks. MER-C 20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Hipeople1988 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) turned up today on Commons just to let everyone know they had moved on from secretly cheating to being obviously disruptive. Enforcing one-account on WP would seem to be wise. -- Colin°^Talk 20:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that Bbb23 has made that official. The new sock doesn't seem to be registered on this wiki. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I suspect that Hasive­ has been paid to edit on wikipedia (without disclosing these payments previously).

The Bengali Wikipedia community has recently obtained evidence that Hasive was paid BDT 1.5 million (about $18,000) by the government of Bangladesh to write Wikipedia articles about every Bangladeshi parliamentarian (source from gov site 1, 2). For two years he has been writing these articles without informing the community about the payments. He has only recently admitted to this after being confronted about it (on Bengali Wikipedia's mailing list and village pump). Yet he is claiming, as an excuse for not informing the community there, that this was merely a personal project of his.

I suspect, based on the sorts of edits he has been making on the English Wikipedia, that his work here is ­also being treated as part of his work writing articles on Bengali Wikipedia about parliamentarians.

This suspicion of mine has become stronger due to a comment of his on the Bengali Wikipedia village pump; he has stated "Aside from parliamentarians, information about every parliamentary constituency is being regularly updated on Wikipedia. This data has also been, and is being, added alongside Wikipedia to 'Wikidata', one of its sister projects".

At present the Bengali Wikipedia community is decided to revoke his admin rights there and indefinitely ban him there. He subsequently resigned from the board of Wikimedia Bangladesh and his membership of Wikimedia Bangladesh has also been canceled by the board over this. Link: https://bd.wikimedia.org/s/­1f2

I thus request that the English Wikipedia community begin to investigate this matter.

• B­engali Wikipedia discussion

source from gov site:

1. page 22, table 9 (Archive)

2.page 3, table 14 (Archive) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, nobody is touching this. Can we discuss stuff disclosed by Hasive at bn-WP in en-WP?

I did look at their edits and it matches what was said about their edits there.

BLP violation: unsourced content PROMO content. COPYVIO from source added in next diff. (already has been revdelled)

BLP violation unsourced PROMO content.

diff and

this diff is copy/pasted from the source which is page 8 of the word document in bengali hosted here at the bengali government PR office. (the word document is a series of bios of members of the bangladeshi government; i copied it into google translate). I sorta suspect it was written by Hasive as part of the project discussed at bn-WP, but cannot of course know).

This person's editing is horrible.

He is, happily, not an admin in en-WP. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If true then they should surely be globally banned, which would mean getting the WMF involved. Some sort of strong message has to be sent out when people are conducting UPE across multiple language projects. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While we can 86 him from here, it won't do anything for Bengali Wikipedia; this needs to be taken up at Meta at some point. I still say we have cause enough to indef him from en.wp right here and right now before we take that step, if he's continuing to edit. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: The user has already been indef-blocked and desysopped on bnwiki, as Aftab stated, so those actions directly affecting him on that wiki have already taken place. There is an ongoing effort to check all articles he created/improved on bnwiki pertaining to certain groups of people for copyvios, with a separate but related effort (search for "Appointment with Editor of Prothom Alo" on that page) to see if a newspaper would be willing to license certain articles, from which lots of copyvios on bnwiki are derived, under CC-BY-SA. @আফতাবুজ্জামান: At some point you will need to inform Meta, as Jeremy suggests, and possibly Wikidata as well about this situation. mahir256 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I ran into this editor in 2017, when they created Foundation for Research on Educational Planning and Development, which was speedily deleted as a copyright infringement. I then had to revert their additions to Zunaid Ahmed Palak, which at the time was one of the most unambiguously promotional puff pieces I’d come across on Wikipedia. (Apology for no diff; I’m on mobile, but look through the history beginning in April 2017.) All of this user’s substantive contributions are going to have to be checked carefully. /wiae /tlk 12:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the primary content I was referring to. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

72bikers has "banned" a number of users from their talk page, asking them not to post warnings of any sort. An ANI discussion in May determined that "banned" editors may post a single warning per incident on 72bikers' talk page. However, they have continued to accuse editors who do so of harassment, violating policy and "lacking the ability to judge what is a actual violation". Recent examples are [46] [47]. I would ask that 72bikers either substantiate these claims of harassment or stop making these accusations. I would certainly welcome any examination of my own behavior, as I feel that this (which triggered an accusation of violating policy and "optics of harassment") is perfectly legitimate and acceptable warning. –dlthewave ☎ 20:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is why do people feel that they need to post warnings on their page? If they feel they have to then there's obviously a reason and that should be looked into as more import than 72biker's responses. Is there another behavioural issue here? Canterbury Tail talk 21:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave - Yes, 72bikers can ask you not to post on their user talk page - and yes, it's generally expected that the user's wish is honored when such a request is given. We can't force a user to rescind their request for other editors to leave their user talk page alone, nor can we force a user to rescind accusations of harassment. If the user doesn't want you to communicate concerns, warnings, violations of policy, etc. directly to them first - fine. Taking concerns directly to the editor is a courteous thing to do, and if he doesn't want that, it's his prerogative. Just do what the guidelines state, which is to bring it to an administrator or admin noticeboard to have handled. If the only concern you're raising here is regarding 72bikers accusations and requests for others to not edit his talk page, there's not much we can do. Aside from this, are there other concerns that you need to discuss here regarding this user? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I've been following the consensus from the previous ANI discussion linked above, yet 72Bikers continues to accuse me of harassment and policy violations not just once but every time I post a legitimate warning. I feel that these accusations are inappropriate, unfounded and distracting and I would like 72Bikers to stop making them per WP:ASPERSIONS. Since I'm not supposed to post this at their talk page, I am asking for help here. –dlthewave ☎ 22:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have idea. How about you stop editing his talk page. Also, since your fully aware of and took part in the previous discussion regarding his talk page, this appears to be an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP.--RAF910 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith and not respond in a sarcastic tone, please. It's not going to help the user nor will it resolve his frustrations. We need to be patient, listen, and try and help as much as we can if possible. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) X 2 Dlthewave - I would do your best just to ignore the accusations and don't let them get to your emotions, and to just leave the user's talk page alone if his responses bother you. If you know that you're doing the right thing and in good faith, you're addressing legitimate issues, and doing your best to follow policy and what was decided in the last ANI discussion, it shouldn't bother you if he throws "harassment" at you and what-not. He's not the user who will ultimately decide what constitutes harassment or not. If the user chooses not to take your warnings to heart, then he's the one whose losing out - not you. That being said, is this user continuing to repeatedly make the same edits in violation of policy that you warned the user about? Is there something outside of the harassment accusations that should be discussed regarding this user's edits or compliance with policy? This is what we can help you with, and much more so than accusations being thrown around :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding those last questions, see here. That's just the latest incident in a long list. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out what editor Dlthewave said is not entirely correct. Its my understanding that only legitimate "required notices" such as for this noticeboard discussion be placed on a editors talk page and only once. How is a warning that is not a actual policy violation and only in the opinion of the warning editor legitimate. I have ask this editor numerous times politely to not post on my talk page as to the two policies WP:HUSH and WP:NOBAN. I believe if this editor had legitimate cause he would have simple went to a noticeboard such as here the have me sanctioned. but it would seem even there view of actual policy violation flawed. I would also point out I did not directly say he was harassing me but simply the optic of what he was doing, given the history, might be perceived as such, as the result of this confirmed.

I would also point out this editor not very long ago started a discussion to do away with the policies that allowed a editor to requet that other do not post on there talk page. But not even one of the admins thought that was a good idea.

@Oshwah:, @Canterbury Tail:, as to whether or not I am being harassed, I would like to bring to attention there has just been another noticeboard complaint filed, that also appear to be fruitless [48]. Claiming he would not go to noticeboard if he could post warnings on my talk page. -72bikers (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@72bikers: "Its my understanding that only legitimate "required notices" such as for this noticeboard discussion be placed on a editors talk page and only once." Who told you that? I provided a link to an ANI consensus that says otherwise. –dlthewave ☎ 01:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

72bikers - I understand that the warnings left by other editors can be annoying and perhaps even aggravating, but the purpose behind such notifications is to allow editors who have concerns regarding possible issues that you're involved with to bring them directly to you so that it can be resolved if the concerns are correct, or explained and understood by the messenger if the concerns are wrong. I wouldn't consider such messages left in good faith an annoyance or an attempt to harass you, but a courteous thing to do before getting more users and administrators involved with the matter. If Dlthewave's warnings and concerns are incorrect, you should be able to respond and explain in a calm and civil manner why they're incorrect so that you're both at the same level of understanding and that things are indeed okay. If you respond by pushing those users away from your talk page and by telling them to stop editing it and leave you alone, you're only going to cause more frustration upon yourself if such concerns are legitimate and address real issues that need to be resolved. You mentioned that Dlthewave Waleswatcher made a report to AN3 that you believe is fruitless and without merit. Had you allowed Dlthewave to voice concerns regarding edit warring to you directly first (assuming that it's incorrect), you could have explained the discrepancy and resolved the matter right then and there. Because you've robbed yourself of allowing others to communicate with you directly by telling them to not edit your user talk page, you're now seeing a direct consequence of this action - they're going to report the matter(s) to the appropriate noticeboard(s) and you're going to have to deal with explaining things on those reports when asked about them. Compared to doing that and with all this in mind, doesn't it seem easier for everybody (including yourself) if you instead maintained an open communication policy on your talk page and you welcomed users to voice concerns and leave warnings so that you can discuss them peacefully before it becomes 'escalated' to a noticeboard? How you manage your user talk page and who can post messages and warnings to them is ultimately up to you - I obviously can't force you to do anything. I just want to help you to understand that you're making things harder on yourself in the long-term and in the end by keeping people who leave you warnings off your user talk page, and that being open, civil, and receptive to warnings, concerns, and criticism is the best way to handle such things and is ultimately much more easier on yourself :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Oshwah for explaining it better than I could. It was actually Waleswatcher who filed the AN3 report, but they were similarly banned by 72bikers and unable to discuss the issues before escalating. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave - Ah, my bad. I thought you were the creator of that AN3 report by mistake - please accept my apologies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it was that simple Oshwah, I truly due. But when things like this and much more [49] and [50] and this [51] in reference of me, its hard to see good intentions. When a editor with a adversarial view tries to chastise you and only post warnings if they did not have good enough proof to actually have you sanctioned, its hard to see the assumption of good faith. look I simply requested like many times before for him to post on my page, and I simply mentioned the optics of his actions and he came here to have me sanctioned. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to such thing, as the admins responding to Dlthewave request to do away with the policies that I presented with my request stated without it would swamp them with mostly trivial matter. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

72bikers - It sounds like we need to open a dialogue of communication between yourself and Dlthewave (and Waleswatcher as well), where you two openly come to an understanding of exactly what caused your initial frustrations (like what you pointed out above) so that you can allow these users to talk to you on your user talk page again and trust that they'll have good faith in mind and avoid the exact things that started this breakdown in communication to occur. Would you be willing to allow these users to post on your user talk page again so that they can reach out to you and talk to you in a civil manner and you and they can collaborate and work things out? You'll be able to share what's going on, what bothered you, and allow them to do the same. This is the best thing that you can do and for all of you - come to an agreement with them and let them communicate with you openly. I'm sure that one condition with them is that you won't accuse them of harassing you or that you won't make rude, uncivil, or bad-faith assumptions toward them. You'll obviously be able to have them agree to things you don't want to see either. What do you say? Can you give it a shot and see how this goes? Dlthewave? Waleswatcher? Are you two on board and okay with this too? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to dialogue and would suggest including Slatersteven if they are interested. My concern is that 72bikers has engaged in a pattern of both personal attacks/off-topic comments on the AR-15 style rifle talk page and DS/3RR violations in article space. I would like to arrive at a solution that allows us to address this disruption without provoking accusations of harassment and policy violation which draw the conversation away from the topic at hand. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those are not on your talk page. Nor are they about any users posting here (or at the edit war thread). Now I( asked you directly on my talk page, and I am asking you here, would you rather have warnings posted on your talk page or just be reported without warning when you might have breached policy? Because what you are not going to have is to be allowed to breach policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I regularly question whether 72bikers is here to build an encyclopedia - but this is an old issue. As per several previous trips to AN/I over this issue, users are free to issue standard statements and warnings on 72's page. 72 is free to delete those afterward and they should not be reinserted. 72 is free to ask users not to post more on that topic but users are free to raise new issues with 72 in the future even if he's "banned" them. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe 72bikers is here to build an encyclopedia. What I find is 72bikers does a poor job of articulating legitimate concerns. I don't agree with the idea that we should just ban people from our talk pages left and right. I agree with others here that in general its not a good idea to blanket ban people from out talk pages. But once such a prohibition has been requested it should be respected. I think 72bikers should do the following:

1. When posting to article talk pages, Be bright, be brief! Write out what you want to say, proof read it then cut the text in half (I don't always practice what I preach...).
2. Don't beat the horse (alive or dead). Sometimes people don't answer the questions we ask. You can't force them to. Consider that your audience isn't always the person who disagrees (and may, in good faith, never agree). Use a coherent argument to convince the undecided or new to the discussion (again, bright and brief really helps).
3. Discuss first, edit last. This one applies to other editors as well. If a section of content is the subject of a current talk page disagreement, don't change it! Propose changes on the talk page. Try to resist the urge to revert (again my practice and preaching aren't fully coherent). When we are in a consensus gridlock trying to figure out how to balance this or that, it doesn't help when someone adds some new content without proposing the edit first. It almost certainly will result in a number of article changes/reversions and editor frustration. Just propose it first!

These suggestions apply to myself and other editors as well. Springee (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that, since I've got back from my wikibreak, I've seen more WP:3RR and WP:AN/I threads opened about 72bikers than any other editor I've interacted with. They've had plenty of warnings regarding their comportment, with the talk page issue being one of them. And while many of those cases have been marginal, 72 has pulled 2 blocks in 2018 for edit warring and yet continues to push the line of EW behaviour often, while remaining disinclined to discuss their behaviour on their own user talk page - which inevitably spills out into the boards with additional marginal edit warring accusations, and complaints to AN/I. So yeah, there's some WP:NOTHERE behaviour going on. Whether admins consider it severe enough to be actionable is another issue, but what it comes down to is that 72bikers is often a obstruction to resolving challenging and fraught content disputes rather than a participant. And that's a problem. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: From where I sit, 72bikers' pattern of behavior clearly fits multiple elements of WP:NOTHERE: battleground behavior (banning users from their talk page, accusing them of harassment, arguing tooth and nail over just about every edit from an editor they disagree with), repeated warnings and blocks, little interest in collaboration (even with like-minded editors, from what I've seen), and disruptive edits.

For a recent example of that last, when dlthewave tried to get some input on the issues at AR-15 style rifle, 72bikers posted multiple WP:TEXTWALLs like this, this, and this that have clogged the discussion to the point it's almost impossible to read (especially for anyone new to this that might actually have provided a fresh perspective). Those WOTs are often riddled with typos to the point they're hard to parse, and more importantly they are very long and usually miss the point under discussion. I don't know to what degree that's intentional, but it's certainly disruptive. Then there's the kneejerk reverts on anything they disagree with (see here for the latest of that, including a revert of my removal of a duplicate reference), usually followed by more walls of text on the talk page.

Since multiple warnings and short blocks don't seem to have helped, it seems to me a longer block or topic ban might be called for. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the idea of dragging different accusations into an ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WW, this seems like a self serving position on your part. Some of the edits in question were reversions of material that you added in a way that, while not a bright line violation, were not helpful. For example, here [[52]] you add material to a section that is an area of active disagreement. You didn't propose the material or change first. You should have known better given your involvement in the on going discussions. Here you revert material that 72bikers added a while back and that had been stable [[53]]. I can see how an editor might feel you were targeting their work since you didn't discuss this removal first (discussion added after removal [[54]]). If we go a ways back here you are saying that WP:ONUS to remove new content is on the editor who wishes to remove rather than the editor who is doing the adding (the opposite is true) [[55]]. 72bikers generally isn't initiating the controversial changes, you have initiated several. It creates a certain amount of baiting a trap by antagonizing targeting some of his edits and then ignoring consensus when adding edits that can't reasonably assume wouldn't be controversial. Springee (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And your comment seems equally self-serving on your part, doesn't it? As seems to be typical for you, your comment is riddled with falsehoods and misrepresentations (see this for a particularly egregious recent example of such misplaced accusations). But this really isn't about me, or you, so I'll not respond further. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be fair; most people fall for a joe-jobber once before they notice the pattern of behaviour. After all, most people don't have checkuser authority. I wouldn't lean on this too hard as any sort of blemish on Springee's record. They walked back the complaint immediately upon being told it was a joe-jobber and while they and I may not often see eye to eye, they're a decent editor and, unlike 72bikers, I wouldn't expect to see them up before AN/I or 3RR as they understand and adhere to Wikipedia norms well. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, diff.

See the rest of Special:Contributions/Loricarey. This person and a sock (filed at SPI) are reverting removals of breitbart.com that were done pursuant to WP:BREITBART. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goooo bye bye. Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail - Thank you for blocking the user - you beat me to it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No way I'm defending the person's edit summaries or claims made (that alone is banable offenses), but I do have concerns that the material that was removed that they reverted met the RSOPINION allowances that the Breitbart closure allowed for, with those removing the BB links and materials sourced to them perhaps cutting off more than the closure allowed form. I've already discussed w/ Jytdog related to the removal on the diff above on that talk page, and while there's a valid point on UNDUE issues, that should be a point of discussion before removal; the BREITBART closure was not allowance to remove any BB link, only those that were being used to source factual material (or least, factual material in WP's voice). Wumbolo made up User:Wumbolo/Breitbart as opinion on the 25th after the closure to track seemingly valid uses of BB under RSOPINION, and some of the reverts of this user are based on removals of BB after this list was made. Masem (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem - I don't see an issue with restoring or fixing such material if what was removed should be kept. Obviously, the concerns and decision behind blocking the reported user was due to their incivility and personal attacks added to their edit summaries. I didn't consider the content itself when looking into the matter; just the edit summaries that were left. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, *sigh*. Sorry, we're talking about a longterm harasser here who makes violent and obscene threats all over the place, may well have thousands of already blocked socks, and you want to make some point about how to keep more Breitbart in our articles? Does Breitbart need a hug? If this harasser has valid points to make, why don't you discuss it with them. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have revdeleted the edit summary in question and changed this section's header. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio giuliano - Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Damn, we just discussed doing this at the weekly Far-Left Pedophiles of Wikipedia (FLPOW) meeting, and apparently, Jytdog beat us to the punch. Oh well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found another one: Sagobony1. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Salvio giuliano (thank you). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And talk page access removed/edit deleted. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• the current header is just so dull. :( But thanks for the swift mop-wielding! Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• another sock: Special:Contributions/Puncharyan Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Black Kite. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Another: Awlsbloch –dlthewave ☎ 23:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the incitement to violence here removal of talk page access might be in order. MarnetteD|Talk 00:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While not as egregious this should be looked at as well. MarnetteD|Talk 00:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD - I've revoked talk page access from both users and redacted the revisions (WP:DENY). Thanks for the heads up :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Oshwah. MarnetteD|Talk 01:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD - You bet :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also Steplush –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked by Zzuuzz--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• + Sizerhurts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• + Scentgotta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not a big surprise given the website in question. This may need a rangeblock in the end. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is JarlaxleArtemis, hopping around on open proxies. A range block is not going to be effective. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeeup, I figured :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding:

• Zionist and Proud18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Novadock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hersbrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I assume someone will sweep these up at some point?

I have blacklisted breitbart.com for now, which should prevent further reverts. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, how long are you planning on keeping breitbart.com on the blacklist? It's used quite a lot and, in some cases, can be a reliable source and beneficial to an article. Vermont (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make it so only confirmed editors can add it? Like have an edit count requirement? --Tarage (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in some cases, can be a reliable source On this planet? --Calton | Talk 22:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we switch it to being on XLinkBot's disallowed list? Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart News is only reliable for its own editorial opinions. At best, if it reports something, it can be used to search for reliable sources to see if they report the same thing, and then that citation (from the RS) can be used. I see no reason that Breitbart shouldn't be blacklisted for as long as necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is already on the xlinkbot list, the issue was socks reverting removals with offensive edit summaries. Only blacklisting will stop that. @Vermont: If there's consensus on Talk that a link to Breitbart is appropriate, overcoming the strong consensus that it's unreliable, it can be added to the whitelist. Please note that in general "Breitbart said X, source, Breitbart saying X" would require a reliable independent source to establish that the statement is actually significant, per WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit filter would be a preferable option. It wouldn't take a minute to write an appropriate filter. I'd suggest it's removed from the blacklist as soon as possible. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have formally requested that it be removed from the blacklist and instead XLinkBot be used here MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#breitbart.com_2 as the blacklist should only be used as a method of last resort, and XLinkBot can handle these less than a week old socks. -Obsidi (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been on XLinkBot for 10 months now, showing that that has been tried to no avail. Though an edit filter could do the trick, seen that this is an unreliable source anyway (meaning that its use should be limited), there is no reason that future appropriate additions, if any, cannot be handled by the whitelist. Skimming through uses I would be surprised if there currently are more than 10 proper uses in mainspace (the few (3!, but I did not search hard) I saw should go through whitelisting at some point, but no hurry; links outside mainspace can be disabled). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, we may get to 20, on maybe 10 pages. <shrug>. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 August in an ANI brought against me by User:Briancua I committed to make an effort to better adhere to conduct policies. Since then I have tried extra hard to be constructive, engaged, civil, and collaborative with all editors. I like to think I have always done this but accept that my performance (while not specifically violating any of the rules) had room for improvement. I didn't think the ANI brought against me by BrianCUA was fair as it seemed to be a deliberate attempt to have me banned from the site because I have consistently bought a degree of challenge to BrianCUA's edits. Nevertheless I accepted the ANI (despite long service) and tried to move on. However, regrettably I feel that while I have made an effort to improve, BrianCUA has not. As an editor they seem to demonstrate a bias towards conservative Catholicism - this can be seen by glancing at the totality of edits which are always aimed at reinforcing a overly-positive perspective both on Catholic teaching as well as organisations relating to the Church (eg the Knights of Columbus. To the extent that article are starting to look skewed and biased. I have set out some examples below. These are by no means exhaustive. I apologise in advance for the length of this but am trying to be as conscientious as I can. I've tried to avoid this turning into a petty tit-for-tat against me and BrianCUA (and you'll see that concerns have been voiced by other established editors) - it's just that I have a genuine concern that the spirit of Wikipedia is not being abided by and I'd just like someone to check if there is an issue. If it's the case that I've been over-cautious then I will accept that. Thank you again for your time.

• Over-turned all edits (WP:EDITWARRING) relating to Knights of Columbus and the Pledge of Allegiance to imply bigger role for the knights than the sources suggest (WP:PEACOCK). No justification given and no attempt to engage with the discussion initiated on the talk-page:

[[56]] Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#Pledge of Allegiance

• I added material on Cardinal Arinze and the rainbow sash and then removed my own material as I didn't think it was appropriate to the article. BrianCua restored the material and has argued that I am not allowed to remove it unless I achieve consensus (no other editor has expressed a view so "consensus" in this case means permission by BrianCua. Followed up with threats on my talk page to have me "banned" if I continued to pursue this point. Additionally the fact that another editor has suggested the stressing of "unity" is tendentious editing:

Talk:History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality#Rainbow sash User talk:Contaldo80#Disputed edits and behavior

• Failure to retain WP:CIVILITY when collaborating with other editors. Repeated use of sarcasm, for example "I didn't make a mistake. I copied directly from the source. Again, remember that just because the phrase is written in italics, or in quotation marks, or in Sanskrit somewhere else, doesn't mean we do it here."

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#First usage of Culture of Life

• Repeated rejection of attempts by other editors (Contaldo80, Aquillon, TronVillain) to find a compromise solution in relation to the term "culture of life" in favour of a tendentious approach that asserts usage by the Catholic church is widely understood and accepted:

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#RFC on quotation marks

• Tendentious editing on Catholic Church and homosexuality to give WP:UNDUE prominence in the lead (and main article) to gay rights activists disrupting Catholic masses - opposing the concerns of other editors (including Roscelese). Even though incidences of this were limited and protesting against communion was actually only ever done globally once according to sources cited:

Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality#Desecrating

• Concerns raised by a number of editors (including Steeletrap, Johnpfmcguire and Contaldo80) at the repeated "playing of the system" (ie circular citation of Wikipedia rules to frustrate attempts by other editors to make progress on article) which is designed to reinforce tendentious editing relating to a social conservative/ conservative Catholic perspective (especially relating to the issue of homosexuality). Possessive behavior (and inconsistent application of guidance) in relation to articles - which rejects any attempts by other editors to make changes that are seen as a threat to the conservative catholic viewpoint:

Talk:Knights of Columbus#Removal of KoC political activism in the lede Talk:Knights of Columbus#Lead section

• Citing a source that has subsequently been demonstrated as having made a fundamental error in relation to dating, raising concerns around WP:RS. Continuing to insist on using that source without provide a fuller quotation to reassure that the remainder of the material is reliable, despite the fact that other editors have supported this approach as a way forward.

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#RFC on quotation marks#First usage of Culture of Life

• Insisting that the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality retains a substantive section in the main article setting out in detail the teaching of the catholic church on homosexuality despite arguments that this unnecessarily duplicates material in other articles, and cherry-picks phrases such as "All people, including those that are LGBT, "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" which more than one editor have agreed is WP:UNDUE. Additionally rejecting solutions aimed at compromise and a desire to "play the system" (arguing that most people wouldn't know the catholic church dislikes homosexuality and therefore a sentence in the lead which is not a commonly accepted fact needs to have substantive supporting material in the main body):

Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality

• Admitting that they were WP:HOUNDING me to visit a page not previously visited to specifically over-turn edits I have made.

User talk:Briancua#Reinhard Marx

Contaldo80 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone would like me to, I don't plan to give a point for point response to all of these allegations. I will simply point anyone interested to the relevant talk pages and edit summaries. There you can see extensive discussions where it is clear that not only am I engaging with others, I am making efforts to cite relevant policies and guidelines for all the actions I am taking. There you can also see that it is far from me against the world. There are others who have agreed with me, as well as those who have disagreed. You will also find that, when a dispute seems intractable, I have sought out other opinions from WP:3O and WP:RFC on multiple occasions.

I would like to specifically address the accusations of incivility, hounding, and threatening. I have no doubt that I have made mistakes along the way, but the difs show that none of this is true.

• With regards to incivility, on the occasion in question I didn't mean to come across as incivil, and apologized if I did.
• There was one occasion when I edited an article I typically don't, and Contaldo himself said he was "sure that it wasn't your aim at all to hound me." He then accepted my explaination when I said I wasn't hounding him by saying "No offence taken." In any case, it was one time, and certainly wasn't repeated.
• Finally, I never, ever threatened to ban him (even if I could). In fact, I said the complete opposite: "You often have substantive contributions, so I don't want to see you get banned." --BrianCUA (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Carmen page is being vandalized repeatedly by an IP and a user name to include libel. Can someone help me stop this? Ip IP edits are 69.54.63.217 and user edits, almost word for word, is Cherrykid6. Both IP and user notified of this incident. P37307 (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page for a week to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 0 days since the most recent report of genre warring.

BadboyOli (talk · contribs) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources for a few days now and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. I reported to AIV but I can't tract down what happened to it. Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 13:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were told in the edit summary that club wasn't sourced ergo it was removed, like I said, please add a source to it and then it can stay… BadboyOli (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh... another genre war? As best I can see both of you are slow-motion edit warring, and you need to work this out on the relevant talkpages and/or through dispute resolution. If it continues, to stop it I'll protect any necessary pages at whatever wrong version it's at. (And I'm really considering taking action on a Fergie song and a Mariah Carey song besides trying to condemn them to damnatio memoriae... this place makes one do strange things) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Wikipedia sets a policy of not commenting on subjective elements of creative works such as genre. Simonm223 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an RfC about not including genres in infboxes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Request for comment on removing genres from musician, album, and song infoboxes. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've put my comment there. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rah Crawford (2nd nomination):

In addition to being deleted once already, this was recreated as a draft, which was declined three times. The author then copy-pasted the text of the draft to mainspace, and arranged for the draft to be deleted by tagging it with template:db-g7. While it's true that WP:AfC is an optional process, asking people to spend their time reviewing your work, then ignoring their input and moving it to mainspace anyway is WP:GAMING the system. Not to mention that the copy-paste and history deletion technically makes this a copyvio. Edit comments (currently deleted) like, Sulfurboy mentioned it was too close to the wording on another site - That bio was submitted at the same time as we submitted to Wikipedia it is by the same writer. Although, I did make many changes to this in order to not look like it was plagiarized. :) make it clear that there's undisclosed WP:COI.

Rather than just indef blocking User:WO1977 as WP:NOTHERE (which I think would be justified), I'd like to try the less draconian measure of a TBAN against editing any topic, broadly construed, related to Rah Crawford. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, it isn't WP:AfC that is the problem, but this was deleted. Shouldn't it have had to go through Wikipedia:Deletion review to recreate it? For instance if he found "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page," then that would be the appropriate process right? As far as I can tell he never went through that process. The delete on the userspace draft (if he was the primary author) would seem to be ok (I don't know if he was the primary author as I cannot see it), likewise if he was the author of the userspace version, copying that to article space isn't a copyvio -Obsidi (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/93.182.104.0/21 seems to be having fun posting links [[Kıbrıs Türk Devletı]] and [[639-1 ısoo]] with a few variations. If someone could throw together a spam filter that would be great, I would however, bed beckons. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billinghurst - Have these edits continued on other IP ranges and after September 30? If so, what other ranges did they occur on? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I was analysing a set of IP data only, and looking at the abuse. Randomly looking at the articles that have been hit, the vandalism is on a broad range of articles, rather than deep within each. The worst vandalism looks to be at Turkish_Cypriot_State, and there it doesn't seem to be broader in an IP range. Also adding another term, though this isn't wikilink'd kuzey turk devleti. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fuller.david (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.141.210.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Renewed nonsensical numerology and talk page abuse on gravitation-related articles after final warning in April 2018. That final warning resulting in a reply " In Your FACE DVdm !!!!!"

Most recent target is Talk:Gravitational coupling constant. Case of wp:NOTHERE. - DVdm (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the IP user and Fuller.david were both the same person - the timeline of edits to Talk:Gravitational coupling constant appear to fit and support this. The only edits this user has made to the article space is four edits to Entropic gravity on 1 April 2018, and one edit to Unified atomic mass unit on 27 September 2017. Fuller.david's user page is full of math formulas and equations, and they've also used their user talk page for this as well. All other edits have been to article talk pages and appear to be completely off-topic and having no involvement with discussion or collaboration with other users. I'm starting to question WP:NOTHERE as well. Regardless, I believe that there's enough information from what I've found to justify an indefinite block. If the user intends to make positive contributions to the project and their intentions are to build an encyclopedia, then they'll have no problem with formulating a logical and convincing explanation in their unblock request. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! - DVdm (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone mind imposing a block on The Drover's Wife for hoaxing and personal attacks? She's persistently adding a claim that slavery existed in the Broome article in the late 19th century, despite the cited source never making such a statement; and when I've reverted, all I've gotten is personal attacks.

Background: the article states that slavery and slavery-like conditions existed in this place in the 1880s, but as slavery was ended in 1833, I removed the statement. To my surprise, I was reverted with a fierce response, and while giving a warning at her talk, I noted that the cited source never said that slavery existed at this site. (The source's only uses of the string slav are a bit about slavery-like conditions and a note about the 1833 action, page 45; a note that "reports" of slavery were made, page 110; and a citation to a work with slaves in the title, page 217.) She re-reverted, which I again reverted and accompanied with a stern warning about hoaxing, and all that happened was a re-re-revert. [I'm at 2RR, but I'm not going to 3RR (as she already has), let alone surpassing it.] Moreover, I've been given repeated baseless allegations: I'm "misrepresenting both the detail and character of sources", I'm "flagrantly misrepresenting a source", and I'm trying to "play unsupportable ideological games".

Adding a claim of X with a citation is a claim that the cited source says X: if it does not, you've added a hoax. (Moreover, remember that WP:V demands a citation that directly supports anything that's been challenged, and I've demonstrated that the citation does not support the challenged content.) There's room for lenience the first time (typos, misunderstanding the source, etc.), but when you're repeatedly reverted with warnings and yet you restore the hoax and respond as I note above, it's beyond time for lenience. Moreover, WP:WIAPA provides that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are a kind of personal attacks, and she's presented no evidence for source misrepresentation or doing something for any reason other than enforcing compliance with the sources. [Hint: I've never heard of Broome before, and I wasn't aware that there was a dispute on this subject; I couldn't have had an opinion on the question.] There's no room for tolerating the combination of hoaxing and personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User Nyttend seems not to have any knowledge of Blackbirding in Australia, and appears to be involved in an edit war. Another uninvolved editor has suggested that the discussion be moved to the Australian Wikipedians' notice board for improvements to this article, and I've added a couple other related articles to that discussion that also need better references. Bahudhara (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is surreal. Nyttend has a very strong point-of-view (that slavery in Australia definitively never existed because of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 and because of his own opinion as to the definition of slavery (which differs from the statutory definition of slavery in both the UK and Australia). Neither of these points of view are well supported in reliable sources. I reinserted content that was supported by the cited source. These are obviously complex issues, and I am very open to different wording - all I'm definitively opposed to is Nyttend's blanket POV. Nyttend's entire response to this issue has been to repeatedly accuse me of "hoaxing" for not sharing his POV, threaten to have me blocked and revert without explanation.

Considering Nyttend has repeatedly accused me of "hoaxing" for insisting on a mainstream interpretation of Australian history, it is a bit rich to claim that I'm the one making personal attacks. He claimed a source published by the Australian Heritage Commission was written by "environment specialists" and not historians in a false attempt to dismiss it. He suggests that the source did not support a reference to "slavery", when it plainly does in context - again, happy to workshop language as to exactly what one says about the disputed section (again, this stuff is obviously nuanced and complex), just opposed to the attempt to remove any reference to slavery in any context. Nyttend's behaviour has been ridiculously aggressive from the get-go and is blocking what seems to be a reasonably easy issue to resolve if one focuses on sources instead of his established and overtly-stated point of view. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor I've never come across just posted this link from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on my talk page, which is another brilliant example of the sort of mainstream history that Jyttend has threatened to have me banned for including because it differs from his personal POV. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I requested the two editors to note the issue is better in the Australian project - to try to lose the personal point making. As what happens when it gets lost in the interpersonal unnecessarily. Please see Australian the notice board to see why I suggested as such. Please also see the article itself to see why I believe there are some apologies required, and the term 'hoaxing' dropped. JarrahTree 02:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from an uninvolved editor, looks like a content dispute that shouldn't have escalated to the point where an WP:ANI report was necessary, it's definitely not a hoax, I posted some references at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board to illustrate it is the mainstream view of Australian history. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nyttend claims slavery could not exist because slavery was illegal and the first sentence of Wikipedia's Slavery article defines slavery as de jure. Yes, the UK parliament did pass the Slavery Abolition Act 1833; it also passed the Modern Slavery Act 2015 because slavery has persisted. That is not a hoax. Experienced Wikipedia editors should know that the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is not always perfect. 92.19.29.177 (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've had ongoing problems for months with a very immature IP posting serial BLP violations across a number of Australian conservative politicians. His usual static IP, 110.22.50.32, received a long-term block several weeks ago after countless warnings. He's now editing from a new IP to dodge the block (49.177.138.206) adding rubbish like this. Can we please get a block on 49.177.138.206 as well?

I think it's probably time that his favourite target, Marcus Bastiaan, was permanently semi-protected to put a dampener on it. Might also be an good idea to semiprotect his second-favourite, Matthew Guy, as Guy is two months away from an election and it's probably not a good look to have BLP-violating rubbish repeatedly added to his article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly the same user, new IP now also blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out, The Drover's Wife, that you're required to notify a user when you discuss them here by posting a message on their talk page. It's kind of a moot point now, but please remember for next time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's about extremely clear block avoidance, and regarding an immature kid who pretty clearly enjoys being a nuisance. It only goes here because there doesn't seem to be any clearer means for obvious blocks that aren't overt vandalism. What is the point of adding more rigamarole to the process of dealing with him when (from his responses every other time we've done this) it just seems to serve as further encouragement to keep it up? The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just reminding you what the rule is: when you start a discussion about an editor here, you notify them on their talk page. There are very few admin-attention pages on Wikipedia which have a requirement like this, and they are all the same: when you report, you notify. There's no exception for clear disruption: there would be no agreement on how disruptive a user should be before invoking the exception, and probably not even a broad agreement on how you would even measure disruption for that purpose. And I'm not trying to get you in trouble, I'm really just reminding you, like I do with anyone who reports here and forgets to notify the editor they're reporting. So, like I said: please remember for next time. I'm sure this user will not have any success trying to find an administrator to unblock them on this technicality, but it's happened before. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]