위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive 977

Could someone with at least the template-editor right fix the TfD notice at Template:Distinguish2? This is a hatnote template, and so its TfD nomination is currently being advertised by making a mess of the top lines of the 7,428 articles that transclude it (see example). The fix is to wrap the TfM notice in <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. – Uanfala (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although the #invoke:noinclude was puzzling. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (but yeah, that bit is puzzling – I have no idea what it does). – Uanfala (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Tfm#TfM in template documentation. To explain that in my own words, {{#invoke:noinclude|noinclude|text=STUFF_HERE}} has the same effect as <noinclude>STUFF_HERE</noinclude>, but is used separately because direct noinclude tags can't be nested. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the merge proposer going to fix the 7,428 articles that would reportedly be affected? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, such stuff is normally handled by the bot machinery behind TfD. – Uanfala (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diff

Diff

Diff

Editcred123, based on contribs and name, is a single-purpose account (which raises suspicion over conflict of interest) unwilling to refrain from disruptive edits, despite warnings. The dispute is over the addition of "Senior Narrative Designer" Ross McCall to an infobox parameter that belongs to the lead writer, namely Zak Garriss. Cognissonance (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indef. Swarm ♠ 20:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please block this user? See most recent contributions, specifically to Susanna Innes-Ker, Duchess of Roxburghe. Thanks, Ruby2010 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.V&alist (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

V&alist (talk · contribs) needs a block as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted these both at WP:AIV, which is where @Ruby2010: should go for this type of thing in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wasn't sure where to go. Ruby2010 (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Handled by MusikAnimal; blocked for 2 weeks. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 2605:A000:1500:8064:* contribs since new year

Requesting a range block for 2605:A000:1500:8064:*. This user keeps adding categories for American tv shows to non-American shows. See example diffs ans above range Contribs. [1] [2] [3] [4]. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone able to address this? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: Maybe try someone here: Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks who you've seen has been active recently? Range blocks frighten and confuse me, and I'm probably not alone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Thanks. Pinging MusikAnimal KrakatoaKatie since they were active recently. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The common range is Special:Contribs/2605:a000:1500:8064::/64. It looks like there have been some attempts to contact them, so I'm comfortable with blocking. Two weeks should be long enough to get their attention. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody please slap an archive box around Talk:Czech Republic #Czechia, everywhere?. It is off-topic, and has been going on endlessly. I'd do it, but I participated, to my chagrin. Largoplazo (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That was not an especially hard one to read, was it? Guy (Help!) 00:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion executed, but please don't come back here with a similar report. Swarm ♠ 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of 10:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC); it has been 16 hours since Rohit KaduDeshmukh was nominated for speedy using G5. Yet it hasnt been processed. Also, I was wondering what is the longest surviving speedy nomination? —usernamekiran(talk) 10:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy" does not mean we race to delete articles immediately after tagging. It just means we skip XFD/PROD. It's not unusual or even problematic that pages are tagged for days unless immediate action (G10/G12) is actually required. As well meaning as this post was, please do refrain from doing so in future. Admins are only volunteers too and we will get to it eventually. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and deleted it, but I agree with SoWhy: speedy deletions will sometimes stand for days if it is complicated (as some G5s and G12s are). No need to worry :) TonyBallioni (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i know what a speedy is I thought it wouldnt take much of time to see if an article fits speedy, the either accept or decline the speedy. I am not complaining about the 16 hours, i am curious about the longst surviving article after getting nominated. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you weren't concerned about how much time it took an admin to decide if the article met the criterion for speedy deletion then why did you bring it to ANI? If your reason for posting this was to find out the longest surviving speedy deletion nomination then the place to ask that kind of question would be WT:CSD. ~ GB fan 12:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockblocked. GABgab 21:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am dealing with a troll here and here. A block would be an excellent step with thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

91.227.222.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (anonymous proxy), 81.92.203.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.149.102.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (same user)

I was encouraged to take this here from WP:BLPN by USER:Zaereth.

The IP user above has repeatedly attempted to restore an obviously inappropriate/non-WP:BLP compliant version of the article for Darius Guppy (four times in the last month). This user's favoured version is one that includes irrelevant speculation about the subject's personality, and details about his political views. Their writing style is also wholly inappropriate for a biography (WP:BLPSTYLE). For example, the user wants the article to emphasise the subjects' "notable ancestry and his unconventional opinions and writings", and how "extremely well planned and very carefully executed" the insurance fraud was, etc. I referred the article to WP:BLPN last year, and among the editors who participated in the discussion there was an implied consensus in favour of the current, neutrally worded version. The changes also make use of low-quality/non-WP:RS sources: mainly blogs, the Daily Mail, primary sources (incl. a court transcript), and a website called "nobodylikesagrass.com"—again, wholly inappropriate for a BLP.

I have tried to explain the problems to this user, and have left links to the relevant policies and guidelines on their talk page, and on the article talk page. So far their strategy has been to ignore the advice and to spuriously question my motives, such as suggesting that I am "a journalist duffed up by Mr G". They have a history of doing this.

Having to keep returning to the page to restore the WP:BLP-consistent version is becoming very tiresome. The user is currently incapable of understanding why their changes are inappropriate, and won't pay attention to any further advice. Besides the BLP issue, there is also the edit-warring, and obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues. A block and semi-protection would be appreciated. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected.. This was an easy protection candidate; I'm not sure what else we can do for the IP-hopper; long-term IP blocks are pointless, and if this article is the sole target, the protection seems like the only way to go. In the future, WP:RFPP may be the fastest way to deal with issues such as these. --Jayron32 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to let me know if further action becomes necessary. Swarm ♠ 02:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ResearchApproach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Judicial Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Judicial Watch is a self-appointed transparency watchdog with an extreme conservative agenda. ResearchApproach would like our article to say much more about their success and much less about the criticism they receive. Four separate editors have reverted xyr edits. A DS notice and an edit warring warning have been placed, but xe has yet to make any appearance on the talk page. I'm involved, so can another admin look over the contribs and see if they smell as big a rat as I do please? Guy (Help!) 22:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article is already a giant coat rack of negative coverage. Yet Michael Moore's article is peachy clean despite ample negative coverage in the media. Some of those editors reverting have themselves been the subject of AE discussions about their own NPOV; specifically pointing at Snoo. They've made a single minor edit since the EW notice on their talk page - wait it out to see what happens with that. Not sure if you read the page history, but you jumped straight from an EW notice to an ANI with the only edit in between being a spelling correction.--v/r - TP 01:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But they are not "brand new" editors edit warring to introduce tendentious content and failing to engage on Talk, whereas ResearchApproach is. Which is why I asked other admins to have a look. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked RA for continuing to edit war, after receiving a warning, and without using the talk page (note that they did finally start using the talk page, but not to resolve the edit war). I've also warned them that should it continue they'll receive a topic ban. I see more serious editing restrictions fast approaching, but this seemed like a reasonable first step. Swarm ♠ 20:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is safe and sound in the draft space; simply get it approved via AfC and it will be restored to the mainspace. Swarm ♠ 02:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After discussing this on talk/usertalk in few places (including at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Western_values), I find no other recourse than to bring this here. Briefly, I think Western values has been improperly protected, in the redirected (non-article) version by User:RHaworth for no good reason - two reverts on the redirect, with edit summaries, were not an edit war that needed a prompt admin intervention, and blanking of an article is not a good way of dealing with this. Concerns have been raised that the article version submitted by User:Patnovak is too ORish. Perhaps, but I feel this should be decided by AfD. User:Staszek Lem who reverted the creator suggested he goes to AfC, then promptly declined his draft. One editor should not decide the fate of another editor's article. What this looks to me is that we, experienced editors, are unfairly picking up on a relative newbie, blanking his content. Staszek Lem AfD two other articles created by Patnovak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relation (history of concept) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtues (number and structure). The discussion there is ongoing, the wider community will decide what to do with those articles, but I believe Patnovak's Western values article deserves a proper AfD, not a silent blank, protect, AfC, decline treatment. What I suggest is simple: unprotect Western values, restore most recent version of the article (from the draft, preferably), AfD it. Then all voices will be properly heard, and if the consensus is for delete/draftify, I don't think anyone will object. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is a clear WP:WRONGVERSION issue, and as such, you should first establish the consensus version via normal discussion then it will be returned. Wikipedia is in no rush, and if the wrong (redirected) version is the one visible for a few days it's no big deal. Since you're so sure that's the wrong version, you should have no trouble establishing a clear consensus that it is. -- Jayron32 11:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You cannot be serious. Never mind a "proper AfD". Let the article receive a proper AfC review at draft:western values. Patnovak (talk · contribs) must be told very firmly by more people than me that Wikipedia is not a free host for publishing essays / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: I am quite serious; I don't think we should unprotect the article unless consensus exists to do so, and I expressed as much. I already essentially pre-agreed with you before you wrote what you did; can you explain your incredulity? Are you really arguing that the article should be unprotected? Because your objection to my comment doesn't make sense. --Jayron32 15:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think, regardless of indenting, he was probably talking to Piotrus, not you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, I suppose, but he can answer for himself. --Jayron32 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• About what do you think I am incredulous? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @RHaworth: Are you talking to me? If you are, it is unclear again. You had stated, to me (I think), "You cannot be serious". That is a standard idiom of incredulity. I was trying to assess what your problem was with what I wrote. --Jayron32 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Basically what I was going to say; the "article" is very clearly an essay. Try Wikiversity maybe. Good protection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now moved all Patnovak's edits on this topic to draft:western values. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Which do you think Patnovak would prefer: to have the article rejected in draftspace where it will probably live for at least six months or to have it rejected from mainspace via an AfD where it would last for a fortnight if it is lucky? And @Patnovak:, are we going to hear from you? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is safe and sound in the draft space; simply get it approved via AfC and it will be restored to the mainspace. Swarm ♠ 02:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After discussing this on talk/usertalk in few places (including at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Western_values), I find no other recourse than to bring this here. Briefly, I think Western values has been improperly protected, in the redirected (non-article) version by User:RHaworth for no good reason - two reverts on the redirect, with edit summaries, were not an edit war that needed a prompt admin intervention, and blanking of an article is not a good way of dealing with this. Concerns have been raised that the article version submitted by User:Patnovak is too ORish. Perhaps, but I feel this should be decided by AfD. User:Staszek Lem who reverted the creator suggested he goes to AfC, then promptly declined his draft. One editor should not decide the fate of another editor's article. What this looks to me is that we, experienced editors, are unfairly picking up on a relative newbie, blanking his content. Staszek Lem AfD two other articles created by Patnovak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relation (history of concept) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtues (number and structure). The discussion there is ongoing, the wider community will decide what to do with those articles, but I believe Patnovak's Western values article deserves a proper AfD, not a silent blank, protect, AfC, decline treatment. What I suggest is simple: unprotect Western values, restore most recent version of the article (from the draft, preferably), AfD it. Then all voices will be properly heard, and if the consensus is for delete/draftify, I don't think anyone will object. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this is a clear WP:WRONGVERSION issue, and as such, you should first establish the consensus version via normal discussion then it will be returned. Wikipedia is in no rush, and if the wrong (redirected) version is the one visible for a few days it's no big deal. Since you're so sure that's the wrong version, you should have no trouble establishing a clear consensus that it is. -- Jayron32 11:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You cannot be serious. Never mind a "proper AfD". Let the article receive a proper AfC review at draft:western values. Patnovak (talk · contribs) must be told very firmly by more people than me that Wikipedia is not a free host for publishing essays / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: I am quite serious; I don't think we should unprotect the article unless consensus exists to do so, and I expressed as much. I already essentially pre-agreed with you before you wrote what you did; can you explain your incredulity? Are you really arguing that the article should be unprotected? Because your objection to my comment doesn't make sense. --Jayron32 15:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think, regardless of indenting, he was probably talking to Piotrus, not you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, I suppose, but he can answer for himself. --Jayron32 17:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• About what do you think I am incredulous? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @RHaworth: Are you talking to me? If you are, it is unclear again. You had stated, to me (I think), "You cannot be serious". That is a standard idiom of incredulity. I was trying to assess what your problem was with what I wrote. --Jayron32 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Basically what I was going to say; the "article" is very clearly an essay. Try Wikiversity maybe. Good protection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now moved all Patnovak's edits on this topic to draft:western values. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Which do you think Patnovak would prefer: to have the article rejected in draftspace where it will probably live for at least six months or to have it rejected from mainspace via an AfD where it would last for a fortnight if it is lucky? And @Patnovak:, are we going to hear from you? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make another report if issues persist further, but this is a minor offense. Let's try talking to them some more. Swarm ♠ 02:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please block this IP? I've asked twice for them to stop saying 'have' instead of 'had' for past events[5][6] but they're still doing it: [7][8]. Thanks. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) You want someone blocked because they twice made small grammar errors? If we limit editing to people who have not made two errors, this whole effort will wither pretty quick. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per NatGertler above, as an admin, I am not comfortable blocking a user over an honest mistake. Maybe they missed your request to discuss the matter. Have you tried hitting up their talk page again to explain the issue? --Jayron32 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they're edit warring the errors in, I'd just just fix it and move on. Blackmane (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if there is further admin action needed here feel free to make a new report, but this discussion itself has gotten off-topic so I'm closing it. Swarm ♠ 02:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the talk page of Armageddon, TheOldJacobite has been engaging a personal attack on 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 because there is a feud between them and various users, including me, on that talk page and strongly indicates that he is accusing that user of being a sockpuppet, which there is no evidence of sockpuppet editing. These are the diffs that reveals it right here. Also, he's been removing warnings on his talk page, as seen on this diff here, and has been hostile towards some users, reverting their non-vandalizing edits and reverting his warnings. Links here are some of the evidence that reveals his behavior. Admin noticeboard#Armageddon, Teahouse#TheOldJacobite. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty involved in this all around, although only as a third party, and I'm decidedly not on any side at all in any of the related content disputes. I don't know what the solution is, but I'm not a fan of prolific editors who think they're not required to discuss changes or make any assumption of good faith, which seems to be the running theme here. GMG^talk 19:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've closed the section which got into the accusations with a warning about taking it to SPI or withholding personal attacks, and have collapsed it as off-topic in accordance with WP:TPO. Let us know if there are further issues. Swarm ♠ 20:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely what is going on and why it has come to this but I am under a time constraint right now and may not be able to respond completely in a number of days until then. But It is very difficult to avoid Oldjacobite when I review film plots and he seems to have a habit of reverting so many edits done to film articles. The most immediate things that I can say about his actions have been that on three film articles he reverted usually without an edit summary then moved on to block my statements in attempting to start a discussion about plot and article content. I asked for advise on the Teahouse page and from that he was admonished. I have not made any more plot edits that he seems to be concerned about in the mean time since I have not bought any new dvd's. Again, I will return to this probably in a few days. Maybe he will participate in this discussion as he has avoided so many others. And pardon if I go in and out of British spelling--a problem I sometimes encounter having lived there for a time and when you see it on page I sometimes start to think of those spellings and ways of referring to things. I am very concerned for WP being truthful and accurate without misleading people. Oh, before there go flying accusations of sock puppetry just know that I am issued by my provider IPs that can be different but they usually start with 2605 E000, and sometimes while I am on the site 104 (I believe). I have no control over the functioning of my provider Time warner and over WP and as long as IP's are endorsed by WP I will continue to use it as my identifier while editing. It is not an attempt to deceive anyone and it is not in any way a form of being uncooperative.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before this goes much further and I have greater time to comment, That the talk page discussion was on key until the accusation was lodged about me being a suspected sock puppet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC) And the accusation came from a senior WP contributor that I assume is also an administrator that should have known better but instead acted otherwise.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question, I made no accusation, and it certainly did not rise to the level of a personal attack. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do need to realize that 1) IPs are people and you are expected to assume good faith in the same way with them as you do with any other user, 2) vandalism has a very particular meaning and accompanying exemptions, but for edits that do not fall under that, you are expected to engage on the talk page without someone uninvolved having to twist arms and request full protection in order to get you to do so, and 3) you should not remove the comments of others simply because you disagree with them.

This much is non-negotiable, by which I mean you either learn to abide by those expectations or you are not welcome to contribute. You are a prolific member of the community, and I welcome your continued contributions, but that does not make you exempt from these basic expectations in any way whatsoever, and never will. GMG^talk 00:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP's are not people, and it takes a lot of nerve to cite something clearly marked as an essay and declare it "non-negotiable". Joefromrandb (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPO however is not an essay. And removing the comments of an IP about including information in the plot section of the article, on the article talkpage, is not acceptable. It was not off-topic and the removal was more disruptive than keeping it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is non-negotiable. That you think it isn't, and I think it is, probably explains a lot of why your block log is a heckuva lot longer than mine. GMG^talk 00:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. No, AGF is not "non-negotiable" either. It's a guideline, to be treated with common sense, rather than a suicide pact. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[9] GMG^talk 00:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. I'm not trouting anyone. Kudos to the administrators whose comments were fair and helpful, although probably not perceived that way. Nothing more to see here except noise.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, despite being told last time I brought them to ANI to stop their disruptive behaviour, in particular, personally attacking me, has chosen to continue: [10]. I believe time for blocks has come. I am not lazy, and I do not wish to see such edit summaries. (They also entertained themselves last week by leaving editing summaries that I do not speak English, but I will not look for these now, since this summary is enough for a block given multiple previous warnings). Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was the last time, less than two weeks ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you posted the wrong diff? There's nothing remotely resembling a personal attack here. ‑ Iridescent 19:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"How lazy" is a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even given that ANI, that edit summary is absolutely nowhere near enough for a block, so you'll have to provide evidence for the rest of your complaint... diffs please (as it says at the top of this page). Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"How lazy" is a personal attack. I do not see why it must be tolerated, since this is not the first personal attack of this user on me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is a personal attack, it's a very mild one, and to be fair he did point out why he said it (i.e. you removed an unsourced sentence saying the person had committed suicide, yet left the equally unsourced category in place). On the scale of personal attacks, it's right at the bottom end, and no admin is going to block for it unless you have further examples. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it is ok to personally attack me on a regular basis? Even if these are "mild personal attacks"? And your response just does not assume AGF against me. I just did not notice the category, otherwise I would have removed it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone called me lazy, I'd just fart in their general direction and call them an elderberry. I think laziness is defined by content input, and one man's lazy is another's diligent. Seriously, it's not even worth an ANI report, let alone a block. Have we all lost perspective here? I've had an admin saying "fuck you", and nothing was done, you're worried about this kind of thing? Time to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we had a user who insisted it is ok to call them an asshole and that calling someone an asshole is not a personal attack. I got them blocked from the fourth attempt.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You "got them blocked"? Well done you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's stay on topic, please. No one's saying that it's okay for you to be personally attacked, Ymblanter. But you're reporting a very minor offense that would never be actionable on its own, and that previous ANI report, while obviously an aggravating factor, also only included one diff, and as such it is still not sufficient to justify a block for a pattern of "disruptive behavior". Obviously it's a problem if you're being personally attacked on a regular basis, but you still need to sufficiently make your case with diffs to substantiate your allegations of a problematic behavioral pattern outside of the very limited context you've provided. Swarm ♠ 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok guys, next time I hear complaints you lose productive contributors I am going to laugh.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not ask much, but as usual I did not get any support. Sorry for wasting your time.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you see the Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting at the top of this page? It means what it says. We're not going to block someone for (correctly) pointing out that you made a mistake. ‑ Iridescent 20:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ymblanter: What?! I'm literally supporting you, that's why I'm trying to tell you exactly what I need from you in order to action this. I agree those are blatant offenses, and he did breach a warning, and as much as I wish that were enough, it isn't. As I'm sure you should know by now, we block for personal attacks/incivility under either severe circumstances or when it's shown to be a persistent behavioral pattern in spite of warnings. Two diffs is not enough to establish a behavioral pattern, and if said behavioral pattern is literally directed at you, then it should not be hard for you to come up with the diffs. Don't get mad at us for requesting evidence to support your claims. Swarm ♠ 20:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, this particular diff was clearly directed at me since it was a response (and the next diff after) my edit. I do not have the page on my watchlist and found it by accident. I have seen other diffs earlier this week (to whom is it addressed you think?, can not find others now). Lugnuts was unhappy with the fact that I was administrator and was very open about this (see [11] (see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive293#Backlog at WP:ANRFC, search for Lugnuts), and they even send me public thanks for this edit - I am not sure how one can find a public thanks but it is there). I do not particularly care whether Lugnuts gets blocked this time or not (I am sure they will get block at this point), but I need this shit to stop. However, since in this topic I already had plenty of suggestions that it is ok and it was actually my fault, withot any slightest trace of AGF, I do not think I would continue working in this project whatever happens in this thread. You know, I have other things in my life than just enjoy getting publicly flogged for doing volunteer work taking time from my job.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Ymblanter's problem is with me, but he was never happy after I raised the issue of his conduct in this recent Arbcom case. Earlier this month, I raised an ANI thread about BLP issues with another user, and shortly after Ymblanter weighed in with their own personal attack "...I am not really surprised that Lugnuts is not familiar with our policies..." Quite ironic they mention AGF, above. Good job he doesn't say "fuck you" to another user in his edit summaries. I can only guess as to what is causing a meltdown with this user outside of WP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yup, this should be closed down quickly before it gets out of hand, Ymblanter can take a virtual trout and life goes on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLOCKED
	Blocked for a month by Floqunbeam. (non-admin closure). Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 00:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that there's a need to bring this here, but I see no alternative. User:92.25.194.187 has been making occasional edits for about 5 weeks. They are mostly small changes to wording and presentation. Some of these are positive changes, a lot are just personal preference and make no difference, and some introduce errors into articles. A lot of the last have been reverted, which I assume appear as alerts for the IP editor. On User talk:92.25.194.187, the editor was asked on 24 Jan to provide accurate edit summaries [12] but didn't respond. On 2 Feb, I pointed out [13] the difference between "its" and "it's" (the IP was erroneously changing to the latter), and referred to the MoS for capital letters, then [14] did the same for large numbers and date ranges; there was no response. I tried again three days later [15] after the same errors had been introduced. Again a day later [16], and someone else spelled everything out [17]... no response, no change in behaviour. On 11 Feb, I listed some options [18]: change, explain why you can't, get reported here, and [19] by listing later instances, gave the person five chances to self-revert and learn. Another editor joined in [20] on 13 Feb with a warning. On 20 Feb, the IP made [21] the same error for the fifth time since the list I mentioned began. More than 24 hours have passed since then. The IP has never responded to talk page messages (which include requests to communicate) and goes on introducing the same errors as always. This may seem minor, and it should be minor, but there is no sign of the person being either willing or able to respond to feedback, or to communicate with other editors. This is wasting other editors' time and I see the IP as a net negative to Wikipedia. EddieHugh (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked until they begin to communicate. Thanks for your patience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)'[reply]

Editor blocked, page salted. Will request the edit filter. Swarm ♠ 03:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a combination SPI / Hoax / request for WP:SALT / WP:NOTHERE and a number of other things so I wasn't sure where to put it, I hope ANI is okay.

• Jonreillythr has submitted Draft:Scott_Walterschied to AfC seven times and each time it's been rejected. On the sixth occasion I happened to be the one who rejected it, prompting him to fire off a series of bizarre accusations and other declarations against me, including that I was "sexist" [22] and that he was going to "speak to my editors at WSJ on how to file a formal complaint against your bullying sexist behavior and see where that goes." [23]. (The full exchange in an un-diff'ed format is here.)
  
• The article in question - about a BLP named "Scott Walterschied" - at this point seems undoubtedly to be a hoax that the editor is trying to insert into WP either for his personal amusement or to prove that WP's standards are lax and easily manipulated. "Scott Walterschied", though purportedly an active film producer in the 40-60 age range, can only be sourced to references that exist entirely offline. Some of the references in the article are to sources that should be online (e.g. late 2000s stories from the Hollywood Reporter and Variety) but which the editor has provided no links to and a search on the websites of those outlets is unable to find evidence of under the titles listed. A search on Google News finds only one instance of a "Scott Walterschied", in an active hate crime case in Ohio [24].
• To underscore the complexity of this hoax, an entry for "Scott Walterschied" was created at IMDB (archive version here: [25]) providing cover for the backstory of a film producer (it has since been removed from IMDB). A twitter account was also created with months upon months of tweets [26] along with 16,000 followers which, on closer examination, all appear to be spam and follower exchange accounts.
• Jonreillythr, failing to create an article for "Scott Walterschied", has now taken to inserting "Scott Walterschied" into a variety of WP articles (e.g. [27], [28], etc.).
• We previously had an article for "Scott Walterschied" that was deleted prompting a confirmed sock, User:Variety99, to request undeletion [29]. In that instance the editor claimed to be a writer at Variety [30]. Jonreillythr, as above, seems to be claiming to be an editor at the Wall Street Journal.

That's about it. I wonder if it would be possible to block Jonreillythr as a sock of Variety99, to speedy delete Draft:Scott_Walterschied, and then to salt Draft:Scott Walterschied and Draft:Scott R. Walterschied (Scott Walterschied was already salted by Malcolmxl5 in 2009 so there's no chance it can be advanced out of AfC, however, it is occupying huge amounts of time to review and critique each of these submissions)? Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say an edit filter to block the strings "Scott Walterschied" and "Scott R. Walterschied" would be warranted too. John from Idegon (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be great too, if possible. I didn't even know that could be done! Chetsford (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think an edit filter would be useful since this is a determined sock puppet. Once we have consensus here, we can file the request at WP:EFR. Let’s avoid mentioning any more filter strings less we spill the WP:BEANS. BillHPike (talk, contribs)

In special:diff/825400655 Jonreillythr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) claims to be notable journalist at major US newspaper. His account should be blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE. I’ll file a report at WP:UFAA in a few hours if it is still needed by then. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've salted the page, and blocked the editor. The edits clearly show this was a WP:DUCK of a previous blocked editor (PPrice1). As for the EF, I would agree that the less said in the open the better. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Put in a report at AIV, but no one seems to be there at the moment; could someone please block 121.207.73.207 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - the flag vandal is back again. Not notifying due to LTA. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked. Let us know if they come back. Swarm ♠ 03:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socks/vandals clicking "forgot password" is a common thing and is generally nothing to worry about, The best advice i can give is is what others have said below - Pick a strong password that is only used here, If you've done all that then there's nothing to worry about and if you get these emails again then again it's best to just ignore it, –Davey2010Talk 17:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all - An email was sent to me from Wikipedia stating that a password reset was requested by me - it wasn't. I have traced back the IP that was on the email and it comes back to a Sky connection which I have never used, nor has it made any edits (as an IP) on Wikipedia. For the short term I have secured my account by changing passwords but if anything comes up as unusual, can you let me know. Thanks Nightfury 10:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightfury: Sure thing fella. Other than changing to a really weird password, I would also suggest you to take a wikibreak for 72 hours; to see if someone does it again, or attempts to login with wrong password or something like that. Also, you would get a break :) —usernamekiran(talk) 10:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The more common your name is, the more of these you get. As my account was renamed from User:Neil, I get two or three such emails a week sometimes. It's mostly people innocently trying to create an account and they happened to choose the same username. Fish+Karate 11:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nightfury, if you have control of your email account and are certain that it is secure, then your WP account is likely secure as well. Strong, unique passwords are recommended for all accounts, of course. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nightfury I've had this happen too many times (unusual name so it doesn't happen very often); for the most part if your password is perfectly strong when you get a password reset email and you didn't go about requesting said reset, unless they have access to your email to change the password, you can happily ignore it. If you know the IP and look up their contribs (usually if you're dealing with a vandal/sock), that will confirm who is trying to create mischief and it can be put up on AIV with this to boot. In this case though, no harm/no foul thankfully. Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN and Galobtter may now step into the phone booth and change back into Clark Kentspoiler. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC) What is a "phone booth"? EEng[reply]

• United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This may not be the right venue, but can any admin advise whether the {{American politics AE}} template should be present on this article's Talk page, and the article be subject to active arbitration remedies concerning post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people (particularly 1RR)? It certainly seems that it should. General Ization ^Talk 16:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit notice is there and the restriction logged and those are the only things that matter..though the talk page template should probably be there Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added the template per the existing restrictions, notified editors involved in the current edit war. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. General Ization ^Talk 17:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a two range week block, the incremental numbers vandal is back again on 2600:1017:B024:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). See the previous ANI and SummerPhDv2.0’s writup at User:SummerPhDv2.0/Cellco vandal. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-blocked for 3 weeks. Swarm ♠ 18:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was blocked, the block was endorsed by two uninvolved admins and they all lived happily ever after. The end. (non-admin closure)ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw a few admin's attention to Kekmon (talk · contribs). Aside from their divisive username, this editor has engaged in a number of highly deceptive acts, including out-and-out lying in an unblock request for their second edit warring block in less than 200 edits. On top of that, the topics edit warred over are exactly in line with what one would expect from a user with this name: namely far-right POV pushing. I'm asking that this editor be indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE to improve the project.

Lying

• [31] Giving themself a "Master editor" award (for 42,000 edits and six years of editing) as their 64th edit.
• [32] Claiming to have tried to engage at talk but not having gotten any response. (see Talk:The Camp of the Saints#"Revered by white supremacists" for evidence that this is untrue: They got a response and even replied to it.)
• [33] Removing an edit pointing out the deception in the last and repeating the same deception in their second unblock request in less than half an hour. (First one was denied.)

Edit warring

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive360#User:Kekmon_reported_by_User:GreenMeansGo_(Result:_48_hours)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Volunteer_Marek_reported_by_User:Kekmon_(Result:_Reporter_blocked_after_continuing_to_edit-war)

POV pushing

• [34] Giving spurious reasons as to why the SPLC would not be reliable for a relatively uncontroversial claim.
• [35] Different spurious reasoning for the same claim as above.

Personal attacks;

• [36] Against Volunteer Marek.
• [37] Edit warring the same personal attack back in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Good candidate for a NOTHERE block, or alternatively, a block per WP:No fucking Nazis, given that username and their work on The Camp of the Saints and Michael Wolff (journalist). Drmies (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was quick. Who says nothing gets accomplished at ANI? If nobody shows up to complain about this being too quick in the next few hours, I'll archive it myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Drmies: Quick question: it looks quite strange to have an open unblock request above an indef block notice on their talk page. Would you be considered too involved now to decline their unblock request? Of course, they'd be free to open a new one wrt the indef block, but at least this one would be closed out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I promised to copy any response from their userpage to here. Not sure what good it will do seeing as how they've already been indeffed, but I did promise to do this so here it is, right below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribed from User talk:Kekmon
1) I have no idea what is this about "divisive username" 2) I fancied that medal for its looks (could have gone grandmaster but it looked ugly), sorry about that if it's big deal 3) Bluntly replying "SPLC is a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)" is not in any way discussion 4) Revert-edit warring was in none of the cases started by me 5) Reasoning why claim of source quality is "spurious" is laughable 6) You can clearly see from Marek's edit history he pushes agenda (exclusively politics, loves to stamp things as white supremacist, has accusations on his talk page of following users...) and I don't know procedures to stop, so I wrote how I see it on his page. 7) I'm only stuck on warring two articles Marek keeps reverting without discussion. On Wolff page where proper discussion was, I ceased per consensus 8) "a block per WP:No fucking Nazis" tells of serious moderator misjudgement and heavy bias. 9) Finally, I'm not NEW USER, I've been on Wikipedia with this username for two years. Kekmon (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good block:

• Kek- username - strike one.
• Inserting "...is Jewish" into several articles - strike two.
• Edit warring to downplay white supremacist interest in a white supremacist book soon after a previous edit warring block expired - strike three.

Perhaps "Nazi" was over the top, when "antisemite and racist" might have been more accurate, but you can understand the fatigue that sets in when we have to deal with so many antisemites and racists. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either one of these three points would probably be innocent enough on its own, but the three of them add up to someone who is clearly just here to cause mischief. Good block. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Floquenbeam, you are right, of course--but if you have those magic glasses that can see through suppression, you can maybe see an earlier block I made and the associated suppressed edit, just before this one. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content dispute is not a matter for AN/I. This needs to be worked out on the talk page. Possibly admins and editors with considerable knowledge of the field could weigh in. This is an emotional field, in which the books a third of a century ago probably won't say what they do today. None of this is simple, but it won't get fixed at AN/I. Everyone mind their words, though. Behavior's still on the table.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'd like to raise an incident report regarding disruptive editing by François Robere, who over the course of the last week was removing reliable reference sources (works by mainstream academics published by reputable academic presses/publishing houses) in the Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II article, Poland section, and just today despite not gaining any support on the talk page for his proposed changes, has massively altered this one section (-18,059 bytes of info.) removing newer and long standing material, pushing his particular and one-sided POV on the article. I would like to request that an Admin block the user for 48 hours to prevent an edit war form breaking out, and encourage the user to return to the talk page instead. --E-960 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Btw, François Robere has removed the notice of this incident report form his profile talk page, which I placed there to inform him of this disscussion. --E-960 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, users are allowed to remove notices from their talk page. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert, that's correct, just a FYI to inform folks that a notice was indeed posted and was not overlooked. --E-960 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Notified, drafting reply, no need for further notifications. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by François Robere

The article in question is concerned with citizens of nations occupied by Axis powers, who "knowingly engaged in collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II", with one section dedicated to each of the occupied states. This issue is a rather explosive one in Poland, widely denied and only challenged by significant academic research since 2001 or so (and we're talking of events taking place during 1939-1946, give or take). It is highly politicized, and closely related to agenda promoted by right-wing parties. The article in question (or rather the section in the article dedicated to Poland) seemed to reflect that agenda more than anything else, which can be easily seen when compared with any of the other sections in the article, which are more straightforward in their tone. Among others:

• The way the term "collaboration" was used is peculiar to Poland, and contrary to the rest of the section: only "crimes against the state" (eg. spying, working for the German government) were considered "collaboration", while extraditing fleeing Jews isn't. This results in extremely low estimates of the number of collaborators, something I tried to counter with earlier changes, some of which the OP undid.
• The section goes to great lengths to qualify cases of collaboration so they appear less substantial: "some scholars estimate number of 'Polish collaborators' at around several thousand in a population of about 35 million (that number is supported by the Israeli War Crimes Commission)"; "Most of the Blue Police were forcibly drafted into service; nevertheless, a significant number acted as operatives for Polish resistance movement Armia Krajowa"; "Many individuals in the Blue Police followed German orders reluctantly" etc.
• It tries to "soften" the question of collaboration by mentioning saving of Jews by Poles, something no other section in this article mentions (there are other articles for that): "Polish citizens have the world's highest count of individuals who have been recognized as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem"; "According to the studies of historian Gunnar S. Paulsson, during the Nazi occupation of Warsaw 70,000–90,000 Polish Gentiles aided Jews, while 3,000–4,000 were szmalcowniks, or blackmailers"; "historians Richard C. Lukas and Tadeusz Piotrowski state that between 100,000 and 120,000 Polish-Jews survived the Holocaust in German-occupied Poland" etc. These it gives without context, like the fact that Poland had the largest pre-war Jewish population in Europe, giving the impression the numbers result from one potential explanation (a particular "righteousness" one behalf of the Poles) when there are alternative, equally-viable ones. That is the definition of "bias", and not even in the right article.
• The same lenience is not afforded to Jewish collaborators, who are described in much more stringent terms: "Emanuel Ringelblum described the cruelty of the ghetto police as 'at times greater than that of the Germans'; "The collaboration by some Polish Jews, who belonged to Żagiew and Group 13 inflicted considerable damage to both Jewish and Polish underground movements".
• One editor almost solely concerned with Jewish collaboration, giving little attention to anything else, is the OP ([38][39][40][41][42]), at times using questionable sources to base his claims ([43][44]).
• The whole section is messy - barely readable. This was the section before my intervention, this is after.
• Other editors have noted all of this, and my last revision won the approval of one of the previously dissenting editors, with whom I've previously had lengthy discussions on this.
• I've made serious attempts at discussion my proposed changes with both the OP and others (see this thread), as well as explaining my changes in length. Immediately after making the first of the two major changes the OP objects I made a note on the talk page saying I will explain everything, and asking for the others' patience; the OP did not wait an hour for me to finish my explanation before reverting the change.
• I've found it particularly difficult discussing all of this with the OP, who seemed both resistant to change and unwilling to discuss it. They have accused me repeatedly of "POV pushing" (see above for their concerns and sourcing), reverted my edits without explanation, and showed little care for any of my objections. For example - I found myself restating my reservations regarding two of the sources no less than five times without getting answered, only to eventually get this denigrating reply from the OP (here's the rest of the discussion).

I'm absolutely certain my revision of the article is both clearer, more pertinent and better sourced than either the original revision or the current one, and provides the reader with what they expect from this article: An encyclopedic explanation of the nature of collaboration in occupied Poland, rather than a biased apologia with little informational value. Furthermore, I'm certain I've done what I can to both discuss and explain my suggestions in an attempt to reach consensus, a burden not met by the OP. François Robere (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do RS call it collaboration?Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both with regards to other countries and to Poland, as well as explain why the definition is so charged, and how and when Polish historiography became politicized. Again, you can see the rest of the article doesn't make that distinction. François Robere (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out one thing, that François Robere is very much guilty of the things that he accuses others of doing, in fact he got into heated arguments last week with other users such as GizzyCatBella and Poeticbent, both of who also questioned his edits and their objectivity. --E-960 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter GizzyCatBella left a commendation on my talk page (very nice of them), and with Poeticbent I barely exchanged two messages. Again, you throw accusations without proof. François Robere (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you make accusations that the article is too "SOFT" on Poles, but in the same breath you argue and try to sanitize long standing and referenced statements such as this one: "Emanuel Ringelblum described the cruelty of the ghetto police as at times greater than that of the Germans". That comes across as POV pushing. --E-960 (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that reference? I kept it [45]. François Robere (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example from your earlier statement — a few rows up. Anyway, there are many others you removed en masse. --E-960 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove anything "en masse", I explained everything on the talk page, and this example just shows you didn't give half as much attention to my edits before you undid them as I did before I made them. François Robere (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate to see this happening. The area of conflict is very, and I mean VERY complicated, painful and super sensitive to many editors of Jewish and Polish descent. I appeal to evaluating administrator for understanding. In my opinion, this has to be closed and users encouraged to keep working out their disagreements on the related talk page. I’m sure the consensus can be reached without the need for sanctions. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but with today's massive and abrupt changes to the article, I'm concerned that user François Robere is just trying to force his POV on the article, skipping over the discussion in which he did not gain a consensus in, and in the process arguing against sources which meet Wikipedia's criteria as reliable references. --E-960 (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of discussion, how many of my points (literal points - bullet points) have you even made an attempt to answer? And more importantly: How long did you take to consider my changes before reverting them? François Robere (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left my responses on the talk page and explained the reverts — since you initially removed reliable sources along with the statements supported by them, and sanitized text that did not fit your narrative. BTW, many of your edits stayed in place and were not reverted, so please do not accuse me or others of just blindly blanking everything you did. --E-960 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an outright lie. I've just now shown you that your claim about "sanitizing" anything is wrong, and you're repeating it? Are we going to have the same discussion again where I explain why not every reliable source is also relevant and you ignore me and continue claiming the same?

Did I say you were "blanking" content? François Robere (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, other than everything else I referred to thus far - including your unwillingness to engage on-point, throwing about accusations without proof, undoing edits without even reviewing them, and more - I find it particularly odd for you to want to "prevent an edit war form breaking out" considering I've only done two major changes in the past six days, and haven't reverted any of yours in seven. François Robere (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is really troubling. Since the alert posted on his talk page by Swarm about discretionary sanctions regarding Eastern Europe, François Robere (talk · contribs) only intensified his POV pushing, disruptive editing, and lying in summaries. He is oblivious to what is being said to him including by admins, and has no knowledge (nor awareness) of Wikipedia processes such as arbitration enforcement. Replying to him does not work because he does not listen. I posted a comment about his manipulations in a thread here mere 5 days ago,[46] and all he did, was to respond like a child. This is why I would seriously doubt if discretionary sanctions such as the one revert per day would ever work here. He routinely misrepresents sources quoted by him. At the same time, his knowledge of relevant facts from real history books is zero. He makes up things, and puts a reference next to his statements. Here's a good one: "Poland did not have a national government" (referenced to ten pages in a paper by John Connelly, "Why the Poles Collaborated so Little" in Slavic Review), however, there's no working link to the full paper by Connelly in the Wikipedia article. I have the PDF copy of it ... and I know that what François Robere wrote was a lie. He was referring to statement on page 774 about "administration above the level of the village" but with no ability to make sense of the whole paragraph (and no awareness of facts). – The only reason he is pounding away on his keyboard is the Polish Holocaust bill. He is angry and full of contempt. But for me, the worst part is his lying. Poeticbent talk 21:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone lied and did disruptive editing, it was you: You've distorted a well respected source [47] (as shown by another editor); you lied about another editor's citations [48]; then about convention [49] (which was shut down by another user; then you made a whole swath of inappropriate comments about me [50] (and everyone else who disagrees with you, including a world-renown researcher), but I was patient enough; then you undid my revisions in bulk with no proper explanation or discussion [51][52]; and now you're lying about the citation (which, by the way, does not require a link, working or otherwise) - and I'll let others judge who's the liar here ^[1] (and here's one more, it too cited in my revision^[2]). So much to say, and all but three comments on the talk page on this subject, all in bad taste and accusing someone of something. You're treading an unremarkable road, that might just lead you back to ANI. François Robere (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here, but I'm fairly convinced (and ignorant of the topic area I might add) that François Robere might actually have a solid understanding and basis for their changes. I'm most definitely open to having my opinion changed, but from my novice eyes, his arguments seem reasonable. User:E-960 appears to be making an argument that because it has existed unaltered, that it's right. Although that supports an argument to seek consensus before changing it - it doesn't support the argument that it is right. And User:Poeticbent's concern that Francois responded like a child? I'd have responded poorly to that comment by Poeticbent too. It reeks of bad faith and shade. It's essentially polite incivility.--v/r - TP 00:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, this is a routine content dispute and I oppose any block of François Robere since no convincing evidence of disruption by that editor has been provided. I think that we are fortunate to have editors willing to do the hard work to ensure that our articles about collaboration with the Nazis during WWII are accurate, neutral and summarize what the highest quality reliable sources say, even if that history upsets some nationalists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, your final comment is so extraordinarily bias (per: Wikipedia:Assume good faith) and it need to be rebuked because the issue here is not the denial of individual Polish collaboration, but user François Robere's repeated attempts to sanitize statements related to collaboration of the few Jewish organizations which engaged in such behavior, and the comparison of numbers between how may Poles collaborated vs. how may aided Jews. But, I to accept and agree that the Admin dissuasion is now closed and should return to the talk page. --E-960 (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very boldly closing - This is a content dispute and as such Caleb you need to go to the talkpage and discuss your changes, If John doesn't reply then start get a third opinion on the matter, Edit warring and this report does you absolutely no favours so as I said I would strongly suggest you pack it in with the bad faith, Go to the talkpage and get consensus, If any admin believes this was toosoon of a closure I have no objections to reverting. –Davey2010Talk 21:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply] I've also left them a message explaining content disputes, edit warring and all that stuff. –Davey2010Talk 21:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I was making an edit to the Broadcasting subsection of Carmel High School (Indiana) in order to add a link to WHJE, but User: John from Idegon deleted the entire broadcasting subsection. I reverted his edit once, then he reverted mine and claimed that I was edit warring. I tried to ask for a compromise on my talk page, but he did not compromise with me. I tried adding the link somewhere else, but he kept reverting my edits. I also attempted to add a link from Carmel, Indiana to Carmel Clay Schools, but he reverted that edit. However, whenever someone else would accomplish the same goals that I have, he would not revert their edit. He also threatened that I "may be blocked from editing", despite the fact, that as far as I know, he is not an administrator. I attempted to reason with him on his talk page, but he has failed to respond. because of his reversions and his threat, I can only conclude that he is reverting my edits for the sole purpose of denying my ability. All attempts on my part to assume good faith with him have failed. Denying another user the ability to edit Wikipedia is edit warring, cyberbullyng, and disruptive to Wikipedia. Therefore, I hereby request for User:John from Idegon to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I have already informed him of the existence of my post on the Administrators' noticeboard. I would include diffs, but because the incident involved multiple edits, I have decided to provide links to the edit histories [53] Caleb The Wipper [54] (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Caleb The Wipper[reply]

AMUSED
	(non-admin closure) We are amused. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll used to have several shortcuts, but that has been cut down to one. I don't really care, but I'm curious: Is there some rule limiting the number of shortcuts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:2SHORTCUTS recommends using one or two easily recognized shortcuts, but as far as I know there is no official rule or limit as long as you're not listing all of them (though {{policy shortcut}} does limit the number to 10). SkyWarrior 03:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just found it funny that someone cut the number from five down to one, while this page here has four of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The oddest thing to me is why this couldn't have stayed at WT:ORCP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's so funny that it needs to be shared with a broader audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]