Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1029

Flags on 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak‎

• 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can some folks people take a look at this page and the current debate/disagreement about the use of flags in an table? I'm WP:INVOLVED so I'm asking for other opinions. See Talk:2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Flags_in_the_table EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed the flags from infobox as per my understanding of WP:INFOBOXFLAG. I have also written on User:ApocalypticNut 's talk page with the hope that he will follow the same rules regarding this matter. As wise old Wikipedians have said in the past, if you care too much about the colour of the gate than the location of the fire escape, you've got the wrong priorities! doktorb _words^deeds 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Doktorbuk: I appreciate the message, thanks! I am more than willing to defer to the judgement of more experienced Wikipedians. However, I do still believe that this is a page that would benefit from the addition of flags, as explained on the nCoV talk page. All the best! ApocalypticNut (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @ApocalypticNut: Then why have you WP:Reverted my edit? You know that no flags is the MOS rule but have chosen to revert the edit which adheres to that rule. As you probably know, for you come across as an experienced editor, both of us are close to WP:3RR, and that doesn't help anyone get to a resolution. As I say, the article should be focused on the facts, not the addition and removal of flags. Your revert is wrong, and I hope you can consider reversing your decision to do so. doktorb _words^deeds 21:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Doktorbuk: I did revert your edit as it was unclear at that point whether you had acknowledged my arguments on the Talk page; I am aware of your stance now. Note that my edit was in turn reverted by User:EvergreenFir; given that they are an administrator I believed that I should defer to their judgement, and will be making no further edits to the infobox. This does not change my opinion on the topic based on my own interpretation of WP:INFOBOXFLAG, and I therefore appreciate EvergreenFir's decision to seek further opinions. ApocalypticNut (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @ApocalypticNut: if you want to want to be a successful editor, you need to stop edit warring so easily and instead engage in discussion and listen to what experienced editors are telling you, regardless of whether they are admins. Admins have very limited special authority, it's mostly just a set of tools, so if you're waiting for admins to tell you to cut it out, you're not likely to do very well here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• The flags are distracting and serve no real value. Remove them.--Jorm (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This page is likely going to need semi protection to stop the ongoing edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Or a partial block on that page for ApocalypticNut might do the trick just as well. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm too involved/close to speak on less-than-unambiguous blocks. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I'm not really sure why you're personally targeting me now. I've stated my opinion, acknowledged that others disagree with me, and deferred to the judgement of more experience editors. Since my edit was reversed by User:EvergreenFir I haven't edited the page; I agree that if consensus is that the flags should not be added, then I will adhere to that ruling. I think it is more beneficial to discuss this topic in a calm and mutually beneficial manner, rather than making snide comments. ApocalypticNut (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

ApocalypticNut, Sorry, I didn't mean to call you out, rather to suggest a possible alternative course of action. You seemed to be edit warring, and thus I suggested use of a partial block, a tool we have just enabled and many folks don't yet know of. However, you thankfully stopped edit warring, and thus there was no need. I had no intention of singling you out, I was not involved in the issue and am merely a regular on the board that was trying to solve things. Thanks for speaking up, and thanks for being a Wikipedian! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I appreciate the message, and I understand where you were coming from! Glad to be a part of the community (albeit new to this); I'm learning a lot. ApocalypticNut (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Chess Thank you for the RfC on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Wheeler (athlete)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made an adjustment to this page regarding the death of Michael Wheeler on 5 January 2020, as reported in the Bournemouth Echo, but within a few minutes my alteration seems to have been automatically retracted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.252.203.18 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no edit at or around that date in the edit history of Michael Wheeler (athlete). Sandstein 22:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unwanted tracking of edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

UltraSGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been trying to track my edits over the past year for purported mistakes. He said that he was behind various IP addresses to edit. In fact, I try to make my edits accurate, but the user is not satisfied. Besides, the user claims to know me when I don't even know the user in real life. Please handle this. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

TheGreatSG'rean, FYI, its better to use the standard ANI Notice template without modifying it other then the thread name, and to put it in its own section. I did that for you, just letting you know for the future. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Indeff pronto Based on [1] this thread, and edits like [2], I think UltraSSGuy needs a prompt indeff for WP:HARASSMENT. The GreatSG'rean clearly wants Ultra to stop, and Ultra was oblivious, and creepy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  CaptainEek, holy shit, that makes me feel a bit sick reading. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Indef block for the extremely creepy harassment CaptainEek linked above. Nobody should have to put up with that. - DoubleCross (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Indef for this creepy AF exchange, Seems this editor needs a restraining order nevermind blocking!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Indef Per CaptainEek. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Indef- Even reading that makes me feel like I need to take a shower and watch kitten videos on youtube to get rid of the creepy feeling. Reyk _YO! 21:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Piu Eatwell

Sort of a long story here. Apparently, Piu Eatwell (an author) paid for Wikiprofessionals Inc to make this page for them. The page creator (User:Lee-aam) did not disclose this, and has since been blocked. Then an IP prodded the article, which I contested since I believed it met WP:AUTHOR (this was when I first got involved with this article). At that point, User:Corretions removed the UPE tag and stated on my talk page that they are in fact Piu Eatwell. There is now a declaration on the article's talk page that a paid editor made the page. User:Corretions objected to the UPE tag, so I placed a COI tag on the article. In my mind, the COI tag should stay on until someone takes a good look at the article and references (I even offered to do this - when I get the time), but User:Corretions keeps removing the COI tag. In their latest removal, User:Corretions stated their next step is to contact their lawyers. Help would be appreciated. Thanks, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 04:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Pdcook, I've given them a warning about the "no legal threats" policy, and will talk to them about the COI rules. Friendly reminder - you need to notify them about this discussion. My preliminary WP:DOLT read here is that this is not an okay time to be making legal threats, since the dispute is over the application of the UPE/COI tag, not about actual article content. creffett (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - I got side-tracked. I added a notice to their talk page. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 04:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WHEN YOU POSTTO AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-shave — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 08:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For ease of reference, the user referred to seems to be Corretions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("corrections" without the second "c"). Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I changed it above. Must be time for bed... P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 04:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for their baseless legal threats. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your assistance. I'll work on the article in a day or so. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and moved the article to draft due to all the concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI - popping in to say that I've mentioned the article over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, here, in case anyone feels like taking a look at the article and reworking it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It has been taken

Well in hand,

Reworked, and offered

For remand.

_{Not bad for off-the-cuff at 12:30 in the morning, if I do say so myself.}--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to those who worked on the article - my COI concerns are now put to rest. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor WilliamJE refusal to discuss on article's Talk page

Context: This report involves aviation accident Galaxy Airlines Flight 203, and relates to sole survivor George Lamson Jr. Lamson is notable and has WP:LASTING coverage in reliable sources, but his notability is largely in relation to this accident. Per WP:BIO1E, I believe it's appropriate that Lamson is discussed in this article. (I'd recommend starting with this revision of mine for a demonstration.)

Editor WilliamJE removed substantial, sourced content from the page regarding Lamson, including both his name and the fact that a notable documentary was made about the sole survivor of the accident. I restored the content, added further content and sources supporting notability for Lamson in relation to the event, and added to the article's Talk page. WilliamJE then continued to revert my edits, but more importantly, has refused to discuss on the article's Talk page. He is only willing to explain himself via edit summaries, and he refuses to address the central point I made on the article's Talk page.

Here's a timeline (Edit: Now with diffs) (I omitted my most minor cleanup edits, which I don't believe are relevant to the timeline):

• Flight 203 page: December 24, 2019 - 16:01 CST - WilliamJE removes content on Lamson (Consensus is we don't list, name survivors, dead, or those who miss the plane unless they are WP notable.)
• Flight 203 page: December 24, 2019 - 18:19 CST - WilliamJE removes content on Lamson (Consensus is we don't list, name survivors, dead, or those who miss the plane unless they are WP notable.)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 18:33 CST - I undid last edit (Undid revision 932311233 by WilliamJE (talk) (that's just a general rule; in this case, notability is due to individual being sole survivor. please discuss on article talk page if you disagree.)
• Flight 203 Talk page: January 20, 2020 - 18:43 CST - I created new Talk page section explaining why Lamson content belongs in this article
• Flight 203: January 20, 2020 - 21:57 CST - WilliamJE reverts my edits (See- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:11 CST - I revert WilliamJE (That does not address WP:BIO1E issue here -- see and discuss on this article's talk page, where I've already distinguished this)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:20 CST - I added more content and sources on Lamson to make notability clear (Aftermath: Adding more on sole survivor Lamson, including references supporting his notability connected to the incident)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:33 CST - WilliamJE both reverts and removes newly added content, still without engaging on Talk page (Reverted to revision 936804500 by WilliamJE (talk): See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name? (TW))
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:34 CST - I reverted, appealing for discussion on Talk page (Undid revision 936808834 by WilliamJE (talk) (again, discuss on this article's talk page)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:35 CST - WilliamJE reverts again (You read. Consensus we don't name)
• My user Talk page: January 20, 2020 - 22:39 CST - WilliamJE leaves a two-word reply on my personal Talk page, linking to an archived conversation from their personal Talk page as if it is a source of policy, still refusing to engage on the Flight 203 Talk page (→‎Also here: new section)
• My user Talk page: January 20, 2020 - 22:40 CST - I revert his attempt to avoid discussing on article's Talk page (Continued refusal to discuss on article talk page will be reported)

To be clear, WilliamJE has (as of the time I'm posting this here) not engaged on the article's Talk page, not addressed or even acknowledged the WP:BIO1E issue I raised, and continued to act like individual discussions on individual other article Talk pages somehow override general Wikipedia policies like WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E, which combined suggest that (1) Lamson is sufficiently notable and (2) the appropriate place to discuss him is on the article for the related event, which is Galaxy Airlines Flight 203. Reasonable editors could disagree, but he isn't being reasonable and he isn't disagreeing, instead he's just citing to "consensus" where there actually isn't a policy consensus so broad and rigid it can be explained in edit summaries. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. When you left a notice on the editor's talk page (if it was you who left it), you forgot to leave your name by striking the tilde key four times. You also left the message at the top of the page rather than the bottom, where the most recent messages should go. Would you want to correct those errors? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. I looked at the links you posted above, but unfortunately it is really difficult to ascertain the changes that the other editor posted. It would be far better if you could link to the WP:Diffs that you can get from the History page. Then we could easily tell what the other person did. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're here when the discussion on the article talk page had only been open for about 5 hours when you posted, and even now it's only been open for about 8 hours. This is by no means an urgent situation, so 5 or 8 hours is way too short to conclude no discussion will take place. While I understand it may be frustrating when an editor is reverting but hasn't yet joined the discussion, you still have to give them reasonable chance to respond. The stuff in December is irrelevant as neither of you opened a discussion [3], so you can both be blamed for the lack of discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to think we need to ask for $20 via Paypal as a deposit before someone opens a new ANI thread. We keep the deposit if the thread turns out to be neither urgent nor about a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. This is a simple content dispute.

ANI THREAD

PROBLEM ACUTE!

CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION

"CONTENT DISPUTE"

Burma-Shave

– creffett

EEng 08:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• WilliamJE has not edited since he referred OP to the prior discussion. I don;t think it's reasonable to bring this here when the user in question has tried to discuss, albeit in a manner OP dislikes, and had not edited since OP reverted that attempt. Recommend we close this as it goes nowhere and OP should seek WP:dispute resolution. -- Deepfriedokra 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Deepfriedokra The reason for no reply? I was asleep. Anyone who studied my editing will see I rarely make edits between 2100 and 0600 Eastern standard time. Last night I was up later than normal because I played bingo like normal on Monday nights.

The original poster of this thread has been referred to three different talk page discussions (There is also a guidelines page[4] which I didn't refer them to. Something about me wanting to go to sleep) on the topic they are complaining of. Two of which took place in the last 6 months and one of which[5] was absolutely on target in relation to their edits. They are whining (Take a look at their absurd reply here[6]). about consensus and took it here because they don't like what they are reading....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Exactly. I don't feel it was reasonable of OP to report here when you had not had time to reply. ANd I do feel like you have been responsive, even if they don't think so or like the manner of your replies.-- Deepfriedokra 12:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

And if you don't know who posts like this you can't have wiki'd very far Eeng/creffett-- Deepfriedokra 12:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

All -- I apologize if this was the wrong place to bring this up; I originally wanted to request dispute resolution, but when I selected that I hadn't yet discussed on the article's Talk page, it said "It's best to discuss your concerns with the other users on the talk page of the article before seeking dispute resolution." When I went back and put that I'd tried to discuss on the article's Talk page, it then asked if the issue was about another editor's behavior, and then it said to come here. That's why I posted here. Since it appears he's finally stopped refusing to respond on the article's Talk page, I'll take it there... Shelbystripes (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Shelbystripes: To be blunt, I don't think there was need to start any form of dispute resolution either. Let me repeat what I said above. You waited ~5 hours before coming here. We are all volunteers. It's completely unreasonable to expect editors must just the discussion right this minute. Especially when there is zero urgency on the issue. This applies even if they reverted you. So your comment "it appears he's finally stopped refusing to respond on the article's Talk page" is inappropriate. I'd even say offensive and almost if not crossing the personal attack line. You should stop expecting editors edit according to your schedule and instead give them reasonable time to respond to any discussion. And you should only try to use some form of dispute resolution when it's clear you cannot resolve the situation just with whoever joins the discussion on the talk page. This generally means you should give it a few days. Definitely not 5 hours. And you should only bring behavioural complaints when it's clear there is a intractable problem with an editor's behaviour and not simply because you are demanding they respond to you in 5 hours! Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, I take your point about giving things time (days), which I promise to take to heart. I'd also like to offer an apology to @WilliamJE:, for inappropriately handling my frustration. I am sorry, to everyone, for wasting your time posting here. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

AT ANI

LESS STURM UND DRANG

HELPS AVOID

THE BOOMERANG

Burma-Shave

Guy (help!) 18:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't work if one pronounces Sturm und Drang in accordance with the proper German pronunciation. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Well then don't do that. DUH. Modification: AT ANI / YOUR STURM AND DRANG / MIGHT GET YOU / A BOOMERANG / B-S EEng 04:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Moaz786, eh? The "ang" of Drang is pretty much the same as the "ang" of boomerang. At least in the Hochdeutsch I learned as a singer of Schubert liede and the English I learned at my thousand-year-old school. Guy (help!) 08:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, well, did they teach you that the plural of Lied is Lieder? EEng 09:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC) We must protest this treatment, Hubert / says each newspaper reader / As someone once remarked to Schubert / "Take us to your Lieder"

I can spell just fine, but I can't type for tooffe. Srsly. Guy (help!) 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

AND IF YOU HAVE

THE ADMIN TOOLS

JUST WHIP THEM OUT

AND BLOCK THE FOOLS

Burma-Shave

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that the "a" in "Drang" is to be pronounced as the "a" in father, though my dad insisted I was learning "low German" whereas he spoke "high German".-- Deepfriedokra 06:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, anyone want to chime in now on how to pronounce boomerang? EEng 07:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

ˈbuməɹæŋ.-- Deepfriedokra 07:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Big help you are. EEng 15:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I also found some borderline WP:POINTing within the last two days, mostly within one hour, mostly involving sole survivors: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. ミラP 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Miraclepine: Your edit above is totally clueless. I have been cleaning up aviation accident article for years. Have gotten a couple of barnstars[18] for it. I have absolute shit out of articles like this[19]. Here is another case of a GA which had bunch of bs[20] in it too. Both cleaned up. Oh and I have been taking non-notable names out of accident articles for at least two years[21]. You should really study an editor before sticking your foot in your mouth....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Nbro refusing to seek or abide by consensus

This user is changing reviews on various hip hop albums, removing ones that he thinks are "retarded" and being explicit that he will not post to talk or take into account WP:BRD. I was encouraged by TheAmazingPeanuts to post here and hoped I wouldn't have to but that last edit summary seems pretty explicit. @EdJohnston: as an admin who has blocked this user before for disruption. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well that escalated. I recommend an indefinite block. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This editor has also violate the three-revert rule by keep reverting content in the article Kamikaze [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention threatening to sock in the future if they don't get their way. Robvanvee 13:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Protected the page for now, from a quick look atleast two editors violated 3RR, @Koavf and Nbro:. I am leaving any blocking to more experienced administrators, as and when that happens, please also remove the protection. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have closed the AN3 report with a 2-week block to Nbro (sitewide), but not to Koavf — due to the egregious nature of the violation by the former, especially, seeing that it had occurred mere days after an earlier AN3 block (applied by EdJohnston). But Koavf, you should not have edit warred, either. That was also the wrong call. El_C 15:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  El C, Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Since Nbro threatened to use multiple accounts to evade their block, access to editing their own talk page was also revoked for the duration of the block. El_C 15:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: @El C: Since the editor has threatened to use multiple accounts, I believe they is gonna evade their block sooner or later. Better to keep an eye on similar edits in the future, especially in Eminem-related articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, I have a calendar reminder set up to check on him but agreed: that's not perfect. His editing pattern is very odd and I would suggest that it's used by multiple persons as well. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, if their problematic editing resurfaces again, in any way whatsoever, please let me know. El_C 02:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, Duly noted and thanks again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: @El C: Nbro is back using a new account [28], [29]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, Already posted to User talk:El C and WP:AIV. I also made Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Nbro. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest sock blocked. But more importantly, the various related articles have been all sprotected for 3 months. That should, hopefully, be the end of that. El_C 02:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN behaviour at 2020 Irish general election

This case pertains to users Bastun and Wikimucker.

To put things within context: this initially started out as a content dispute on 14 January when, right after the date for the 2020 Irish general election was confirmed, Iveagh Gardens and Number 57 boldly attempted to split the opinion polling section into a separate article, as is standard for election articles throughout Wikipedia (diff1 diff2). This was twice reverted by Bastun (diff3 diff4), under the only grounds that these had to remain in the main article "until the election is over" but without providing any sensible reason why. The issue rose up again on 20 January when a third uninvolved user, Aréat, attempted to remove the information from the main article to avoid repetition (diff5). Wikimucker then reverted them on the grounds that not all polls were in the sub article (diff6). Aréat then promptly went to update the sub article to fix the issue (diff7 diff8) but they got reverted again by Wikimucker, this time under a different reason, calling to "Seek consensus before removing this". Both parties attempted to engage a discussion on the issue at the talk page (diff10 diff11). So far, seven people have intervened in the discussion(s) (counting both #Opinion Polls. Main Article or not. and #Polls table: the aforementioned five users, as well as Bondegezou and myself. A clear consensus has emerged in favour of the split (which received unanimous support from all involved users), the main point of friction being the "when": Bastun and Wikimucker pleaded for the split to wait until the election was held, whereas all others saw no reason for this to be delayed (this is, a 5:2 consensus).

However, and despite there now being a clear consensus, both Bastun and Wikimucker have seemingly taken a scorched earth-policy where they would simply team up to keep reverting any attempt to implement such consensus (diff12 diff13) while threatening anyone who opposes them (diff14 diff15). Bastun in particular has adopted an aggressive ownership behaviour in the article, which is revealed by claims such as "It's been here since 2016, and we (who have been here for those four years) would like it to stay for the remaining three weeks", "this reader, and plenty of others would would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days", and threatening with edit warring should anyone try to implement the reached consensus, in what seems to constitute an overall WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Worth noting, in particular, is the 3RR warning issued by Bastun to Aréat (diff19), allegedly on the basis that "we're supposed to warn users that they're potentially about to breach 3RR"; this comes in clear contrast to Bastun's own approach towards Wikimucker, who did actually breach 3RR (revert1 revert2 revert3 revert4) yet received not a single warning from them; probably because they were just enforcing Bastun's version of the article. Further, they have both persistently accused others of WP:TE without any evidence, just because of disagreeing with them (diff21 diff22).

Bastun has also been trying to bog down the process by resorting to wikilawyering and unnecessary bureaucratization, arguing that the split was done "out of process" in the first place because of not abiding to WP:PROSPLIT (diff23 diff24). This is not true: PROSPLIT allows for any split to be done boldly if criteria for splitting are met (in this case, opinion polls account for 2/3 of the article so it seems reasonable) and no discussion is required (considering that this is customary practice elsewhere in Wikipedia and even in previous Irish election articles, I understand that Iveagh Gardens acted with the sincere conviction that no discussion was required when they created the sub article). Bastun has also repeteadly called for deleting the sub article only to have it re-created within 17 days (diff25 diff26), in what seems an unnecessary waste of everyone's time and effort responding only to their personal wishes. Ironically though, they are seeking such a deletion out of process themselves, as they were asked to open an AfD if they seriously thought the article should be deleted, to no avail.

Finally, both Bastun and Wikimucker have adopted a somewhat mocking and personal behaviour on me almost right from the beginning of my intervention in the discussion, just because of me asking for respect to consensus and to the other involved users: firstly, with unfair accusations of text-walling (in a clear case of WP:COTD), then with some random and entirely unnecessary mocking (diff29 diff30 diff31), and now the revelation that they may be acting like this because of some personal grudge on me from some discussion that took place three years ago (diff32). This despite repeated pleas and warnings from myself for this personal behaviour to stop (diff33 diff34 diff35 diff36).

I'm inclined to step down from the discussion because the content case has been made and because they are getting it so personal as to make it uncomfortable, but this does not preclude the fact that the 2020 Irish general election article has been hijacked by two people who are preventing any third party from making any significative or substantial modification that does not go their way. I am basically asking for input on what to do here and how to unlock this behavioural-based stalemate. Impru20^talk 12:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Just adding my opinion; what should have been a simple and short discussion about whether the opinion poll table should be moved to a separate article (as is done for virtually all elections) has turned rather nasty, largely due to the unreasonable attitude of the two editors Impru20 highlights. At the point the discussion reached a reasonably clear consensus (5 in favour, 2 against), Bastun made the claim that proceeding with the change would be WP:TE. I'm not sure if any action is required beyond a reminder about conduct, but it would certainly help to have some more eyes on the article to prevent further reverts. Number 57 12:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Bastun has reverted it again and is suggesting the content to be split into a page under a different title than the one already existing (something which could be accomplished through a mere move; they are obviously not moving it because they don't care about the title, all they want is to delay the enforcement of consensus until their preferred date). We can officially add WP:POINT and WP:GAME to the list of ongoing policy breaches. Impru20^talk 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, Impru20 thinks I am to be available 24/7 to read and parse huge walls of text and to compy with their wishes about how I follow processes (or not), while they simultaneously admonish me for issuing a 3RR warning to someone who had reverted three times (and made no other contributions to the page).

This is possibly related to Impru's last time spent on the page, some 3 years ago, where they had to be warned to stay off Wikimucker's talk page (and refused to do so) and I was subject to battleground behaviour and walls of text, akin to what is happening now (where they have added some 19k to the talk page in less than 24 hours, but no substantive content in approximately 3 years). The bottom line is the page was split, without preserving or noting the page history, just over 2 weeks out from the election to which the polls refer. The current placement interferes not at all with the page - the section is at the bottom of the article so if someone doesn't want to see the poll information, they can just stop reading. I asked that if the page was going to be split that a proper discussion take place and process be followed. Apparently less than 24 hours discussion and only 7 people participating, with no notice on any related articles or projects, is enough to satisfy Impru's railroading. Frankly, I'm at work, and don't have time to respond to the above wall, so this will have to do. FWIW, I've added the appropriate split template to the article now and will notify involved users and appropriate pages/projects in a few hours. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear; all of your behaviour during the last days is based on a personal grudge you have on me! I intervened in the discussion in good faith. I obviously do not have to ask you for any permission to do so, nor does the fact that I haven't become involved in the article within the last three years give you any leverage or superior right over my own opinions. It was you who kept ignoring my arguments, keeping attacking me and mocking me to the point of stress just because you couldn't get consensus your way. You have even accused others of WP:TE just because of their arguing in favour of the enforcement of consensus, and you do not have the "three years ago" excuse there.

Nonetheless, I remind you of WP:UNCIVIL: to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has changed their approach, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, are in themselves potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated. Even if we were to take your version of facts of three years ago as true (it isn't, but I sincerely don't have the time to re-live what you and Wikimucker did to me nor is it in any way related to this), you have no right to keep repeteadly bringing it up in an entirely unrelated discussion years later just because you can't bother to read others' comments and reply with constructive arguments.

P.S. Just because of being a prolific editor in an article does not make you exempt of 3RR. You chose to warn only the user who disagreed with you, and not the other (and more obvious) violation. Ask yourself why. Impru20^talk 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Funny that. This complaint starts with a wall of text.

A perusal of the archives around the Admin parts here shows that Impru is a regular user of Administrator appeals.

If I were myself a perennial in this part of the wiki it would be because I was clearly unable to reach a civil accommodation with my fellow editors and to respect their work and our occasional differences, which differences are clear on the self same talk page that is the subject of the complaint(albeit further down). It is incumbent upon us, as editors, to manage these differences without battering each other with a soup of policies and obtuse e walls of text. WP:WeAllHaveBetterThingsToDo comes to mind. I would find that embarrassing to be honest.

But I am not such a perennial, am I??? Craven apologies in advance to any poor Admin who has read this far down. Wikimucker (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Firstly: abusing of WP:TL;DR to try to dismiss legitimate evidence and valid rationales is disruptive by itself.

No, it's not true that I am a "regular user of Administrator appeals". The only recent time I have come to ANI has been a couple days ago because I was directly insulted and intimidated at my talk page (it obviously led to a quick block). Within the whole of 2019 I have only come to ANI twice: one in February 2019 and another one in July 2019. Both were obvious and extreme cases of disruption which were summarily blocked. The only other time I got mentioned in ANI throughout 2019 (thus, one of the results you'll get from the archives) was in June, to put me as a positive example: A user who has given a sensible explanation and has acted constructively is Impru20 [80]. They gave an actual rationale instead of going completely defensive which RaviC has done. RaviC should talk a leaf out of Impru20's playbook.

Nonetheless, Wikimucker, it happens that my name shows up at the ANI archives 22 times. Bastun's name, ironically, shows up 69 times ([30]). It would be nice as well to determine how many of these are because of Bastun/myself coming here on our own volition and how many of these are because of us being reported, but it's nonetheless ironic that you dub me a "perennial user" of ANI just because of the sheer historic number of results in the ANI archive, yet you ignore Bastun's own count, which triples mine. Not that I really care, but your own distorted argument would actually damage your cause, not help it. Impru20^talk 18:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You really don't want to make all this any easier for the admins to follow Impru20, do you??? Wikimucker (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I do make it easier by providing evidence. Another one would be this one: Wikimucker removing the 3RR warning on their talk page dubbing it as "Impru20 shite". So, it's cool for Aréat to be warned of 3RR in order for them to be intimidated from conducting any further edit on the article, yet when it is you the violator such a warning becomes "shit"? Interesting. Impru20^talk 19:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You were told 3 years ago to stay off my talk page permanently, that order is a unique one on my talk page and will likely always be. Don't expect any thanks for breaching that order. Wikimucker (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I won't be wasting my time on grudges any of you have because of a discussion that took place three-years-ago; your "wish" for me not to comment in your talk page is not a justification to ignore a WP:3RR warning on a clear breach of such rule and dub it as "shit". You have also removed the ANI notice from your talk when I am required to post it under Wikipedia rules no matter your own preferences, but somehow you think you are above all of it. Nonetheless, and as I told you, I warned you out of pure courtesy despite your straight violation of 3RR. Probably next time you should get a full report at WP:AN3 and get a straight block so that you stop short on your impertinence. Impru20^talk 20:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

If it has your name on it you know it you know it will go Impru20. Nothing changed in 3 years. Wikimucker (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The main issue at hand is what you are doing at Talk:2020 Irish general election, not whatever grudge you may have from 3, 5 or 10 years ago. If you are not going to read or address the commented out evidence, I'd politely ask you to stop posting placeholder comments, so as to give admins a breath. Thank you. Impru20^talk 21:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please. That is quite enough Impru20, thank you in advance for stopping now. 21:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimucker (talk • contribs)

It wasn't Wikimucker who posted a 3RR warning on Aréat's page, it was me, so WM's opinion of my doing that is irrelevant. You accuse WM of breaching 3RR, but according to the 4 diffs you posted, they haven't. Three is not four, but one of the four diffs you posted was not a revert of the opinion polls. Ironically, WP:SPLITTING has this to say: "A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." Between this page and Talk:2020 Irish general election, you have added just shy of 40k, within 36 hours, on this one topic. While maintaining that you are not adding walls of text and that others saying you are is a personal attack. I'm done... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

JAYSUS Bastun please stop, please. There is quite enough here already with no further input required from you or from Impru20 . Let this be an absolute end to it the pair of you. Wikimucker (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bastun, I concur with Wikimucker here and I won't be taking your bait, as most of what you say has either been already replied or is just a repetition of the same mantra on attempting to minimize myself and my contributions. Everything I had to say has been said. However, a small consideration on this new statement of you: one of the four diffs you posted was not a revert of the opinion polls So, does it look like you are issuing 3RR warnings without even knowing what WP:3RR is?

“ An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. ”

Four edits of any kind that reverts content added by other user or users, whether they are the same or different users, and which involve the same or different content, are a violation of 3RR. They do not even need to be tagged as actual reverts, just being edits that undo any other editors' actions. Now this is enough; thank you for your input, but if you can't provide anything else I'd just call for any uninvolved admin to review this. Impru20^talk 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Aaaaand Stop There. :( Wikimucker (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside the tangential issues for now, I support Impru20's observation that we have a sufficient consensus to make the article split, but two editors are blocking that. This is not helpful editing. Bondegezou (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The article has been split. Number 57 did it, asserting that process had been followed (it hadn't, as far as I can see - they removed the split discussion template from the article page and moved the content, which has now lost the history and according to WP:PROSPLIT doesn't meet WP's licensing terms.) That aside, Iveagh Gardens has said they've no problem having the split page deleted and created with the edit summary required by WP's licence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any clue on how WP:PROSPLIT even works. The page's history is not moved into the new article in the split process, and just because an edit summary is not filled properly does not mean the whole splitting must start anew. Much to the contrary, you can easily solve it by using Template:Copied at both the parent and the child articles as per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, as I just did here and here, to keep attribution on the parent's page history.

You two have been wikilaywering and blocking further action based on random excuses in order to unilaterally delay the split, despite overwhelming consensus for conducting it right away (something that even Iveagh Gardens asks for in the diff you provide!). But worst of it is that, as a way of accomplishing that, both you and WM have launched a full smear campaign on myself personally just because I contested your actions, by casting aspersions on me both at Talk:2020 Irish general election and here at ANI without even caring to provide any evidence while trying to discredit my valid rationale by dismissing it as "text-walls" despite the essay on it expressly stating that doing so is disruptive. The split is now done with, but the intractable behavioural problems still remain. As Number 57 hints, probably some action should be taken against the perpretators of this embarrassing episode to discourage such a drama from being repeated in the future. Impru20^talk 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Impru20 Please withdraw that gratuitous ad hominen directed at me, I will accept your simply editing it out, less being more here. Wikimucker (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a "gratuitous ad hominem". We are at ANI; evidence is everything here, unsupported accusations are of little use. Now please, do not talk to me ever again. Cheers. Impru20^talk 17:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

God, and that talk section on that page only started off as an attempt to seek a quick consensus, what! Wikimucker (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

An "overwhelming" consensus? ;-) Impru has now addressed the licensing issue and hasn't been in any way condescending about it - good lad. As the main issue raised seems to be the size of the table and the first world problem of having to scroll lots to get to the footnotes, I'm amazed nobody just used the table's 'hide' function, but hey, I guess not everyone can know everything about every aspect of Wikipedia, and that's no sin. Every day is a schoolday, as they say. That being the case, the inclusion of just this years's polls won't be an issue, as we're likely to see only one or two more after this weekend, plus RTÉ's exit poll. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

[...] I'm amazed nobody just used the table's 'hide' function. Just for any passing-by reader to know: Aréat actually attempted to improve on this, twice (diff1 diff2). But they got reverted twice as well (diff1 diff2). If he had been lent some help instead of being reverted and sent a 3RR warning, seeing how the 'hide/collapse' function seems so suddenly useful now, the situation would have maybe became just a little less agonic I guess. Impru20^talk 19:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Any passing-by readers may be interested to know that the 'hide' function was present from the time the opinion polls section was first created, but I sincerely doubt it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That may be because ANI is about behavioural issues, not content issues. No one here would be interested on the 'hide' function at all, indeed. But they may care that the user attempting to improve on such function got crudely reverted as part of the domination-style behaviour that got us here, then dismissed as "nobody just used the table's 'hide' function". Yes, there were attempts to use it and work on it, but even these were repressed. Impru20^talk 21:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Having read the above (why did I do that), and the two articles, I am struggling to see the ANI aspect to this. There is normal discussion and various proposals are/have been made on the Talk Page of the 2020 Irish general election article that seem fine? If there are WP:3RR violations, we have a board for that (and justice is swift, imho). If a stable consensus is hard to achieve, we have RfCs (which I don't see being used on the Talk Page). The article is being actively edited by several disparate parties (none of whom have come to this ANI outside of the parties named in this ANI). It is not obvious to me that there is an ANI aspect to be considered here? I would move to close this. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Britishfinance; other parties (namely Number 57 and Bondegezou) have actually come up to ANI (diff1 diff2) and have indeed called for some kind of action to be taken (diff3). Plus, considering that the issue is only worsening because of an apparent ongoing attempt to circumvent the reached consensus on the part of one of the same guys who was brought here (diff4 diff5), this does seem like an ANI issue. Cheers. Impru20^talk 11:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Impru20, my bad missing that (they were brief cmts in a long ANI post). I see you have started an RfC on the Talk Page (which is good). I also note your comment in the RfC header: I am not particularly opposed to this, as long as consensus favours it and care is taken for information to be added and kept up to date in both pages. This comment underlines the low materiality of this formatting point, (and contrasts with the length of this ANI), and my belief (still) that there is no ANI action here. Britishfinance (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: This is because this ANI report is not about what you reference. Indeed, the key point of what I said minutes ago and which you reference is as long as consensus favours it. Currently it doesn't, it was pretty clear and still there was a clear attempt to game the outcome of the reached consensus (already acknowledged by others as well), in what is only a continuation of the ongoing behavioural issues at 2020 Irish general election. Content disputes can be dealt with and, as you yourself correctly hint, I personally have no issues in taking either part of the discussion when it comes to content, because I have no wish to oppose something for the sake of opposing. What is not acceptable is for any user to hijack any article and forcefully push with their own preferred version of it even against consensus, as is being the case here and, as a behavioural and not a content issue, constitutes the focus of this report.

I am sorry that this ANI got so unfortunately long, as at some point it turned into me having to defend myself from some unjustified claims. In any case, all evidence on this issue is within the starting post of this report, with diffs and links being provided whenever required, with the original discussion being available at Talk:2020 Irish general election and with the page's history being accessible to everyone. Cheers. Impru20^talk 12:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: This report is not about the dispute over 2020 Irish general election. It is over possible WP:TE by Bastun and Wikimucker. I've certainly found Bastun's editing here to be unhelpful to the project. Bondegezou (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bondegezou. I wouldn't really call their editing unhelpful to the project? They are the editors who have built the important 2020 Irish general election head article (per [31]), which I am sure will be a great help to Irish (and even other) readers? The polling format dispute that caused this ANI (here), seems like a very moderate item on the materiality scale, and having read through it, is not that unfair/unreasonable a request (and why I !voted to support it at the new RfC). Somewhere along the line, this all went askew, however, I don't think this ANI thread (or extending it further), serves much purpose now, and it is a better use of our time to focus on articles. Britishfinance (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The polling format dispute that caused this ANI seems like a very moderate item on the materiality scale. You can actually see this the other way around: how such a seemingly minor content dispute developed into such an oversized drama because of a persistent refusal to accept consensus from a tag team. Being prolific editors in any given article does not make them exempt from Wikipedia policies on civility and consensus-building (actually, it would seem it could have contributed to them having entrenched themselves in the aforementioned ownership behaviour). Considering that an active attempt to filibuster was averted just earlier today, this seems by no means over, and we could end up seeing further conflict if left unaddressed. Impru20^talk 20:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

an active attempt to filibuster was averted just earlier today. LOLS at idea that filibustering started yesterday. In my 15 years+ editing the Wikipedia I have never ever come across serial and deliberate WP:MWOT / WP:TE on the scale it regularly appears in the talk pages in the article that is the subject of the complaint. Some of the choicest examples are now excised from that talk page, dating from 2017. Wikimucker (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Filibustering in Wikipedia's terms means repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution. Example: Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tagteam) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate. I think it is pretty clear to everyone. Btw, I agree that the filibustering did not start yesterday (nor did I suggest that). It started when a clear consensus had emerged and our favoured tag team of two attempted to prevent its resolution because they did not agree with it. Impru20^talk 10:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Pretty accurately describes what we have to put up with on talk pages. Not in 15 years+ have I seen such behaviour. Wikimucker (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree with you. Impru20^talk 10:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: Impru20 listed at the start of this section evidence of WP:TE. This ANI report is not about polling format: it's about those examples of edit-warring and wiki-lawyering given. I am unclear why you are not engaging with the examples given. Bondegezou (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bondegezou:, per my comments on the Talk page RfC, the substance of this format dispute is very (very) minor, and the good faith assurances now given, make the dispute moot. The only "oxygen" prolonging debate (and this huge ANI), is from the "unhappy interactions" that resulted from this format dispute. Perspective is being lost here, and concerns of WP:TE can be directed at many parties (although, again, I can't see an admin bothering with TE on such a moot issue). I advise (again) that this ANI be brought to a close as the most rational outcome. Britishfinance (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Concerns on OWN and other behavioural issues at 2020 Irish general election have not been cast off. Rather, you seem to be actually furthening it by somehow suggesting that we have to somehow accept the proposal to have 2020 polls in the main article because these two editors are the "creators" of the content. No, we are not required to agree with it. Both Bondegezou and myself have laid out our reasons for opposing. That's ok and there is no issue with it. And no, neither of these users has any superior right or claim over the article's content just because of them being amongst the most prolific editors of that page.

Content issues aside, these were not just "unhappy interactions"; these were attempts to systematically overturn the reached consensus, filibustering, tag teaming, ownership and battleground-like behaviour and aspersion-calling (the latter of which has continued even on this ANI report, which constitutes an evidence by itself). The issue is not "moot". Impru20^talk 13:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sadly I don't think any administrator has been treated to such an collection of Wiki policies, untrammeled as the collection is by the slightest understanding of the actual value of any of them. Wikimucker (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You think incorrectly, I guess.

P.S. I do not think it is particularly helpful to anyone for you to just keep posting placeholder comments here, without replying to anyone's arguments nor countering any of the provided evidence. Impru20^talk 14:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

So, in summary, yes, there may be WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour going on at that article - there's certainly a lot of bludgeoning in evidence, both there and here!

• Bastun: 37 edits, 15.3k, since 16 January.
• Impru20: 67 edits, totalling 43.5k, since 22 January!

I'd repeat that test for this page, but xtools wisely falls over every time I try. Pretty much every single comment by anyone who does not agree with Impru20 will be met by a response by him.

There is currently a weak consensus (4-3 - seven people!) for the compromise proposal of including the polls conducted since 1 January in the main article, until after the election on 8 February. (As opposed to the "overwhelming consensus" of 5-2 - seven people!) for removing all polls. Realistically, nobody in their right mind is going to join that discussion (sorry, Britishfinance, no offence meant!) and really, who could blame them? Can someone hat this discussion, please, and possibly advise if it's worthy of mention elsewhere? Me? I'm off to the pub. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No offence taken Bastun, and I do appeal to Impru20 to drop this one; we are far beyond the bounds of marginal benefit from any further discussion on this issue which is now of very (very) low materiality (if not trivial). There really is little benefit to prolonging the RfC, which revolves around maintaining a few lines of text in the Head Article, as well as the sub-article for all polling; and assurances have been given by the two editors who maintain (and wrote) these two articles, that said lines of text will be updated in both articles (the original concern). Any UNINVOLVED editor (of which I no longer one), would really wonder what is the point of further discussion and dispute; the path to getting here may have left "bruises" between you, but that happens in WP, and as long as no harm can come to the project (which I can't see happening in this case), there are an infinite amount of better things to spend time on? Britishfinance (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Bastun, typically I'd need to spent more time and effort in replying because you and Wikimucker are acting as a WP:TAGTEAM, so it's not one-to-one discussion but a two-to-one engagement. Typically, one would reply when the other doesn't and vice versa. Joining Wikimucker's own stats here, this would give 88 edits between the two of you worth 32.6k. Noting that none you tend to use evidence or external links as I do (which obviously make the markup size of my edits to go up; it's a pity that the fact that I try to use evidence is used against me, coming from someone who has only casted aspersions for the whole time of their involvement in this ANI thread and in most of the discussion at the referenced article). As of lately, there is also these engagements where one of these two users would just resort to systematically reply to every comment of mine without providing any meaningful content (despite repeated calls of me for such a behaviour to stop) just seeking to provoke me and make my editing experience in the article uncomfortable (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5 diff6).

Further, that you pretend to impersonate this on me is absurd. The latest discussion at Talk:2020 Irish general election#2020 polls in main article is only taking place because I did initiate it in order to redirect a situation where you shamefully attempted to game the outcome of the previous discussion (diff1 diff2). Number 57 and Bondegezou have also showed clear conmendation of your behaviour, both here and in the talk page, and even Iveagh Gardens, despite granting you support on your latest content proposal, has been forced to call for you to please not make any change in the page before a consensus is reached. Stop trying to make this personal on myself as you have been doing since your first reply to me in this whole affair (diff).

If the discussion got large is because of your failure in accepting that a consensus contrary to your own preferences was reached. Had you accepted consensus when it was reached, none of this would have been needed, but it's your ownership behaviour, your constant personal attacks, your accusations of WP:TE to others and other related behaviour what has brought us here.

Sorry Britishfinance, but this should really be addressed. This whole affair is indeed a waste of time considering that initial consensus had been quick and very clear, but we should remind why and how did we get here. The fact that such an enormous conflict was brought by these two users on such a minor issue, as well as the fact that, as they have shown, they will just keep repeating the same behaviour on anyone not agreeing to their terms on "their" Irish election articles, means that this is prone to be repeated in the future. Further, we would have saved us a lot of time already had I not been forced to respond to unfounded personal accusations and a lot of targetting on myself. As said, this is not a content issue but a behavioural problem, and needs resolution.

Can someone hat this discussion, please, and possibly advise if it's worthy of mention elsewhere? Me? I'm off to the pub. This is an unneeded insult, Bastun, which is just reflective of your behaviour during the whole affair. Impru20^talk 19:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I have gone as far I as can go and will leave it to another UNINVOLVED editor/admin to help, and may God have mercy on their souls. Britishfinance (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: I am sure you are speaking in good will, but I cannot comprehend why you are sticking to content and seemingly ignore the (still ongoing) disruptive behaviour shown by these users. You were asked by other users to engage with the given evidence, but you stick with the content issue being "very" minor and with "assurances" on such content being given. This is respectable, but this is not the issue at discussion here: had this been a content issue, it would have been brought to WP:DRN or any other such venue. No assurance has been given that the reported behaviour will stop (unsurprisingly, as such behaviour is being mimicked by the reported users in this ANI thread or even at the ongoing discussion at the talk page), and there are concerns that further edit warring in the article has only stopped because of the issue being currently under the ANI's watch. I do not see the usefulness in repeating the same remarks over and over again: all evidence has been already posted and, seemingly, no more will be given, so this is up for any uninvolved admin to come and address. Let us not increase the drama any further. Impru20^talk 20:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: may God have mercy on their souls. Never, in any discussion initiated by the OP who started this one, was a wiser word spoken by any contributor. Please Lord, save us all from another [WP:MWOT] . Wikimucker (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ok, so after about 80% of the discussion above served no other purpose than to needlessly lengthen this ANI thread beyond reasonable limits, let the POV railroading stop and have someone else get this issue resolved, shall we? Thank you all for your participation. Impru20^talk 11:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IPs 64.60.211.2 and 2600:1700:D2A1:570:0:0:0:3B

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

64.60.211.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2600:1700:D2A1:570:0:0:0:3B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These two IPs are making identical edits and I assume are the same person. They are attempting to add text to various articles such as Solo performance, Waiting for Godot, Lincoln Heights Jail, etc., which all relate to performances by one Darryl Maximilian Robinson. The problem is not so much the edits to text - though are they are presumably promotional and trivial - but to the editor's refusal to pay any regard to the notices on their user pages relating to proper citation procedures. They are edit-warring to maintain incorrectly formatted citations. Repeated warnings from several editors have had zero effect. Not vandalism per se, but requires some action to be taken. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Both blocked. The former for a year as it has a long history of disruptive editing and previous blocks. The latter x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undiscussed bulk move of decade pages

BHB95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BHB95 is moving pages such as 10s to new titles which have not been discussed. These articles form part of a complex web of carefully named articles. I have attempted to start discussion at User talk and a relevant project. Please can an admin consider intervening? Certes (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please remember to notify all involved parties on their talk pages of ANI discussions. I have made the required notification for BHB95. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Certes did, just not using the standard notification or in its own section.[32] DMacks (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I missed that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I gave a short block. Don't have any more time right now to unwind it. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks DMacks. I think we can sort out reversion without further help. Certes (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of JzG / Guy for Admin vacation or similar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please consider whether JzG should take an Admin vacation, or some other remedy. I've tried to ignore a number of, let's call it, "difficult" interactions, but speedy deletion of an article I worked on for a few hours,[33] and subsequent lack of discussion[34] are last straws for me. So, I'm listing several things that caught my attention, when trying to understand what's happened over about the last 2 weeks since I dared involve myself in some "climate change" associated articles. I will note I've also experienced some "difficult" interactions with a few other editors and admins, but this admin stands out from the pack, and has, in my opinion, now abused their power.

I'm still unsure exactly what is appropriate for User pages, but to me this (TL;DR in detail) and associated editing seems to indicate far too much concern and time spent on writing a treatise on politics on Wikipedia.[35]

This is to point out another very detailed discussion of concern over sourcing at Wikipedia.[36]. I don't say anything is particularly wrong with having concerns or expressing them, but it seems to be connected with problematic (IMO) edits and now admin action.

Is Wikipedia a bulletin board or forum? [37]

Are broad general comments like "well, he's kind of right, in that the more you look into it the more you realise that the entire climate change denial machine is fraudulent." considered appropriate? [38]

Is this a helpful comment? "I note that there are quite a few instances of "$DENIER wrote $DENIALISTCLAPTRAP for the Global Warming Policy Forum(source: link to $DENIALISTCLASPTRAP at thegwpf.org)". That's probably not a good idea."[39] As I said there, I feel "Writing about people as though they can be lumped into a disrespected category and treated like a variable looks like Dehumanization, a battlefield tactic, and seems improper at Wikipedia."[40]

Is this an appropriate edit summary, to remove a PDF link for a report no one disputes the BLP Article subject wrote; a report which is mentioned by title in the article text? "absolutely inappropriate external link to climate change denialism propaganda" [41]

The following histories suggest to me JzG is following me around Wikipedia and implementing scorched earth policy for anything they personally disagree with (not just my edits), regardless of sourcing, and using misleading edit summaries. [42][43]. Particular edits:(A) "pruning unsourced / self-sourced" [44] (Note deleted source from thegwpf.org is neither un- nor self-sourced for the article). (B) "primary and unreliable (WSJ not reliable for editorials ion climate change, per WP:RSN"[45] Note: I've seen the same WSJ letter (IIRC) mentioned on other articles on people who signed it. AFAIK primary sources may be used in BLP articles to some extent.

Thanks in advance for considering my concerns. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat against me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

I undid Cyrusep's edits on the 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates article two different times. The first time was here: [46] and the second time was here: [47]. I received this email from them not long after my second edit.

(Redacted)

I posted about this on the Help desk here: [48] and was advised to post here by Arch dude. Thank you. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Did the other user really post a link to ransomware in the page history or did he just make that up? If he really posted ransomware or malware links in article space then we may need a revision deletion. Michepman (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The link appears in other articles and looks to be a CopyVio of whosaidso.org [[49]]Slywriter (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I've indeffed the user as a promotion / advertising-only account, since that's all they appear to have been doing on Wikipedia. Can't do anything about the legal threat since that was done offwiki and cannot be verified, though, personally, I believe David O. Johnson. The matter is moot, anyway. As for there being ransomware, I think there's been some confusion between the edit summary that stated it was removing a random link and the word ransom, maybe...? Otherwise, I don't see where David O. Johnson made that claim. El_C 05:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've also taken the liberty of disabling the user's email function — so no more emails from them. El_C 05:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: It seems backwards to hide the email if it it was a threat and relevant to the incident report that there was a threat. DemonDays64 (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's moot, so why even entertain disclosing a private email, even one containing threat of legal action? I've indeffed the user as a spam-only account, disabled their email so that they cannot harass anyone else, and that ought to be that. El_C 05:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Race and intelligence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Me and my wiki friends are edit warring again. Come take a look if you want. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing by Soval Valtos

I am having an issue with Soval Valtos, now I'm going to admit up front, it's on the Ieuan Reese article I created so by default I'm not going to be a neutral party, as no one ever is on an article they wrote. I also am aware that when I or anyone puts an article on Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. However, I don't think he's checking for references and is , instead , marking CN even when there is a citation there. For example:

• His first edit requests a citation when one exists at the end of the sentence

Now I did point this out to him User_talk:SovalValtos#Ieuan_Reese on his talk page. He stated that although there was a source he didn't consider it a reliable one. Now, the CN tag can be used that way, put per the actual template itself, it needs to be marked that way, which SV didn't do. Per our discussion, I re-added the material back in with a second source, which by the way already appears on the page [50]

• He then removed this sourced bit of info . The source is right next to it, titled "credentials" .

• I went back to his page once again User_talk:SovalValtos#Ieuan_Reese to remind him that he was once again removing sourced information and I once again told him where the source was actually at.

• He never responded to my message, but responded by once again removing the same information stating that it's unsourced when it actually is.

Add to that I'm on the only person who's asked him to be careful about removing sourced information:

• User_talk:SovalValtos#A.A Gill , User_talk:SovalValtos#Air Arabia Cairo to Bergamo, User_talk:SovalValtos#Seriously?, here he was told by two different editors SchroCat and Cassianto to not just blindly revert.

I believe he needs a mentor or a quick word from an admin about his editing, it's pretty well crappy . Thanks Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 14:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The relatively (152 edits in mainspace) inexperienced user Wekeepwhatwekill seems to be very impatient with and uncivil to an experienced editor SovalValtos who is pointing out flaws and confusion in the article Ieuan Rees. I have made some adjustments. The problem is that the references are poorly formatted and not necessarily following the info they source. When these are fixed, the article may be more acceptable. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm hardly impatient, if you check User_talk:SovalValtos#Ieuan Reese you'll see that I calmly discussed his first "CN" tag and in fact, compromised by including a second cite which is already in the article. The second time, I actually told him where the cite was for the "uncited" item he removed. Now, I shouldn't even have to do that, but I did do it to assume good faith. When he removed the same thing again as uncited, of course I got a little hot under the collar. I totally admit it. Also, please note I'm not the only person who's had issues with him, I notice you only addressed my issue with him, Tony Holkham.

By the way, Tony_Holkham, I noticed that you removed the same information Soval Valtos did and called it unsourced , the source is actually in the same sentence, then you found the source that was in the article where I left it and put it next to the item you called "unsourced". Please be aware that your edit summary makes it looks like there was no source for the item you tagged it , when there really was! Be aware also that I'm not the only one telling him to be careful, there are other users as well.Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(s)he seems to take pleasure in reverting edits without bothering to investigate their validity or (often) even apparently reading them, all in all at best a non-value adding editor. 81.108.136.100 (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Persistent addition of promotional content - Globe Elections UN

• globeelectionshistory.science.blog: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

IP user 211.221.114.249 has been adding user-generated content into 2020 Emilia-Romagna regional election (diff1 diff2), in what seems an attempt to use the article as a vehicle to promote self-made content. This is just the last in a string of similar cases of different IP accounts attempting to add this "Globe Elections UN" blogspot as a source into a large number of election articles: for a more complete account on these cases, check Talk:2019_United_Kingdom_general_election/Archive_5#GEUN_Spam, and it seems just the same person operating various different accounts (worth nothing is that all of them are geo-located in South Korea). The number of affected IP accounts could be even larger though, but they are relatively stable as in several cases they have been used in more than once case with a time difference of several weeks. They would also frequently revert the attempted removals of this content, thus engaging in problematic edit warring. Impru20^talk 21:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Impru20:  Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Note - I'll leave handling the IP range and/or the involved minor YouTube channel (see diff 1) to other admins if further measures are deemed necessary. @Impru20, just a quick tip: if you want to report primarily spam-related issues, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist would usually be better venues. --GermanJoe (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you sir! Will keep in mind your advice if I come across this again in the future. ;) Cheers. Impru20^talk 23:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Again

• 218.155.136.167 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 210.90.248.9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

They have done it again under these IP accounts, which should be blocked as well (diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 diff5). Note that they are now adding their website as referenced plain text as a result of the site having been blacklisted. Note that this IP address was the same used to spam other pages in the past. Impru20^talk 14:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that this specific IP already received a 31 hour-block in December because of this disruptive behaviour. Considering that the previous IP within this report has already gotten such a 31 hour-block and that these IP accounts do seem static (their contributions' history show that they are used for no other purpose than this), maybe longer blocks would be due to all of them. Pointing other such IP accounts used for this spamming purpose below:

• 121.157.29.42 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 119.194.250.121 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 121.133.198.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 121.133.188.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 211.248.151.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 221.150.208.93 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 211.226.115.72 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 121.157.179.66 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 59.13.200.203 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 210.96.117.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Impru20^talk 15:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Both 218.155.136.167 and 210.90.248.9 are blocked now and an edit filter requested at here, though care should be taken in the future as they may attempt to evade the blacklist, the filter and the blocks once again. I believe this thread can be now closed, since further cases of spam can now be reported at WP:AIV. Impru20^talk 18:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE and WP:TE from ClareTheSharer

I've been trying to work with ClareTheSharer (talk · contribs) on Danese Cooper, an article on a former WMF employee that has recurring unsourced WP:BLP and WP:COI issues, to ensure that the article doesn't contain an un-sourced or poorly sourced WP:DOB. Discussions with Clare at Talk: Danese Cooper and User talk: ClareTheSharer have gone poorly.

I normally wouldn't bring an encounter like this to ANI but I think the statement on User:ClareTheSharer, '"I have not memorised all the various WP:BLAH and regard appeals to policy without explanation as an attempt at dominance, and push back." (emphasis mine) is a prima facie evidence of how this editor approaches editing with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and points to a broader problem.

Diffs pointing to WP:TE:

1. Expecting others to find sources for your own statements: [51], [52], [53]
2. Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit: [54] (restoring a previously identified and removed WP:PRIMARY source)

Diffs pointing to WP:BATTLE:

After trying to explain a few policies to this editor,[55], [56], I've been accused of bullying [57], making epic personal attacks, trying to conceal my editing. [58] and being a destructive editor [59]

Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree with Toddst1. He has been patient and has been fighting a long outbreak of tendentious editing on Danese Cooper for a long time. I really think blocks are in order Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 19:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Second time this month reporting disruptive account from the Department of Defense

• 155.19.91.37 (talk · contribs)

And I'm not wasting my time leaving a message at their talk page. There's no interest in engaging here, merely in trolling and edit warring. Oshwah, I think you took part in the previous discussion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The user's last edit was 2-3 days ago. I looked into the last few edits, and the only thing I can see in the past week or more is a slow-moving edit war at Jonathan Turley, which I have added protection to stop. Can you indicate what new edits since the last discussion indicate additional problems? --Jayron32 12:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing more than that, Jayron32. I elaborated on the edit history and trolling in the previous report. Done riding herd on them. 2601:188:180:B8E0:2045:1108:DBE4:2135 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for filing a report here, Bob, and for pinging me and letting me know. This IP is on a final warning basis that any further disruption will result in blocking. I also made it clear that we treat all users the same, regardless of the origin of their IP or the number of edits that an account has. Jayron32 made a good call by not taking action due to the activity being stale at the time it was looked into. Had I seen this report at the time it was filed, I would've considered administrative action. I obviously can't now. I know that we have to tread well when blocking these sort of IP ranges, but I've done so before and for reasons that were legitimate, and I am not afraid to do so again. If disruption continues from this IP, please file another report here and it will be investigated and handled. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Their m.o. is to go quiet, wait for things to die down, and return to slow edit war or troll another editor. Much appreciated, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SashiRolls's behavior at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The talk page and edit history for this article really speak for themselves. SashiRolls has, for months, been tendentiously editing the article, edit warring, making personal attacks, and generally being uncivil, rude, and casting aspersions at me and other editors who do not share their views about the subject of the article (not to mention this odd debate. As a result of several editors becoming, frankly, tired of working with Sashi, the article is not in great shape now; I nominated it for deletion earlier today, and then this is what put me over the edge to drag the situation here. Despite repeated warnings on their talk page (from which I am now banned) and on the article talk page, Sashi continues making personal attacks. All of this said, I'm sure there are ways I could have addressed the situation better, and I am open to constructive criticism, but I really do feel like I'm in the right here. Thanks for your help. --WMSR (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Snooganssnoogans, who has also been on the receiving end of Sashi's attacks. --WMSR (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have posted a note on the AfD to try and help keep the discussion focused and maybe prevent things from going too far off track. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• It does not seem to be working. --WMSR (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think some of Sashirolls comments are problematic since they stray from FOC to focusing on the motivations of other editors. In my view it's fair to say, as an example, the edits of others "make the article look like it's pushing a POV". That is an assessment of how one might interpret the article. We should not say "you/them/some editors are pushing a POV" since that is now assuming a motivation of the editors themselves. That said, Snooganssoogans is not an easy editor to work with and I believe they have a history of pushing a POV rather than creating neutral articles. They were recently the subject of an ANI that resulted in a 1RR restriction. I noted Gandydancer's comment about working with Snooganssoogans after SS complained about SR [[60]]. This was one of the links from the original complaint. I have no feel for the "truth" related to the Bernie article in question but it seems like we have 2-3 like mined editors and one who disagrees. It's easy to see how that can turn ugly and how the like minded editors may be ignoring valid concerns because, well they automatically have a 3:1 consensus. Sashirolls would be well advised to clearly state they understand the concept of FOC and not commenting on editors on the talk page. Perhaps a warning that editors must strictly follow CIVIL and FOC on the talk page is needed here with the understanding failure to do so will result in an article specific tban would fix the issue? Springee (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't want to see Sashirolls' name when I glanced at ANI today, but this is kind of déjà vu. They were topic/interaction-banned for this kind of stuff in GMO topics[61] along with other issues outside that topic area in their block log that I don't know as much about except that there's history. I'm not going to dive into this one any further except to say it's doubtful a warning would have any effect given more serious sanctions haven't stopped the behavior from just jumping to other topics when they get topic-banned. Considering that, it's likely better for an uninvolved admin to handle this through the politics DS. Awilley, it looks like you've been trying to mediate some of the behavior issues on this. Do you have any thoughts on DS enforcement or other insights here? Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This is what makes coming to ANI frustrating. Editors unrelated to the current dispute and maybe still nursing an old grudge bring up old and irrelevant things that they admit they don't know much about. The bigger issue is that editors at the Media Coverage of Bernie Sanders page disagree that such a page and material should exist. It should be settled through consensus at the AFD, and editors ought to accept that consensus and move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, I didn't want to see Sashirolls' name when I glanced at ANI today ... I'm not going to dive into this one any further except to remind everyone Sashi was tbanned from GMO (even though GMOs have nothing to do with this dispute), once again call for sanctions, and ping the admin who had previously sanctioned Sashi to ask for thoughts and insights. You realize you're fooling no one with the feigned reluctance, right? Everyone remembers you're the editor who has filed multiple AEs against Sashi and who was falsely claiming that Sashi was tbanned from GMOs since before Sashi was tbanned from GMOs. Why not just be honest and say, "I have long believed Sashi should be indef'd and this episode is another example of the reason why." You do yourself a disservice by pretending otherwise. Levivich 20:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of the policy violations on the page: #1 violates WP:LINKLOVE & WP:OUTING, #2 violates WP:FOC,#3 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW, #4 violates WP:FOC and WP:EW. I don't have time to defend myself here at the moment, but I will note that the original author of the page WMSR doesn't like was apparently driven off with harassment, and obviously that is what is happening here too. I won't speculate as to why this page was generating so much bad blood well before I came in and began repairing the damage after MrX & Snoog deleted the vast majority of the content they didn't like from the article on 23-24 December. As always, it's easy to make accusations. As it was said in the AFD, the AFD was a petty move made a few hours before the "offending" diff that "pushed" WMSR "over the edge" / made WMSR think it would be fun to not only delete the page but drive off its principal author. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You're citing one diff that nobody can access since it has been oversighted (if you were outed or attacked in that post, I am truly sorry), one in which an editor raises legitimate complaints about how your conduct has made it impossible to "focus on the content" of the article, and two that show you edit warring on that editor's talk page post. This is not a matter of me "not liking" a page. MrX and Snoogans rightfully removed content that did not belong in the article. You have since edit-warred that content back in, added significant WP:SYNTH, violated copyright law, and harassed editors you disagree with. I did not play any role in "driving off" the original author of the page, nor I am not trying to drive you off; I have not made any personal attacks against you, and by accusing me of doing so without providing any evidence, you are continuing to cast aspersions at me. I take no pleasure in being here and do not consider it "fun". I would much rather be editing an article constructively with you. --WMSR (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry to post on a closed thread, but the aspersions have not stopped. I understand that the AfD is contentious, but that is not an excuse for incivility. I'm really getting sick of having my motives constantly questioned and having accusations flung at me, and I honestly don't understand how these actions are not sanctionable; WP:IUC is pretty clear on the matter. --WMSR (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is another from today. How many different editors need to be subjected to Sashi's attacks before it becomes a sanctionable issue? --WMSR (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR: Your thread was already closed as not actionable so stop posting here please. And maybe get off SashiRolls' back for a day or two and the exchanges might not be so terse. --Pudeo (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's called "reopening": not a difficult concept, surely? Is there a double jeopardy rule at ANI I was unaware of? --Calton | Talk 16:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, this is continuing in real time. Ad Orientem, thanks for posting the notice on the AfD, but it is clearly not as effective as you intended, and I honestly cannot believe that admins consider every diff that I posted to be civil and appropriate conduct. --WMSR (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the statement made in that diff. Levivich 00:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Then read the other ones. WP:FOC is policy (as Sashi is eager to point out). --WMSR (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, I highly suggest that you stop and think for a while. I had to open up the ANI thread titled Multiple Issues. What you are doing is almost starting to look like WP:NOTHERE. Even if you were here longer than I was, there are many others on ANI that were on Wikipedia longer than you were, and thus better understand the rules and policies. Instead of doing the AfD, you could have gone to the Reliable Source noticeboard. The folks there probably know a lot more about if a source is reliable or not, as the majority who give input there, have been doing so for a while. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I care deeply about building an encyclopedia based on reliably-sourced and verifiable facts, regardless of whether those facts support your (or my) preferred narrative. You are making a very serious allegation against me without any evidence, and without having made any effort to reach out to me on the article talk page or on my talk page. It is probably in your best interest to strike the above comment. --WMSR (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Will be a relief, when the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination is determined. Though I doubt even then, if the corporate vs progressive tensions will subside. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

There are multiple issues regarding user conduct as well as the state of an article. All of this stemming from the article Media coverage of Bernie Sanders.

Repeated reversions of edits

The user User:WMSR reverted edits many times as well as being the 3rd nominator for AfD of the article. This is after they were told on ANI about a similar mistake they made. The user latter stated that they now understood the mistake that they made. The ANI issue can be found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=935813593#Personal_attacks_by_User:Rafe87

The edits the reverted can be seen on the page history of Media coverage of Bernie Sanders The user was also mentioned in another ANI issue above, where it can be seen that the issue WMSR brung forward was not that big of a deal. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

My opinion, is to place a temporary topic ban on WMSR, the topic ban should inculde US Politics related articles, Notice boards, and AFD.

Ummm, time to close this thread as now we are just getting into silly territory. The example above shows Rafe87 was given a 48 hour timeout and WMSRs understanding of 1R was corrected. This seems more like trying to silence someone for being vocal than a real complaint Slywriter (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand WMSR has the right to become vocal, however what he is doing after the close of the ANI thread above is the bigger issue. The fact that people at ANI have stated the issue he described is not a big deal or non-existance, and after that he still is trying to point out the same thing. This is like WP:NOTHERE. They are somewhere along the lines of "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" and "Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods". More on the first one, where it seems that they have the agenda of either removing the items they don't like or deleting the article. This is exactly what WMSR is doing. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold, this could not be further from the truth. Threads on this page are re-opened frequently, especially in the case of an editor continuing a behavior after closure (which was the case above). It is not a violation of any policy to re-open a thread. You have provided no evidence to support your claim that I am not here to build an encyclopedia, which is a serious allegation. Any editor who goes through my contribs will easily see that it is entirely baseless. As I told you above, I care deeply about building an encyclopedia based on reliably-sourced and verifiable facts. I am glad to collaborate and have a strong history of doing so, but on that particular page, the behavior of several editors has made that extremely difficult. When I have removed sources that fail WP:RS, WP:NPOV, or WP:V, I provide adequate justification per policy. But it isn't easy to collaborate with someone who is all too eager to harass me, which is why I went here. Asking for me to be topic banned is an extreme step, and I strongly recommend that you strike your accusations and proposal before it comes back around. --WMSR (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

WMSROk sorry, I think I went a bit overboard. see ur talk page. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This is one of the more bizarre things I've read on this noticeboard. Isn't there a rule against bringing patently absurd and spurious complaints like this against editors? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Repeated AfD nominations

The page keeps getting nominated for deletion repeatedly.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_bias_against_Bernie_Sanders_(2nd_nomination)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders

In the first one, there was an issue where there was a possibility of WP:COI, WP:Sock, and multiple WP:CAN. The result was no consensus. The third one which is still open and ongoing, has a major issue and I feel that there will be a no consensus again. The following are the issues. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

====Nomination reason for the 3rd AfD==== The nomination reason for the 3rd AfD is absurd, and the nominator latter clarified to me in a response where from reading the response it can be implied that the nominator nominated it in AfD because they were tired of repeatedly trying to fix the article with no avail. Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&diff=938349151&oldid=938344989 Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Users who do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines getting involved

There are multiple instances where it is easily seen that there are users involved the majority of the three AfD's, where the user shows little understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Many users are saying that there are sources listed in the reference section, the article is considered will cited and thus should not be deleted. However, there are users bringing up the issue that there are many sources that are unreliable, and the editors of the article did WP:SYNTH and Template:Cleanup-PR. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Issues regarding the reliability of sources in the article

A major issue in the AfD is that there is a disparity in the agreement between if a source should be considered reliable or not. One of the many examples regarding this issue is the following : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMedia_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&type=revision&diff=938127119&oldid=938104913 Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, Elizium23 has taken it upon themselves to be offended over the word "dodo"[62], I agree it's childish but no where near a personal attack and certainly not worth this much drama,
They've also taken it upon themselves to repeatedly remove Cassianto's comment from my talkpage[63] despite repeatedly told not too,
Could someone either warn or short-block them for a bit as they don't seem to want to stop, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I need to apologize for removing personal attacks against myself (Cassianto) or others (Trillfendi) and I get a little tired of explaining how this is. I also didn't appreciate Davey2010's WP:EGG link in his edit summary encouraging me to click it and be logged out. When it got to that point, I filed for RevDel. Please RevDel personal attacks; I have stopped reverting due to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Note WP:TPO: Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. Your interpretation of a personal attack is unlikely to be upheld. Also, note that per policy, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence also constitute personal attacks in and of themselves. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.}} Be mindful.

Also I suggest that you read WP:DTTR: if you don't want to receive templated warnings, it is best not to use them yourself. FYI.

:Also you should note WP:NOBAN: While allowing you to "ban" people from your talk page, a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page not be posted to. (My emphasis). ——SN54129 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that per WP:NOTFORUM it was not exactly driving the conversation forward to be name-calling others in a minor dispute that had no previous history. We regularly remove NOTFORUM conversations. Elizium23 (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 being called a dodo isn't a personal attack tho ..... You genuinely cannot be telling me you are genuinely offended over being called a bird/animal ....., If you really are offended then in the nicest possible way this website isn't for you. –Davey2010^Talk 20:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Davey2010: This is not the first time in recent history that people have taken issue with your tone. Regardless of who's "in the right" here, it's becoming a pattern: I think you need to change your approach to discussions, because it doesn't seem to be making you any friends. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 20:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Alfie - My behaviour isn't the issue here but thanks for your comments!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not taking sides here, Davey2010, but you certainly know better than that. You bring a report to ANI, your behavior is on the table. John from Idegon (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I would not enjoy being called a Dodo. Look up the meaning, it means more than a flightless bird. I may stop short of calling it a PA but I would say it does not encourage the civility called for in the 5 pillars WP:5P4. Wm335td (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, so I am not sure of the wisdom in closing this. Davey2010 and "John from Idegon" are unleashing verbal abuse now, for no particular reason. Elizium23 (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• According to Wiktionary, to call someone a dodo is to say he is "very old or has very old-fashioned views or is not willing to change and adapt." It's not a strong personal attack, but some of the invective that followed definitely was. Jonathunder (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I ask this ever so diffidently... why above does Elizium23 refer to personal attacks against myself (Cassianto)? EEng 00:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  I believe that Elizium23 was charging Cassianto (perhaps a bit inelegantly) with making the personal attacks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Never mind. EEng 06:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

David Pakman

Persistent WP:BLP violations, with latest edit making a criminal accusation. That needs to be rev/deleted, and I leave it to administrative discretion how far back to go. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected by Widr, N.J.A. | talk 11:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus and A7

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everyone,

Over the past month, Piotrus (talk · contribs) has been nominating a lot of articles, including several that have existed for over ten years, for WP:A7 speedy deletion. Many of these have been declined by various editors, including myself, SoWhy (talk · contribs), ONUnicorn (talk · contribs) and Maile66 (talk · contribs). A list of declined speedies over the past month follows:

List of declined speedies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Date Criterion Article 30 January 2020 A7 Korea Rail Network Authority 30 January 2020 A7 SaeHan Information Systems 29 January 2020 A7 Milton Trajano 29 January 2020 A7 SBS Newstech 29 January 2020 A7 Saehan 28 January 2020 A7 Yousser Company for Finance and Investment 28 January 2020 A7 Unilever Nepal 28 January 2020 A7 Mocca.com 28 January 2020 A7 Korea Unha General Trading 27 January 2020 A7 Carlsberg Croatia 23 January 2020 A7 Nets Group 23 January 2020 A7 Zain Iraq 23 January 2020 A7 Hitec 23 January 2020 A7 Iraqna 23 January 2020 A7 FISBA 23 January 2020 A7 CTS Eventim 23 January 2020 A7 Bob (mobile operator) 15 January 2020 A7 Postbank (South Africa) 15 January 2020 A7 Permanent Bank (South Africa) 14 January 2020 A7 Used Car Roadshow 10 January 2020 A7 UniPrise Systems 10 January 2020 G14 Supercomputer Systems 10 January 2020 A7 Supercomputer Systems 10 January 2020 A7 Sevin Rosen Funds 09 January 2020 A7 SciTech Software 09 January 2020 A7 Maxdata 08 January 2020 A7 Napoleon Periolat 08 January 2020 A7 Spooky Zoo Spectacular 08 January 2020 A7 Robert Healy (commissioner) 08 January 2020 A7 Budlong Pickle Company 08 January 2020 A7 Dust Traxx Records 08 January 2020 A7 ABC Software 08 January 2020 A7 Nedgame 08 January 2020 A7 Xicat Interactive 08 January 2020 A7 Micromania-Zing 08 January 2020 A7 MindArk 08 January 2020 A7 DROsoft 08 January 2020 A7 SSH Communications Security 08 January 2020 A7 Vion NV 08 January 2020 A7 Spijkstaal 08 January 2020 A7 Bilderberg (hotel chain) 08 January 2020 A7 Bruna (company) 08 January 2020 A7 Hypex Electronics 08 January 2020 A7 D.I.O. Drogist 08 January 2020 A7 DSFA Records 02 January 2020 A7 GNU Tools Cauldron 02 January 2020 A7 Creative Problem Solving Institute 30 December 2019 A7 ShaBLAMM! Computer 29 December 2019 A7 National Radio Network (United States)

The principal problem is that speedy deletion should only take place if every revision of the article qualifies for the criteria. While it's perfectly possible for an article to be created in 2005 and completely slip through the cracks, with every single revision meeting A7, experience shows me this is highly unlikely and it is much better to use PROD or AfD instead.

I've had a chat with Piotrus about this on my talk page here on 9-10 January, and we had a constructive discussion, where I got the impression he would dial back the A7 tagging and use a different deletion procedure. Unfortunately, since then, the tagging has continued anyway. So I'm asking the community three questions:

1. Are our declining of these tags the correct application of policy?
2. Should we agree on a consensus that Piotrus is misusing A7?
3. Will Piotrus now agree to defer to using PROD or AfD in circumstances like these?

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm just looking over the first few on your list, and I'm seeing mixed results. At the state it was in when he tagged it, Korea Rail Network made no credible (or indeed any) assertions of importance. Now, someone did later, after it was tagged, add some clear statements of importance, but when tagged the article merely said it was a company that existed, and little else. That seems like a proper use of A7. However, the second one on your list was in this state when he tagged it, and it clearly states, with a reference "SaeHan Information Systems is credited with the development of the world's first MP3 player". That is a clear, unambiguous, and credible claim of importance. It was easily not eligible for A7. SBS Newstech was not handled with deletion, but with redirection, which seems logical. Milton Trejano was borderline, and I have no problem with the tag of A7, and neither do I have a problem with the decline later. It could have gone either way. Saehan was also better handled by a redirect. Yousser Company for Finance and Investment was underdeveloped, but contained unambiguous assertions of importance; it has since been expanded. So, in the last 6 A7 tags we have 2 absolutely terrible ones, 1 that was good at the time (though some WP:BEFORE work made it good), and 3 borderline cases. That is NOT an acceptable hit rate, in my book, and I would like to see Piotrus to voluntarily step back from speedy tagging altogether, and instead use AFD preferentially in these cases, as it would allow more eyes on their work. --Jayron32 17:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) Piotrus should be topic-banned from all forms of deletion because it is quite clear that they are not making any effort to do the due diligence of WP:BEFORE such as considering alternatives or searching for sources. For example, consider the first of these cases – Korea Rail Network Authority. This is the rail infrastructure provider for an entire country. One would expect this to be notable and a quick search soon finds detailed sources such as this or that. Such nominations seem so blatantly wrong that they seem to be a case of WP:POINT or a breaching-experiment. And Piotrus often seems to keep escalating, contrary to WP:IDHT. If one deletion process is refused, he will try another. If that doesn't work, he will try proposing merger. And it's accompanied by vexatious tag-bombing too. The effect of this high-volume spam is to drive away editors. I might contest these cases if they came at a slower pace but the logistics of trying to keep up with numbers generated by use of Twinkle in a bot-like fashion make it unfeasible. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) (pinged) I also had a conversation with Piotrus on my talk page at User talk:SoWhy#re: ASint Technology and was left with the impression that he understood that overly aggressively tagging A7 on very old articles, especially about potentially (or clearly) notable subjects, is not in the project's best interest but I have since then declined more taggings I felt were outside scope. I think it should be clear to any experienced editor that A7 was not designed for subjects like a national railway construction company (and government agency) or the first company to develop an MP3 player (the MPMan). That Piotrus thought otherwise is imho troubling. PS: I'm aware that A7 (unfortunately) technically does not require a WP:BEFORE search, but if an article has existed for 15(!) years, I think it's not too much to ask to spend 10 seconds on a quick Google search, is it? Regards SoWhy 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing requires a before search, but that being said, when a user shows poor intuition and judgement, it is not unreasonable to expect that user to follow such guidance themselves even if others are not strictly required to, as a means of helping them do their work better. --Jayron32 17:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, declining the CSD is correct if the admin feels it was nominated without justification. We can't just blindly delete something because somebody else said we should. Without a list by declining admins, it's hard to say which of the above I declined. I prefer to exercise AGF on behalf of the editor who created the article. Generally speaking, unless the the nomination is recently created, and/or really obvious why it qualifies, I either don't bother with it, or I outright decline it. There have been very few I recall as my outright declining, but it's easy for a nominator to exercise WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT with a convenient check box to choose from. There can also be lack of understanding what they are looking at, or just someone over zealous on nominating for deletions. CSD has always made me uneasy in the fact that if "anybody can edit" then anybody can nominate CSD, whether they know what they are looking at or not. And I do realize that there are some editors who do seem to focus on CSD. There has recently been a rash of editors nominating large numbers geography stubs for deletion. — Maile (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  Possibly with the implementation of WP:ACPERM, the influx of new A7-worthy articles in NPP has dwindled, "forcing" those editors to focus on old stubs from the time when "sum of human knowledge" was interpreted more broadly and sources and claims of significance were not usually required for an article to exist (or continue existing). Just a theory though but it could explain the increase in taggings for (very) old articles. Regards SoWhy 17:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I wrote the following after reading the initial posts, and not any replies.

First, can we obtain the numbers on the articles that have been successfully deleted after the CSD I proposed? My rough guesstimate is that between 50% to 80% of my CSDs are unchallenged and end up in delete, through it would be nice to verify this. I'd also like to note here that we should be talking about percentages, not a total amount. If 10 of my speedies are declined every week out of 15, then it's a problem, if it's 10 out of 100, said problem isn't really an issue, is it?

Second. I consider the cases when the speedy is resolved as a redirect (ex. [64]) to be the correct outcome of a successful CSD request (I don't think that WP:SOFTDELETE is not compatible with CSD). A quick count of the list above shows that redirects form about a third of the list of the 'declined' speedies. Again, for me, a redirect is a perfectly acceptable outcome of an 'accepted' speedy. So here we can disagree about the very definition of what is a 'declined' speedy... In either case, the above list a therefore a bit misleading because what Ritchie considers to be a problem ("this was declined") is not necessarily so (as redirect/soft deletion can very well mean an accepted speedy).

Third: what percentage of declined speedies would suggest that someone should avoid using this tool? Keep in mind that too high if a percentage makes such a tool useless ("don't use this tool unless you are a perfect human being").

Fourth. I started using speedies few weeks ago after finally installing Twinkle, and they seem to me like a useful first step before escalation to PROD/AfD. Of course, not all articles are eligible for speedies, based on my judgement I sent some to prod or AfD without prior speedy/prod. But when I see an article, usually about a company, that seems to fit WP:A7, I tag it for a review. And I should note that I consider all stages of deletion process to be a review, and if the consensus is against my view, up to and including a keep verdict at AfD, that is to me only an indication that the process is working as intended. I am not prefect, and I am not the final jury on what should be kept, this is for community to decide in a multi-step process, which I used to start with prods, and recently decided to add one more step (CSD) where the given article can get even more attention from the community.

Fifth. With all due respect, I hope the issue is not 'you are producing more work for the overworked admins, stop using the tool which should not be used, since if used, it creates work'. I do appreciate the work that reviewing admins do for CSD articles, and my interactions with the reviewers have been positive and polite. I hope this will continue as, to repeat, I don't see declines of speedy as a challenge, just a normal part of the process. Unless, again, my ratio of declines is too high and that poses a problem? (But that takes us to my question #1).

Sixth. Ritchie writes "Many of these have been declined by various editors"; on the other hand, I'd also say that "Many of these have been accepted by various editors". I don't have hard data here but I think that some speedy-reviewing admins tend to decline more, and some tend to be more deletionist. There are some cases where what is a 'credible claim of significance' is debatable based on one's view of related concepts, as anyone who is involved in deletion discussions knows some borderline cases produce no consensus. Some speedies where declined based on good arguments (as I said, I am not perfect, and I can make mistakes too), others in all honestly I consider bogus (ex. arguments that a company should not be speedied as it was founded by a notable person or produced a notable product - WP:NOTINHERITED, yes, yes, showing notability is not necessary for speedy decline, but I simply don't consider such tangential relationships a credible claim of significance'. For example, I don't consider a claim that a company did a first of something to be particularly encyclopedic, per WP:TRIVIA. But if you do, fair enough, CSD has a low barrier for decline, and as I said I am fine with prod/AfD escalation in such cases (as long as you realize that in some cases like this all that ends up happening is that we will make several more people go through the motions of voting delete for likely spam, where their time could be used better elsewhere in this project...).

Seventh. Let's also not forget what's the real problem we are dealing with here: spam. See recent Signpost article on this, or my own from a while back. CSD can be a helpful tool in stemming the flood of spam assaulting Wikipedia, and I don't think a chilling effect along the lines of 'don't use it if in doubt or admins will get upset' is helpful to anyone, unless the goal is to make people not use the tool to reduce the workload on admins ("this project would run much more smoothly if not for all of those pesky editors who keep creating problems"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• To answer the question of how many of Piotrus' speedies were accepted; in the same time period as the 49 declined speedies listed above, I count 52 that were honoured. So I would say his success rate is about 50:50. To put that into context, User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#My criteria says a suitable RfA candidate should be getting about 95% of speedies accepted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Since 15 of the 'declines' are redirects, which I'd consider accepted speedies, that would be 34:67, so a 2:1 success ratio, a not an insignificant difference. In either case, I don't consider a half/half ration particularly bad for the first stage of the deletion process (and from my first few weeks with this tool; I'd hope my ratio now is better than in the first week or so of using the tool); I hope it will improve further as I get a better handle on intricacies of CSD (or maybe, on likes or dislikes of the currently active reviewers...). As a frequent editor at AfD, I wouldn't consider someone whose nomination ration would result in such a ratio to be a problem. 50% of spam correctly identified, 50% deferred to further discussion, it's win-win really. The glass such a ratio is half full, not half empty :) What's the problem, again? PS. 95% is nice, and I'd love to improve my ratio here, but IMHO next to impossible unless one deals just with 'super safe' topics. Which is why we cannot get more admins, looking for perfection is a tough challenge. Real world is not an easy one to be a perfectionist unless one is gaming the system (going for the low hanging fruit, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• If there is any doubt about the article having a right to exist, then the community should decide it. Speedy deletions should only be used for non-controversial cases. This principle is true for both submitter and deciding admin. If you are submitting articles for speedy deletion because you hope some sympathetic admin might come along and gets rid of it, then you are abusing this deletion path. Submitting an article for speedy deletion first before starting an AfD in hopes to save time and effort is not the correct procedure. --Hecato (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem is that with such an argument, you can find a fault with any speedy. Give me any deleted speedy and I'll tell you why it shouldn't have been accepted. What you consider non-controversial someone else surely will differ on. In other words, anyone who uses this tool abuses it in somebody's eyes (to start with, with the article creator...). Also, you say "Submitting an article for speedy deletion first before starting an AfD in hopes to save time and effort is not the correct procedure.". But WP:SPEEDY says clearly "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion". So clearly, saving "time and effort" is what this was intended on. Really, what's the problem? If there is a disagreement on what is said practical chance, all is good, peedy is declined, the procedure works. In other words, declined speedies are not a problem. Outside, of course, of creating work (someone has to review them...), or, if their ratio is too high (but since I am not a random vandal tagging random articles for CSD, what, again, is the problem here?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Did you believe all of your speedy nominations had no chance of surviving an AFD? --Hecato (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Belief is unscientific :) I tought they had good odds of being deleted, but since I am not perfect, every now and then I am proved wrong. Either case, it's a win-win for the project - spam is deleted, or an article is shown to be valuable and kept. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Being wrong is certainly not a crime. But it doesn't exactly sound like you are trying to be as correct as possible either. I don't think hard numbers and scientific data really matter here at all that much. As far as I am aware the guideline does not define how many speedies you can nominate and how correct you have to be. It's left open for community forums like this one. That's not the problem. This is a community project. We have to work together here, for better or worse. If the people working with you believe you are not acting in good faith, then that's a problem. Makes working together rather hard. Don't you think so as well? --Hecato (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
          • @Hecato: I think so as well, with the caveat that science and such distinguish and informed consensus from the mob rule and lynches. In either case, I am a happy to constructively try to work with the community to improve my understanding of CSD, particularly as I am a newbie when it comes to CSD and clearly, I have ruffled some feathers. So, can you offer some constructive advise? Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Well it's rather simple: only nominate articles for speedy deletion if you think they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD. And if you keep being wrong about it, then participate in related AfDs until you get a solid grasp of what makes an article topic viable in the eyes of the community. Err on the side of caution and keep being responsive to criticism. That's all anyone could reasonably expect of you. --Hecato (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Point of worry is also his trend to escalate removal discussions. Bruna (company) got in a roughly 20 hour period an A7, PROD and AfD slapped on it. This escalation looked like an attempt to enforce improvements. Bilderberg (hotel chain) also got a A7 and a prod from him, as did SSH Communications Security and Vion NV. I guess there are more examples, but I did not check for them. The Banner talk 18:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that such escalation is a regular part of the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Processes? Sometimes it takes me weeks or months to get back to an article, sometimes mere minutes. So what? PS. On the other hand, I recommend you consider WP:BOOMERANG, as your undoing of my prod at [65] with an edit summary about me (..."someone who seem to have an issue with Dutch companies") is discussing an editor, in other words, a WP:NPA. Please WP:AGF. I have nothing against Dutch companies, but I do have an issue with spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• I am most disturbed by Piotrus's attitude in every single one of their responses above. The attitude is not "I recognize that I am having an unacceptable number of mistakes, I will try to take this advice to improve". The attitude instead is combative, attacking every single suggestion and blaming everyone except themselves. "Every now and then I am proved wrong", no, as shown above you have a about a 50% chance of being wrong. This is beyond unacceptable. Piotrus: When faced with this issue, you are essentially saying that you have no intention of improving, and your comfortable with the level of problems your frequent mistakes are causing. That is not acceptable. I would have been happy with giving you some friendly tips and letting you self-correct. Now, based on your attitude, I am much more in support of formally topic banning you from all deletion processes, since your responses make it clear you do not recognize that you have any problems, and have no intention of making your performance better. --Jayron32 18:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Seriously, Jayron, I don't understand why we are having such a miscommunication here. I am happy to improve my CSD ratio, but I am politely waiting for someone to say what, exactly, have I done wrong. Yes, I've been applying CSD too broady, and I am trying to get a better grip on it, and friendly tips and advise are always welcome (where have I been impolite? Who is being combative? See Andrew's post above, who is being combative here, again? I said several times I respect the work of admins reviewing CSD and I am fine with their declines, and that I intend to learn from them, what else would you like me to say? What part of 'I am not perfect and I can and do make mistakes" do you interpret as "attitude of someone who think he is never wrong"?). Since this discussion started, I CSDed a single article, Selmash Plant, that was accepted by User:Bbb23, I have prodded another one that I thought, in light of my ongoing' learning experience at CSD, might display a claim of significance yet as far as I can tell fails NCOMPANY otherwise (Mosvodokanal), and I am busy writinga detailed AfD rationale for an article that was deprodded with an edit summary that I think borders on WP:NPA ([66]) but since I don't like 'combat', I am not raising an issue about this (since we all know incivility at that level is not an actionable issue here, and frankly, we have all been guilty of such mild incivility anyway). Now, I am happy to try to work things out in a constructive way, for example by being increasingly frugal with my CSD applications, but I have to say, I am not appreciating how his being handled. Signpost posts a call for arms with spam flood, but in practice, the few of who try to help are not thanked but attacked procedural grounds. Ritchie could have raised this further with me on my talk page, where we could have discussed, constructively, where I erred. Instead we have the usual dramu fest here. Not the most supportive attitude, I have to say. Including your offhand suggestion that I should be banned from not even CSD but all deletion, with no shred of evidence that my actions anywhere else are challenged by anyone except a hardcore inclusionist or two. But, again, can we focus on positives? Like your review earlier in this thread, which I found rather helpful. As I said, I do not consider the claim of 'being the first company to release product x' to be a claim of significance, since it smacks to much of PR marketing trivia, but I am open to consideration that claims of 'first', or 'largest', are sufficient to warrant not applying CSD for such cases in the future. I'd very much appreciate it if you could hep me to refine my understanding of when to apply CSD and when not to do so, rather than engage in more pointless dramu. How about that? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for saying you want to improve. Let's reduce this to simplest terms. Here's how you can improve: 1) A7 is ONLY for articles that contain no credible claim to importance. The evidence presented above says that your own personal meter for "credible claim to importance" has been highly faulty up to this point. Moving forward, you need to lower your standards for what you consider a claim of importance. As noted in guidance at WP:CSD and elsewhere, this is not about Wikipedia's standards of notability and the threshold is deliberately low. 2) Don't use any part of the deletion system if you can fix the problems in other ways. WP:BEFORE is optional, except that for you I would recommend that it isn't optional. Your radar for what is, and is not, a good candidate for deletion is not great, and instead of merely reading the article, you should consider both researching the subject a bit (try googling it) and also trying to consider alternative options, such as upmerging the text to a different article and redirecting it, etc. etc. Deletion should be considered only after other things have been tried, and the "kill'em all and let God sort it out" (or rather "Tag'em all and let the admins sort it out) attitude is not useful, and generates a lot of make-work for other people that can be avoided if you just tried to be a little more useful yourself. 3) I really recommend using the AFD process instead of CSD, and by tracking the results of these AFD discussions, you will hopefully get a better sense of what is, and is not, appropriate fodder for deletion. That's my advice. Take it or leave it. But don't respond to legitimate concerns with the dismissive attitude you show above. --Jayron32 19:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Jayron32: Thank you for the feedback. Would you be willing to review some borderline cases where I am not sure CSD is correct? Or would you recommend I simply don't CSD them and go to PROD/AFD? Do note that I already try to do this, but as you say, my CSD radar is not very finely tuned yet.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I would absolutely be willing to look over any questions you have. I'm usually active most weekdays between about 11:00-22:00 UTC roughly speaking, much less so at other times, but I will get back to you when I am on. If you just leave a list of articles you have questions about on my user talk page, and say "Hey, are these valid A7 targets" I would gladly look them over and give suggestions and recommendations. --Jayron32 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jayron32's sentiments above regarding Piotrus' attitude in his responses to this discussion. I find that far more disturbing than the occasional "incorrect" speedy tag. I also find it distrubing that Piotrus fails to see that there is a vast difference between a page being deleted and being redirected; not the least part of which is that, if re-direction is the preferred outcome, Piotrus can do that himself, without involving an admin. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • There's about 100 other reasons why redirection is not in any way equivalent to deletion, including (besides what you mentioned) is that it can be undone by any editor, it preserved page history, it easily allows for the former text to be recovered to allow merge or recreation and expansion of the original article, etc. etc. The "It's all the same" shows a dangerous lack of understanding of Wikipedia for someone who has been a highly active editor since 2004! 16 years of nearly daily editing, you'd think they would have learned something about proper deletion processes and the differences between deletion and redirection. --Jayron32 19:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Jayron32:, I don't think I ever said deletion is the same as redirection. Redirection is preferable to deletion (WP:PRESERVE), my only point is that from the perspective of end-user and reducing the number of spam-like entries, they have the same effect (problematic entry is gone); that said I don't think I made such an argument here or anywhere else? If a comment of mine somewhere was unclear I am happy to review and clarify it, but please quote me directly, paraphrasing can lead to further confusion. And yes, of course if we can preserve edit history etc. this could be more helpful if someone wants to restore the article, improve it and they don't want to work from scratch. Once again, I do believe redirecting > deletion for most cases. I don't see where we disagree? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
        • You literally said, above "Since 15 of the 'declines' are redirects, which I'd consider accepted speedies." Seriously, in the space of less than an hour, you made a statement then denied saying it. Let me rephrase MY statement, because it was confusing to you: redirects are NOT considered accepted speedies. Period. --Jayron32 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. How would you go about achieving the desired result yourself (said result being elimination of spam, and removing the article in question through redirecting)? Would you just redirect them yourself, or would you suggest a PROD or AfD for those cases, assuming one wants a second opinion? Which is what I have been, apparently incorrectly, trying to do with some CSDs? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

            Piotrus, Yes I would just redirect them myself. And if redirection doesn't stick I would take them to AfD. I recall there being at least a couple CSDs I declined of yours where I was surprised this isn't what you'd done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

    • @ONUnicorn: Actually, I think you make a very good point. I will try to use redirects more and CSD less (I've always been very fond of WP:SOFTDELETE and WP:PRESERVE, and I often try to mention a possible redirect target in my prods; in fact they are often a form of asking for a second opinion when I can't decide if something is better of deleted or just redirected - and if you know of a good forum such a question could be asked , let me know; and FYI if there was a 'proposed redirecting' template I would love to use it instead of 'proposed deletion'; ditto for speedies). Is this less of a disturbing attitude? :) Seriously, we are all here build an encyclopedia. I only recently started my learning experience with CSD and I'd appreciate more constructive criticism. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In fact, I like the idea of the topic ban to keep him from nominating articles for deletion in any form. The Banner talk 19:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Andrew, I have not participated in the prior AN(I) requests for topic banning you from deletion process, through I am aware relevant discussions where held at least twice (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#Proposal:_Require_Andrew_Davidson_to_provide_a_rationale_with_each_de-PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive299#Andrew_Davidson_disruptive_editing_in_AfD). Keep wP:BOOMERANG in mind, particularly considering recent issues with your deprods. I did not believe back then your behavior is sufficiently disruptive to warrant big guns, but if you like them... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• • • • Piotrus, yes, we're here to build an encyclopedia. That takes precedence over combating spam, because without a search for sources it's hard to be sure "spam" isn't a kneejerk response to an under-developed article that happens to be about a business or a product; businesses and products are legitimate article subjects on Wikipedia. At a minimum, it's a good idea to click on the interlanguage links for articles on companies in countries with which one is unfamiliar. Speedy deletion is intended for uncontroversial cases, because only a very few editors have the ability to fix the error once something is wrongly deleted; and none of us knows every field or every region. I've seen articles rescued at AfD that I'd argued myself should be deleted. I'm also a bit nervous about making articles into redirects; if you do this, I hope you will at least boldface it in the text, inform the relevant Wikiproject, and put a note on the talk page of the target article? I'd also suggest notifying the article creator of what you've done, and I hope you always do so when you nominate an article for speedy deletion? An article I started was nominated for speedy deletion through a misunderstanding, and was deleted without my having any idea what had happened; if I'd been informed of the nomination, a lot of effort by others at deletion review could have been saved. Plus, assuming an article is spam and going ahead and attempting to get rid of it is likely to be pretty off-putting to the article creator, something I don't see mentioned above. A notification is at least a minimal courtesy to someone whose reason for writing the article you are implying is bad? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @Yngvadotti: Notifications are nice, but sadly, not required for many steps. Yours is a good reminder that they should be generally given, and I'll try to keep it in mind. On the other hand, keep in mind that too much spam can destroy this project. Have you read the recent Signpost OP-ED? As an autor of several thousands articles, I am certainly all for writing more content, but such an effort can be pointless if it drawns in a sea of spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Regardless, can anyone tell me why there is no User:Piotrus/CSD log? I thought Twinkle would log this just as it does the prods (User:Piotrus/PROD log). (I was intending on analyzing my success/fail ratio indepedently anyway). TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  Piotrus, Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences, look for the setting "Keep a log in userspace of all CSD nominations" ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  Creffpublic Thank you, I didn't realize it was unchecked by default. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment. As others who follow this thread may know, an admin is likely soon to be desysopped for, among other things, deleting WP:A7s without due diligence. On the other side of the coin, editors should take care to add WP:CSD tags only in uncontroversial cases. If a careless editor meets a careless admin, we've lost good content; and quite possibly the editor who wrote the speedily-deleted article. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• I just checked Mosvodokanal which Piotrus just prodded. This is the largest water company in Russia and the page clearly indicates with a big banner tag that there's more info in the Russian language Wikipedia. That article is linked twice and it's huge, with 48 sources. It's not just that Piotrus isn't following WP:BEFORE; he obviously isn't even reading or understanding the pages that he's nominating. I've seen a lot of this from him lately... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I did look at the ru wiki article, but despite nice formatting and references and such, the article is rather poor. A lot of the said refs are to the company website, or to press releases or such. It is not uncommon to find a sight like this on English Wikipedia - a lengthy article, well formatted, with lots of refs, that nonetheless fails NCOMPANY. Or maybe ru wiki is more inclusive. You cannot judge articles in a quick glance, a more in-depth analysis is needed. Something that people have told you time and again at AfD. But let me teach you a quick trick to dealing with such 'nice' spam. Note that not a single ref in that article is used more than twice. This strongly suggests that no reference is in-depth. And once you read it more closely, you'll notice that the article consists of history and operations sections, referenced primarily to its own website, and to the random collection of facts from more recent news (corruption, controversy, new business ventures, etc.) which run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and the requirement for in-depth coverage. I don't particularly fault you for deprodding it, as I did not mention the problems with the Russian article in my prod, but it is a fair case to take to AfD.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:PROD "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles or files than the articles for deletion (AfD) or files for discussion (FfD) processes, and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion." (emphasis in the original). I fail to see how any article with 48 sources in an equivalent article meets that test. "The article is very poor" isn't a deletion argument even at WP:AFD; see WP:RUBBISH. Narky Blert (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    • In a quick count, I come to all six instances of "www.mosvodokanal.ru" in the article. The Banner talk 20:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
      • 48 bad sources are, technically, irrelevant, but as I said, if someone doesn't analyze them, which is quite common, I'd expect this to be deprodded. If our, English Wikipedia article, had 48 soruces, I'd have went straight to AfD, since the odds of someone being aved by '48 sources' would be pretty good. In either case, the argument that an article at another Wikipedia is longer/has more sources is not the best. Plenty of articles get deleted from English Wikipedia but not from others, where criteria are different. We have [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)[[, while a related interwikid proposal failed at ru:Википедия:Критерии значимости организаций which may suggest that ru wikipedia is much more inclusive then we are when it comes to such topics. If this ends up at our en wiki AfD we can discuss it further there. As I said, my review of the ru wiki sources which I've done does not suggest they'd be sufficient for our en wiki. 48 bad sources are not much better than no sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I have voted in WP:AFD against articles which I thought were WP:REFBOMBed. It's a lot of work to go through 30+ citations, especially if they are not in English, more especially if they are in non-Roman scripts; but checking every one is absolutely essential before voting to delete. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I have seen Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus nominate many AfDs I know it can be frustrating to let the community decide however that is how this system works. Less speedy for many of the reasons stated above. It seems that maybe Piotrus has lost patience and is resorting to A7 WP:NORUSH. The right thing normally happens to an article, it just does not always happen on your timeline. I would support a short topic ban based on the evidence provided above, and the comments of Andrew Davidson. Wm335td (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Wm335td: As I said, I have no problem with community decisions, after all, we are all about consensus. In fact I started to use CSD to add an extra step to this and to involve another party. Through I can now see I have been flailing around with CSDs a bit too much. I will try to improve my usage of this tool, any practical tips and suggestions are welcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response. I think blocks and bans are extreme, and should be reserved for those who don't get it. I can see now that you are going to make some changes. Wm335td (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sadly enough, User:Piotrus has now slapped - what to me looks like a revenge - AfD on Bilderberg Hotel Bilderberg (hotel chain) after his failed A7 and PROD. AfD is not to enforce improvement. The Banner talk 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Try not to take everything so personally. Accusing others of seeking revenge (I don't even know what for, to be honest) is a WP:NPA.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• It's not at AfD, it just had a notability maintenance tag put on it. And quite correctly too, IMO. This article should probably be merged into Bilderberg (hotel chain) because there's no good reason to have separate articles for every hotel in a chain. Reyk _YO! 22:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I made a mistake. The AfD is at Bilderberg (hotel chain). Not at Bilderbeg Hotel. The Banner talk 22:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict) Speaking as someone who has contested one of Piotrus's speedy deletion nominations in the last day or two (and I'm sure I've done so several times before) I can't find any reason to fault this AfD nomination. That is, after all, the place where deletions are discussed, rather than performed summarily. In the case of Bilderberg (hotel chain), not as you incorrectly say, Bilderberg Hotel, the article cites no independent sources and, having spent the last 20 minutes or so with Google Books and Google Scholar, I have been unable to find any independent reliable sources that discuss the chain of hotels rather than the Bilderberg Group and/or the hotel in Oosterbeek. Maybe you can do better and give your results in the article and/or the AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• My apologies is for being so grumpy earlier. But for instance this and this are proper sources, albeit in Dutch. The Banner talk 05:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for mentor

Resolved

Having read and considered the comments above, I would like to ask if any admin or otherwise CSD-experienced editor would like to mentor me for a few weeks when it comes to CSD? I would create a user subpage where I'd list articles I'd like CSDed and you could tell me which are still not on the mark. Hopefully this way I can improve my hit/miss ratio with no risk of accidental deletion of good content. Any volunteers? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus Sure. I can work with you on a project like that if you like. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

ONUnicorn I appreciate that. How about this then: I will stop using CSDs for now and I will instead list articles I'd like CSD in let's say User:Piotrus/PROD proposals. I will ping you (and any other admin who wishes to be involved) every few days when there is a batch ready for review, and you can tell me whether any of my proposed CSDs are a miss. After few weeks if you think the miss ratio is reasonably low, we can retire the page. How's that?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, sounds good to me. Ritchie333, would that alleviate your concerns? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Since the main concern was getting Piotrus to dial back on A7s when PROD, redirecting or AfD would be a better alternative .... I think so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I as well as always willing to give feedback. As I mentioned above, if you want me to give my input on borderline cases, please just ask on my talk page and I will give my honest opinion as an experienced admin and editor. --Jayron32 04:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I am also happy to give feedback assuming that Piotrus meant User:Piotrus/CSD proposals. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Yes, that's what I meant, goes to show commenting around 2:30am is a bit error prone... I'll also ping Jayron32 who said he can offer advice above. Would you like to be pinged when I submit the aforementioned batches for review as well? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outing of editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have just become aware of an off-wiki group which is publishing online the identities and other personal details of Wikipedia editors whose they perceive political differences with. I do want to link to the website here as it includes the personal details. Please could you let me know what I should do about this? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Are the published details correct? I ask because I have been outed twice by people who didn't like my attitude to their political POV pushing, and in both cases the personal details published were completely wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I take it you mean I do not want to link to the website  :) Look, if it's Wikipediocracy or that other one with even more nutters on it, then forget about it, there's bugger all, I think it's fair to say, that anyone can do about it. ——SN54129 11:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I certainly mean “not”. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspect this is something that we and others behind the scenes are already aware of. In any case, in such cases you can email the functionaries mailing list, or Arbcom, or if you like, any individual therein including me personally. What you shouldn't do is post about it here. As SN54129 says, there's a limit to what we can do about nutters on the Internet, however ensuring someone is aware can often be a good thing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: thank you. I have emailed you the link. This is a new organization, whose founder and board of circa 20 advisors are all named and details provided. They all seem to be professional people and should be open to communication warning them against such behaviour. The question is who from Wikipedia should communicate with them. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If the Arbitration Committee can link off-wiki harassment to on-wiki accounts, sanctions can and will be taken against those individuals. (eg: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Off-wiki harassment against Lightbreather). If you are genuinely being harassed off-wiki and it is serious, you can contact the police. I was aware that an off-wiki site (not Wikipediocracy) had apparently "doxxed" me and "my girlfriend" last August, which is curious as I was single at the time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A) Yes, but it's as rare as rocking-horse shit for someone to be stupid enough to make the link sufficiently obvious, and B) I'm not sure what good the good folk of the Sweeney are going to be to anyone except, err, the .00000000001% of editors actually in the Greater London area :D ——SN54129 12:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Although if you contact the police, that may put you foul of WP:NLT (especially if you contact them about an admin) and may cause even more trouble on-wiki. If you're being attacked by an admin, nothing will ever be done on-wiki about that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Account vandalizing many mainpage links.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Everything this guy has done appears to be highly visible vandalism. ApLundell (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Nevermind. Someone took care of it. That was quick. ApLundell (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:GDX420

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• GDX420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unfortunately this individual User:GDX420 seems to have a record of discourteous behaviour. Ignoring the name and his user page, he has clearly engaged with User:ThatMontrealIP and User:Chris troutman. He has now at least twice improperly reported good faith editors to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (myself included) claiming that editors are in the employ of major companies or businesses. He responds to courteous pleas for decency by making statements such as "Sorry mate, I didn't mean to offend you, it was just banter. I guess you don't have that in America" and accuses editors on this noticeboard of "acting like detectives" but missing 95% of paid edits.

My reason for raising this notice is his vandalism and disruption: he has specifically targetted myself, making improper speedy deletion requests at Diverse Vinyl and Welsh Wildlife Centre without following Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. He also continues to revert edits I have made and has repeatedly distributed defamatory claims that he has "off-wiki evidence which clearly demonstates that (I) am a paid editor".

I am all for courtesy on Wikipedia but this user is now causing significant problems on a number of articles and talk pages, and is making disruptive edits. I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is, but he clearly needs to learn about WP:AGF, the policy on reverting edits, and the process on how to submit articles for deletion. Llemiles (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't play innocent, you were contacted by the PR department of Starling Bank to make some edits and you pretty much wrote exactly what they asked you to write. I know because they sent me a Google Doc with the exact same edits! Even the language was the same! You are essentially a meatpuppet of User:HenryThomasJenkins.GDX420 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

User:GDX420 please cease your abuse of the delete function as I am afraid a moderator is going to be left with no option but to suspend your account. You have now failed to follow deletion/reversion procedures at the following articles and this clearly amounts to abuse, and indeed perhaps vandalism.

• Horizons Gorwelion
• Welsh Wildlife Centre
• Diverse Vinyl
• Anne Boden

Llemiles (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

They're going to suspend my account, ooh scary!!! They're going to block you too when I show them the off-wiki evidence.GDX420 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• yeah, the conduct here is clearly intentionally disruptive, trying to insult or piss off other editors. Something like this post at COIN is just plain not helpful, nor are the comments at AfD. User GDX420, with a grand total of 37 edits, appears to be here just to disrupt and insult. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

OK so the rules against paid editing only apply when it's convenient for you? I have off-wiki evidence regarding Llemiles inclusion of Harry McPike into the article. I mean why else would an editor namedrop a non-notable investor unless they are being paid. Llemiles edits to Anne Boden have all the hallmarks of Wikipedia:Identifying PR and I have a screenshot here to prove it. Where shall I send it? GDX420 (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Llemiles has never edited the Starling Bank article. If you think there is sockpuppetry involved (which I doubt given the way you have been behaving) then take it to WP:SPI. Until then be nice and stop claiming things that are not proven. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Starling_bank_paid_editing_evidence_-_Harry_McPike.png GDX420 (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah at last, the smoking gun. McPike is the majority shareholder in Starling and has been described in CityAM and The Telegraph as the billionaire investor funding the company's expansion. Hence why my reference to him in Boden's article cites... the Telegraph. He seems like a low profile but nonetheless wealthy international investor. Why is it unsuitable to go in the article? Not to mention, you've yet to show how I am connected to Starling. I'm more concerned by the fact you have access to their corporate comms documents, do you work for them/did you previously work for them? Llemiles (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't deflect! You're a paid editor, you're working for them!GDX420 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we need an admin to block this user for persistent name calling and disruption. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I would hope so. Unfortunately User:ThatMontrealIP I am not aware of how to highlight it beyond this page and the vandalism noticeboard, both of which I have tried. Llemiles (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not have time to do it, but a list below of all the insult edits should do it. Quotes with links to diffs.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked GDX420 for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jacobayoub

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

User:Jacobayoub is currently making insane amounts of minor edits to their own and User:DanielTheKing05's user page, seemingly in an effort to become extended confirmed (they participated at Template talk:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus data/World after it got ECP'd). Sometimes I see people do this to become autoconfirmed, and I usually ignore that, but this is so worrying I'm reporting at ANI (since the target number is around 500 edits). I tried to discuss with the user; they stopped for a minute (probably to read) and resumed. Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 10:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. >90% edits to userspace. Basically WP:NOTHERE. After all, if someone's willing to go to that amount of trouble purely in order to edit a controversial page, then they're unlikely ever to edit productively. Not, at least, without a pretty drastic shot across the bows. In any case, they'll be busted back down soon, so their efforts will have been in vain. ——SN54129 11:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP making same edit at least 10 times to Talk:Jerusalem

We have an IP making the same edit 10 times to Talk:Jerusalem, each time from a different IP-address: [67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]. What would be the best course of action? Could somebody here implement it, please? :) Debresser (talk)

• Debresser, let's see if a little rangeblock offers some relief. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The Jerusalem page itself is extended confirmed protected. I am not a big adherent of it, especially on talkpages, but maybe that is also an option, should the rangeblock prove ineffective. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Drmies Is the rangeblock still in effect? Because today another IP repeated the edit. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's try something different. The user is now blocked from editing Talk:Jerusalem for three months; revert and report any block evasion to WP:AIV with a link to Special:Contributions/37.124.201.54 for reference. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that didn't do much.[77][78][79][80] Somebody is skipping IPs to add these pictures. Probably time for the extended confirmed protection. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I semi-protected Talk:Jerusalem for two weeks and any admin is free to remove it sooner without consultation. I think a significant amount of time is needed for protection in a case like this in order to break the habit. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I think this won't really help. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Crucs at Islamic eschatology

• Crucs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.78.1.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Islamic eschatology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This editor has been adding and restoring controversial material persistently without secondary scholarly sources at the article, despite being reminded several times about the importance of consensus and reliable secondary sources. Previous controversial edits were also at Reconquista. There seems to also have been some unlogged editing. Since it's not a simple 3RR case I thought I'd report it here. Each diff below is a range of consecutive edits:

• 19 January [81], [82]
• 19-20 January [83]
• 20-21 January [84]
• 21 January [85], [86]
• 24 January [87]
• 30 January (logged out): [88]
• 31 January [89]

---

• Reconquista: [90]

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I second the concern about this editor. They've had warnings from User:Asqueladd and User:WikiDan61 concerning deletions at Reconquista and I told them that they needed to stop edit-warring at Islamic eschatology on the 25th. They seem unwilling to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 10:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not unwilling to talk, I don't know my way around this editing forum. In other words, I am new at this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucs (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Crucs since opened a thread at WP:RSN#Islamic Eschatology which I think is a step in the right direction, —PaleoNeonate – 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Xiao Zhan

Many IPs, which I am suspecting are the same person, are changing sourced information at Xiao Zhan and refusing to discuss the disputed content despite numerous attempts to explain to the person. See: [91] for more details. 203.115.95.201 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article, I'd say it needs WP:SEMI protection. Jerm (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@203.115.95.201: You should create an account. It would help distinguish you from other IPs. Jerm (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Can't speak for 203.115, but most productive IPs (myself included back in the day) absolutely hate it when someone tells them to create an account. Just saying. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks and accusations of COI at Talk:WiTricity, by User:Receptiondesk11

While doing some cleanup work I stumbled on the article WiTricity, and it appeared to me that it was overflowing with original research and synthesis aimed at calumniating this company. The negative commentary seems to have been written on top of some pre-existing spam. I started trimming most of the worst of the guff but all my changes got reverted by User:Receptiondesk11. I took my concerns to the talk page, trying to explain the difference between proper sourcing and inappropriate synthesis. All I got in response was lengthy ranting, insults, accusations of being in cahoots with WiTricity, and what looks to me to be a veiled legal threat.

Could someone have a word with this guy, maybe have another go at explaining WP:SYNTH to him? It's clear that I'm not getting through. Meanwhile, the article is still an incoherent harangue but I don't feel like getting into an edit war over it. Thanks, Reyk _YO! 05:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I am replying here: I too stumbled on the Wikipedia page of Witricity. It was clearly there for ages, and obviously written by Witricity employees... they never once made a factual mention of a SINGLE stumble... such as their complete failure in pushing Rezence today, which was to have been the modern dominant standard by 2018... see IHS Markit projections. Recently, IHS Markit interviewed me and it became obvious talking to them that they too had been totally misled by the PR from Witricity, especially here on Wikipedia, which people tend to believe as a neutral source... and that neutrality needs to be upheld too Sorry Reyk! So I painfully set myself upon the path of adding neutral links documenting the stunning history of failure after failure of Witricity, maybe a success here and there too. For example, pointing out that they regrouped, after fully giving up and failing on Rezence in late 2017 (announcing layoffs), not because they suddenly saw a big new market opportunity as stated on Wikipedia, which claimed that their new CEO Mr Gruzen had a vision to focus on. So, I added links from 2014, 2015 showing Mt Gruzen had promised the world that "Rezence based appliances", including phones, laptops, drones etc were about to be released. Here is Mr Gruzen promising "we are already shipping": https://www.barrons.com/articles/witricity-energous-were-shipping-deal-with-it-say-wireless-power-pioneers-1505418421 The Dell Latitude 7285 I pointed out using Dell's own public statements, was not a laptop, but a 2-in-1.. for good reason. Yet Witricity had/has innumerable press releases, INCLUDING USING WIKIPEDIA to say so, to claim that they released the "world's first laptop" based on Rezence...I gave all the links including Dell's press release stating that mainstream laptop charging was still years away... .. to date there is not a single laptop out there with wireless charging.. but you would not believe that if you read Witricty on Wikipedia! Unfortunately, the average reader does not understand technicalities, and buys into the presumption that "Made in MIT" must be good....It is just a presumption, so I pointed out to exact pages within the "celebrated" MIT thesis showing that even the term "efficiency" was used in a completely different sense by MIT academicians (physicists) to what 99% of engineer's today use.. which should be simply output divided by input power. MIT team was on closer examination ONLY talking about "COIL efficiency" (energy lost between coils) not overall system efficiency... which was typically 3 times lower than standard efficiency definition...as also made clear deep inside the very MIT thesis. I mentioned the exact page number with the link! Unfortunately a lot of companies bought into the glorified story of Witricity and LOST MILLIONS.. maybe by reading Wikipedia! I ointed out the fact that Intel invested $25 million into Witricity, alongwith Foxconn etc... AND LOST all of it... so it should be a warning to the world .. I just presented links... 90% of them were objective and independent and there was no "synthesis" etc... Witricity guys jumped in to quickly revert to the early (their) 2019 version.. basically to kill my presentation of facts... they keep doing it.. I would be happy if Reyk edited it, removed specific links which may be missing or not considered 100% objective.. FINE, but to revert again and again to an obvious PR piece in mid 2019... that is hopefully not what Wikipedia stands for! Reyk goes from a hated version he says... to a PR piece? Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptiondesk11 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Receptiondesk11: Wikipedia is not here to set the record straight or right great wrongs. It only documents what reliable sources have already reported. You obviously have an axe to grind here. If you can't maintain a neutral point of view while editing and be civil during discussions, you should find something else to edit. There are millions of articles here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A question for Receptiondesk11: you appear to take a very dim view of the WiTricity wireless charging project, and in that article, cite the negative opinion of one Sanjaya Maniktala concerning patents owned by that company. I note you have however created Draft:ChargEdge, which frankly reads like an advertisement for a company apparently promoting similar technology. I further note that ChargEdge was founded by the same Sanjaya Maniktala. Can you clarify whether you have any connection with Sanjaya Maniktala and/or ChargEdge? 165.120.15.119 (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Receptiondesk11, your response here makes the common newbie mistake of arguing that your edits leading to the dispute were good changes, but that's not why we're here. This thread is about your excessively combative behavior. That doesn't get excused no matter how much of an improvement your edits were. Editors discussing article improvements on talk pages are expected to discuss the accuracy of content and the reliability of sourcing without unnecessary snark or accusations (Wikipedia:Focus on content). If for some reason you are unable to discuss the subject of WiTricity without making things personal, you should abandon that topic. If the behavior you've shown recently continues, your editing privileges will be revoked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I note that Receptiondesk11 has declared a conflict of interest (see the decalaration on User:Receptiondesk11) regarding the subject of Draft:ChargEdge, an article rejected as lacking independent sources, though personally I'd say that the real issue is that it is clearly promotional, and even if properly sourced wouldn't merit approval. I also note that ChargEdge would appear to be in competition with WiTricity, and would therefore suggest that Receptiondesk11 shouldn't be editing the WiTricity article at all, given that such editing would appear to constitute a conflict of interest. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Good luck!! No comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptiondesk11 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Fake news at AfD?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalvithanthai Haji. S.M.S. Shaik Jalaludeen is a hard to read AfD with some new editors arguing to keep the article. Now, another new editor, User:Riyasafrim, argued to keep the article based on a new article in The Hindu, which they added to the article[92]. However, they added a Google docs image of a collage of the header of the Hindu, and a page from... well, somewhere[93]. I can't find this article on the website of the Hindu, and can find pretty little information about this person in general[94]. Despite today being his 100th birthday, there are no news reports at all in Google News[95] (which of course isn't the be all and end all, but e.g. the Hindu is normally fully covered by it).

Can some of you please judge whether the new source is indeed fake news or not, and act accordingly? Fram (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As I said in the deletion discussion, it's fortuitous that the Hindu has written about him today. Should make getting hold of a copy of The Hindu really easy. I suggest Wikiproject India should be first port of call. - X201 (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fram:I cant scan whole newspaper in scanner for that i just cropped them and attached in my google drive if you want it i will send you full paper by a photo. @Fram:Here it is [96] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riyasafrim (talk • contribs) 10:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't find it on the official website though, so I wonder: is this some local version of the Hindu, or is this an advert instead of an article? Considering that the "article" uses a different font, different layout, and has no by-line (and is rather jarring contentwise compared to the other articles), I have trouble accepting this as a genuine article. But I may just be too sceptical. Fram (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

IMO, it's either an advert or it's photoshopped. Different font, no byline, starts with multi-line capital letter, etc. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

And a boarder, looks like an advert to me, paid for content.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a paid advertisement. Winged Blades of Godric can confirm as well. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep. ∯WBG^converse 14:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This needs some warnings issued, and maybe an SPI.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't The Hindu normally considered a reliable source? Should mention be made at RS/P that it (surprisingly) allows placement of an apparently not-well-marked giant paid ad on its front page? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment As I understand it, WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list of reliable sources. We have to apply good common sense in terms of what is a reliable source, particularly in less developed countries. What is the source's editorial control, how biased is it, and what is the depth of the source(s) provided? To meet WP:GNG, which is arguably our most important content guideline, the sources not have to be independent of the subject, but the coverage has to be "significant." What does that mean? For corporations, it's easier to determine as we have the WP:CORPDEPTH supplementary guideline. For individuals, it has to be an in-depth and wide-ranging about the article's subject. Does that help? Doug Mehus T·C 01:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Lot of reliable sources have a lot of ads (even in print). Doesn't make them unreliable. A lot of newspapers now offer full front-page ads (a faux front page, to say) if you pay up enough due to the dwindling circulation of print newspapers. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

But paid adds are not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• advertisements are always paid. Well most of the times, at least. This was a "paid news". It is a common practice in India. Like said in my comment at another AfD, paid news for "people mourning after XYZ's death", "student(s) being praised after winning first prize in some competition", "XYZ going abroad for further studies", and so on. The newspaper office even have templates. When the a friend of mine won "best science project in state (YYYY)", I accompanied his elder brother and him to the newspaper's office (which is reliable source on enwiki) for giving them the "news" to be published. We were given two options: on the basis of word-count, or on the basis of size ("includes photo"). The guy at the office told us it would have been free if the competition was well-known/reputed. After being printed, there was no telling from the quality that it was paid. But a lot of people can tell it from the template/wording. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Wildarms007

Wildarms007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So, this appears to be a newer, enthusiastic editor; he's making contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport articles. However, user is adding non-free images to articles without adding additional fair-use rationale ([97]). Upon going to user's talkpage to inform them of the WP:Non-free content guideline, I have noticed some ENGAGEment issues. User has not edited their talkpage since March 2019, during which time they have created the article 2021 IndyCar Series after having it already gone through a deletion proposal, among many other unanswered/undeleted warnings. There also appear to be some MOS: issues, particularly on edits to International Race of Champions season articles ([98] is one example among many), which, as I'm not confident in getting them to heed on their talkpage, will bring here as well.

tl;dr, I believe this editor has a lot of potential, just is in need of some guidance that i don't think I'm able to provide GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I'm not seeing any blatant WP:NOTHERE problems. We just need a way to get the editor to listen. But if they persistently dont listen, perhaps do a short temporary block to get thier attention? Just throwing out ideas here. Wikiman5676 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

These are the hardest cases to deal with. Blocking a vandal or a troll is easy, but someone who seems to be a good faith contributor and is genuinely here to build an encyclopedia is tougher. This could eventually turn into a WP:COMPETENCE issue, where someone can get in trouble for not being competent to edit even if they are not intentionally malicious. Hopefully he stops by this thread or begins responding soon so that we can avoid letting things get to the stage where that is a consideration. Right now, he just needs to start engaging again. Michepman (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

These might be the hardest cases to deal with, but it seems that such editors, apart from the obvious spammers and partisan politicos, turn up most often in a few subject areas, such as motor sports and martial arts, so maybe the Wikiprojects that deal with such topics could help out? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of tagging other editors who have tried to deal with this user before when I made this. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Nguyenquochieu2107

Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've tried discussing and engaging with this user for edit dispute resolution, amicably, but it seems like they would not take any reason and still continues to delete, remove, and thwart contents, templates, and edits done by other contributors/editors; what's more, most of their edits and reverts are without any valid reason and do not come with any RS (reliable source/s), as evidenced

1. here 2. here 3. here 4. here 5. here 6. here 7. here 8. here 9. here, and 10. here.

The above are only a few sampling of their edits and reverts, all without valid reason and without any RS. When one tries to discuss with them via revert notes or warnings, they would either pay no attention or continue insisting on their edits or reverts without any explanation, without trying to discuss or engage with the other editor(s) concerned at all.

They've also deleted warnings on their talk page without addressing any of them and discussing with editor(s), as evidenced here, here, here, here, and here.

I hope you guys could assist me on this. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Has the issue been discussed anywhere? FYI, posting four templated warnings on a user's talk (then reverting when the user removed them, as is their right) is not a discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

My edits or reverts come with notes, and it's obvious they've read it, but still they continue to revert and insist on their edits without any clear, valid explanation as well as RS. Migsmigss (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a string of edit wars to me. Usually, if reverts happens like this, you should go to the talk page and start a discussion, informing the other partipiciant of it, too. Then, if sufficient time passes without a reply(e.g. a week) you can revert again and if then they do it again, then report it here. Did you do that?Lurking shadow (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened there, but when you literally add a total of 8 uw-something4im templates to somebody's user page, that's a reliable sign you're doing something wrong... Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 11:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Migsmigss please don't restore userpage warnings, and don't tell users to leave them on the page, as you did here. They are perfectly entitled to remove what they like from their page. See WP:BLANKING. You're in the wrong here. Bishonen | talk 12:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC).

Hi, Bishonen. Noted on that one. But this is not about the restoring of warnings alone. As I have enumerated and discussed above, this user has been engaging in an edit war, and when asked to engage in a dispute resolution discussion, would rather insist on their edits, revert edits without valid reason, as well as pay no attention at all to aims at a dispute resolution. Again, this is not about the warning blanking, which by the way they have done several times. I hope we could focus on this user's edit warring activities, which is the core of the issue and why I have brought this to admins' attention in the first place. Thanks. Migsmigss (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, we do not have to focus on whoever you accuse. You did, if I'm counting right, nine reverts at Venezuela at major beauty pageants within 24 hours and placed eight uw-something4im templates at User talk:Nguyenquochieu2107... Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 12:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to just wait for Bishonen's or any other admin's reply. If they deem this as a non-issue, then I would accept their decision. If there's no reply by any admin, then it's fine by me, too. As long as it's an admin. Thanks.Migsmigss (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"I prefer to just wait for Bishonen's or any other admin's reply....As long as it's an admin." That just ain't the way it works here. We are a community and, as such, work together to resolve issues. Admins have no special powers of discernment or intelligence or anything else along those lines; what they have is the community's trust and a few technical abilities the rest of us don't. Anyone who wants to, Migsmigss, can comment here on what you write, and you would be well advised to pay attention. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 13:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Lindsay. Yes, agree. I didn't say only admins can comment, that's not what I said. Thanks.Migsmigss (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This case is now pretty clear. An admin should warn both partipiciants to use the talk page and the partipiciants should use the talk page, and wait for replies(or about a week without replies; in that case just reinstate the edit if necessary).Lurking shadow (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Migsmigss: If you're waiting for an admin's reply, here is one:

1. Thank you for starting talk page discussion, but a failure to respond is not grounds for a further revert.
2. Rather than dispute resolution, I think you should first seek help and input from WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. Consistency across the project is a good idea, and it will help the discussion to get more people involved.
3. That discussion should also bring in editors familiar with MOS:ACCESS. The colour coding in the tables has some contrast issues; I suspect it does not comply.
4. I would lay low from reporting this to WP:AN3 right now, since you both violated it. However, in future, that's the place for reports of an editor who engages in edit warring.
5. I do not think administrative action should be taken at this time. Obviously, if the edit warring were to persist, that would lead to either page protection or a partial block to both parties, restricting them from editing the affected page(s).

I have also added the four pages to my watch list, so I will be keeping an eye on future activity. —C.Fred (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, C.Fred. I'm good with everything. Thanks.Migsmigss (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear editors and administrators

First of all, I would like to thank everyone who has supported me a bit, Johnuniq, Lurking shadow, Bishonen, LindsayH and C.Fred. I acknowledge that I have violated some of the rules of Wikipeida in editing. But in this situation, the user, Migsmigss, is a conservative. He imposed all his edits on every post without discussion, especially his edits differ greatly from those of normal editing. He always gives warnings that the account will be blocked instead of giving the intention to start a discussion. You can read here

I just edited the pages format for the right format for consecutive years or the same form. He added really unnecessary information as evidenced here and here

The evidence he presented concerning me was actually somewhat incomplete. Those were my repeated edits, while my first edit had a complete reason but he didn't include them. He overly modified the beauty pageants pages related to the Philippines and confused these pages, not the same system with pages of other countries on the same topic. You can see it among these pages, [99], [100], [101], [102] and [103]

And there are famous people who have a whole page about them. They already had their personal pages so we didn't need to write their full names. But he wrote full their name that making the content become prolix. Here is some examples [104], [105]. Some one who had edited was angry because of him.

Thank you, Hope to receive your comments. Wishing everyone a happy day. If I have anything wrong, hoping everyone will help. Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

User talk:156.110.90.2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Vandalising their talk page after being blocked. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I've turned off talk page access for the remainder of the block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

help how do I edit Wikipedia why bot stop me — Preceding unsigned comment added by New & don't know (talk • contribs) 21:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• OP blocked for disruptive editing. Tiderolls 22:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issues relating users/editors Dhoom (franchise), Draft:Dhoom 4, and Dhoom Reloaded

Both the issues are related to each other, and all the issues are in relation to the three articles/redirect article shown in the section title above. Thus the reason why the issue is not separated into separate sections, and why the two issues are not being reported separately in other places other than ANI.

There are issues with three pages overall. However, out of the three only two of the pages might be experiencing a possible shock puppetry issue.

Sock puppetry issue and WP:NOTHERE

The following I think are possible socks.

• User:39.32.188.230
• User:39.32.146.24
• User:Sarita Hansda
• User:39.32.88.255
• User:39.32.220.50
• User:39.32.141.192

The issue to why I think the user Sarita is possible the sock master is because, that user created the page Draft:Dhoom_4. That specific user is currently indefinitely blocked according to their talk page. The reason why the page Draft:Dhoom_4 is an issue is its relation ship to the article Dhoom (franchise). Under section 7 of that article it can specifically be seen that majority of the content in that article is implausible. In fact, the IP users are the majority of the users who are making most of the 'pro' Dhoom 4 edits on both of those pages, while Sarita only created that draft page and did nothing else. In fact the page Dhoom 4 is salted a long time ago. Just recently I reverted one of Sarita's edits that was a vandal edit, that was undetected it seems when they were blocked from editing. Also one of the IP users were blocked temporarily.

I have tried to inform the IP user(s) in question via multiple channels. I have commented on two of the IP's talk pages about the edits. I also even made a section on the draft and [[Talk:Draft:Dhoom_4|draft talk]] page, where I tried to tell the users editing and copying the "unsourced/disputed" content from the draft page to the main article Dhoom (franchise). Those copied contents always get reverted. Today a IP did the same copying, even though my message on the draft page itself stated not to do this with out a reliable source. Thus I feel this is a case of WP:NOTHERE even if there is no WP:SOCK. Examples:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhoom_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=938850459
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhoom_(franchise)&diff=prev&oldid=937270950

The IP address edits was also reported previously in ANI as it can be seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=934654638#39.32.220.50 . However nothing was done because the reporting user did not explain to the user previously of what was the issue with their edits. In fact, if the page history of the pages Dhoom (franchise) and Draft:Dhoom_4. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think there is a sockpuppetry issue, then WP:SPI is the place to file a report. IP addresses are hard to deal with if they are socking, as they just get a new IP when blocked. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

CfD issue

The 'CfD' issue is with the redirect page Dhoom Reloaded, and if the production company has not thought of anything related to Dhoom 4 yet then this page is like a blatant hoax redirect page. This page was previously proposed for CfD however, nothing happened because the reason given was not enough for the CfD.

I have not yet started an 'CfD' for the redirect page yet. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Dibol civility and accusations of vandalism

Dibol (talk · contribs) has a long history of incivility and accusing editors of vandalism for making good-faith edits. A look at the user's Talk page shows a handful of warnings and blocks for editing warring, but not much beyond that. (I saw the same when I placed a BLP DS alert in November 2018 and warning for BLP violations in March 2019. So we have a history.) What I didn't notice was that Divol removed (rather than archived) the worst of it:

• removed warnings for verifiability, original research, and personal attacks, along with a block tag
• removed warnings for civility and original research
• removed block tag for disruptive editing, along with an uncivil reply
• removed blog tag for disruptive editing
• removed civility warning
• removed a final warning for "false reports of vandalism" and was urged to discuss edits

Of course, editors may remove most messages from their Talk page, so that's not the issue. I mention them because selective removal gives the impression of a relatively clean editing history, when the user's block log shows 8 blocks across more than 10 years. This is clearly a long-term issue.

Now just today, Dibol restored unsourced content with the edit summary "Quit vandalizing, asshole." That content appears to have been removed in good faith with the summary "no need of this". This is especially ironic because Dibol recently removed 20x the number of characters on a different article with the edit summary "Not needed. We're already bloating the cast as is." So it's vandalism when someone else does it, but not Dibol? Note that the IP editor tried to discuss this Dibol in July 2019 on Dibol's Talk page and the article Talk page, then again today on Dibol's Talk page, without any reply from Dibol. I feel that this editor needs to commit to civil discussion with other editors (including not calling good-faith edits vandalism) as well as adherence to our core content policies and BLP, or they should be blocked. Woodroar (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to hear Dibol's response to this, but the name-calling, personal attacks, mischaracterization of editing as "vandalism", and refusal to engage on their talk page are all major issues, and need to be fixed immediately and not return going forward. The block log shows a history of these problems, and if it isn't soon self-corrected, we may have to correct it for them. --Jayron32 18:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Dibol here. Full context of the situation is I put in information that was considered accurate within the context of the game. SWATJester had a personal vendetta about it, and I called him out on it. What is the point of being civil if I am going to be met with hostility? I have seen this constantly in the past 15 years of my edit history and as far as I'm concerned, the only one that ATTEMPTED to be friendly about disagreeing was WoodRoar. Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Same as the first entry, again involving SWATJester. Last time I checked, I got blocked for a good faith edit on the Mortal Kombat II page that year. Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, SWATJester being hostile here. Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not remember the context of the edit. If someone were to remind me of the offending edit, I could explain that one. Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Mr T. Based removed plot summaries for the Syphon Filter video games without rhyme or reason, and my edits for that game were to summarize the contents of the game, since I personally owned copies of the games in question. I do not edit on Wikipedia for the purpose of filling out false information. This seems to be a recurring pattern for the rest of the contested edits I had with the films Black Hawk Down and Clear and Present Danger, Blade Runner: 2049, and Aliens.Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)*
  • TheOldJacobite was outright hostile with my edits on Clear and Present Danger. If you bothered reading my previous edits and the respective history on that article's page, Jacobite was in the wrong on this. By the way, everyone else that reverted said edits were not even knowledgable about the film AT ALL despite me directly citing dialogue FROM THE FILM ITSELF. Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Woodroar, the editor in question is one user from Bulgaria who has been bent on removing information for the sake of removing it, even if the entry has the full disclosure of "archive footage" for the Men in Black entry in Sylvester Stallone's filmography page. This user has been known to revert this at least several times in 2019, so no, I am not going to apologize for having a short fuse with that particular user. In the case of the Halo characters, the character I removed only appeared in one novel and was never even implemented into any of the proper game entries whose only purpose was to be cannon-fodder. I thought the idea of that particular list of characters is if they appeared in "multiple mediums" or primarily came from the games.Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Jayron, I gave my response on the above offenses here. My problem with most of the administrators and veteran editors that I have interacted with is the environment either started off with either antagonizing me, or if I try to carry out dialogue with said editors, I outright get ignored. If I am at the point of using profanity or name-calling, chances are the other editor is in the wrong for either purposely entering false information, or arbitrarily removing accurate information without any rhyme or reason. How do you expect me to be civil with anyone if goalposts keep getting shifted in the name of "Keeping in line with Wikipedia policy?" My issues with those particular editors is in the pursuit of "Staying in line with Wikipedia policies," any semblance of common sense logic is completely absent. Last time I checked, I replied to Woodroar about a certain topic in question months after the fact despite being told, "contact me anytime," and I'm outright ignored. Does any of this sound right to any of you? If it does, shame on everyone involved here. The fact I have to waste an hour of my limited time here tells me you're only interested in politicking for the sake of it.Dibol (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I put in information that was considered accurate within the context of the game
    • Really. By whom was it "considered accurate"?
    • If I am at the point of using profanity or name-calling, chances are the other editor is in the wrong...
    • Really really really not how it works. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "They made me do it" is unlikely to win you any sympathy. What will is if you can provide diffs for your accusations. --Jayron32 13:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Support short Block Per WP:BLOCK a block is used to stop disruption. At this point I see three issues:a disruption to the project, refusal to engage in consensus building discussion, and personal attacks i.e. calling an editor as*&^le. In my opinion the editor is disrupting the project and needs a block to both: get their attention and to protect the project. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No. "Short blocks" are only useful for IP Addresses that are likely to change frequently. For an established user with an account, usually any block less than indefinite is a punitive block, which only purpose is to leave a Scarlet Letter on the block log, which IMHO is a pointless exercise and contrary to blocking policy, which says that blocks are not punitive, but preventative. In the case of any established user, I'm usually of the opinion that any block should be indefinitely contingent upon the blocked user expressing understanding of what they did wrong, and what they intend to change about their behavior. Any other unblock conditions including just waiting for it to expire, is pointless. --Jayron32 04:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: for the record, I'm not from Bulgaria and I've never edited Sylvester Stallone filmography before. I'm not sure if this is a CIR issue or simply Dibol seeing enemies wherever they go, which points to their battleground mentality. Note that Dibol is still calling good-faith edits "vandalizing" and they're up to 3RR on that page (4RR in under 26 hours) without ever joining the Talk page discussion. Woodroar (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• • Woodroar, I did NOT accuse you of editing the Sylvester Stallone page, for the record. I was addressing YOUR QUESTION about the IP user in question. I did the geo-locator on the the anonymous IP in question, and it has been the same user reverting the data without rhyme or reason, despite the fact that archive footage of the actor was used in Men in Black. Less confused now? Good. As for me not bothering with the conversation. The IP user in question has a very poor level of reading comprehension, and it's obvious that particular IP user in question is not a native English user.Dibol (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I've struck part of my comments above, but not those about your edit warring. You've been told repeatedly that edit warring is not acceptable, and you've been blocked for it several times. Working towards a consensus through discussion and (if that proves ineffective) resolving content disputes is not optional on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
      • And a day later, Dibol restored unsourced claims that were removed for violating WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Still no comments on the Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Stallone already announced on social media that he was showing up on set for filming The Samaritan the first time I restored the edit on January 19. I had nothing to do with the International entry, by the way.Dibol (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Trolling at User talk:BrownHairedGirl

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP User:92.8.219.138 is trolling at User talk:BrownHairedGirl, see one example. Can someone please help us out there? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to add, after BHG's controversial desysop, it might help for a few admins to add her talk page to their watchlists for a period. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Clearly block evasion from WP:LTA/VXFC.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Why hasn't the foundation gotten that individual banned from the entire site? This is clearly a case of long-term internet harassment. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom themselves have asked the WMF to do something, but alas, the nonsense continues. This feeds into my theory that VXFC is Jimbo Whales. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 16:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Current IP is blocked, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• And now it's User:173.71.212.219, eg this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I realise that this is closed but it brings to mind something I was thinking during the case. I didn't raise it as it was not specific to BHG (though it was posts from TTH that prompted my thought) but I would like to take the opportunity to ask and get some feedback on a general idea. After some (many?) ArbCom cases, there are sanctioned editors who are targeted with unfair / unreasonable criticism, or comments made about them to which they may be unable to respond due to a ban, and other unseemly behaviour like grabedancing. Would it be helpful in dealing with this to have, in addition to the usual editor and admin tools (reversion, protection, etc), the DS toolkit available to uninvolved admins? In other words, if they persist after reversion or move to a different page, would uninvolved admins find the ability to TBan or IBan an editor for a fixed period from referring to the sanctioned editor in an adverse way (outside of DR) useful? ArbCom could add a fixed term authorisation of, say, 3 months, for uninvolved admins to be able to impose DS for up to 3 months post-closure as AE actions in relation to commenting on any editor sanctioned by a decision to their standard provisions. I'm happy to raise the idea for ArbCom to consider, but I'd like to see if others feel it would be helpful or approporiate, and I figure many admins who deal with such circumstances read or post here. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes please. If established editors are doing the trolling, however minor, a page ban might be a good remedy. However, something stronger might be warranted per WT:WikiProject Portals/Design#Indefinite hiatus on portal program development?. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    • "If established editors are doing the trolling" we don't need special tools or expanded discretionary sanctions, just block them. Wikipedia:Harassment is the applicable policy. I really wish admins would stop hand-wringing over "what can we do" when someone is clearly going out of their way to make someone's Wikipedia experience less enjoyable, especially when it's for no other reason than to be an asshole. Just. Block. Them. Or find someone in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the steps dealing with that trolling on my talk, Bbb23 & Boing. Much appreciated.

It's be good to also see some restraint on the trolling[106] which Johnuniq mentioned. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• • • What any uninvolved admin can do is semi-protect a user talk page, not that this will always meet the situation. DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverts to Committee for a Workers' International by anonymous editor

An anonymous editor is reverting my edits to this page which he or she describes as "vandalism". Could someone please protect the page?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Abu ali (talk • contribs) 20:33 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Can't see the basis for your edits. Clearly there is a political dispute going on with Committee for a Workers' International. Any discussion of that should be handled at Talk:Committee for a Workers' International. Try and establish the problem there and discuss how to proceed. Llemiles (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Llemiles There is a discussion in Talk:Committee for a Workers' International, but some editors are ignoring the discussion and turning the page into an article about International Socialist Alternative ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a content issue, whose underlying cause needs to be discussed on the talk page of the article, with people who edit-war rather than discuss being blocked. I must add that Trotskyist groupings rival protestant Christian sects in their capacity for factionalism. I could say something here about the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front and the Judean Popular People's Front and the Campaign for a Free Galilee here, but the earnest supporters of one faction or another would probably accuse me of making light of differences between followers of the true path and fascists, so I wont. Let's all remember George Orwell just after the seventieth anniversary of his death. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

If you were wondering what Phil refers to, Monty Python hits the nail on the head again. This is yet another in a silly series of meaningless POV conflicts, that boils down to a content dispute. To the reporting editor: if you are having your edits reverted, ask the reverting editor why. Discuss. Talk about the issue. If that fails, use dispute resolution. ANI is the not the first place to run if there's trouble. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Sting meets Life of Brian was in theaters way back in 2003. You'll need a different movie reference for this go around.—eric 19:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

OK. Can someone protect the page, until the content issues reach some sort of consensus on the Talk page? ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

From the article under discussion:

In 2019, the CWI split four ways. The leading body of the CWI is the World Congress, which elects an International Executive Committee (IEC) to govern between congresses. The IEC then appoints an International Secretariat (IS) which is responsible for the day-to-day work of the International. The majority of the IS founded a faction called “In Defence of a Working Class and Trotskyist CWI” (IDWCTCWI) in November 2018 at an IEC meeting, in opposition to the rest of the IEC. This faction held criticisms of a number of national sections of the CWI. The majority of the IEC disagreed with the faction's criticisms, and took issue with the methods used by faction members to conduct the debate, which included talk of expelling one of the sections the faction was criticising.

A flowchart is in preparation. EEng 02:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You know, there's exactly one independent secondary source in that entire article and it doesn't even mention the CWI, just one of its member parties. Depressingly typical for our articles on Marxist parties and internationals - you could probably stick COI, primary sources and NPOV templates on the every single one of them except for the ruling parties. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive IP - 86.155.172.143

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 86.155.172.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

We got a disruptive IP causing problems. They were given a clear warning not to vandalize Wikipedia, but its clear they are not heeding it. Need an admin to deal with them. GUtt01 (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing from IP-range 2600:1003:B12F:0:0:0:0:0/42

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please consider temporarily blocking the following IP range:

2600:1003:B12F:0:0:0:0:0/42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

97.47.64.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reiterate vandalising of several articles and personal attacks on users talk page. --DoebLoggs (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Not Hog Farm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In one of the strangest things I've come across, the user Not Hog Farm is going around the site and it looks like they're mirroring Hog Farm at Redirects for Discussion and AfDs. I'd assume this username clearly violates our policies and in any case the user appears to be disruptive - they copied Hog Farm's AfD line word-for-word at one discussion. Thinking a block is in order and maybe a sock check as well. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer: Definitely not me. Please report this user at UAA, and I the votes should definitely be struck too as clearly disruptive and probably a joke. Note if you do do a sock check - I'm mostly on a public IP. Hog Farm (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I handled the report at UAA, and have blocked. I have not struck any votes or rolled back any edits. --kingboyk (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted all edits. JBW (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer, Kingboyk, and JBW: Thanks to all y'all. No idea why they picked me to troll, but this crap happens occasionally I guess. Hog Farm (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PunjabCinema07 and Gurbaksh Chahal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• PunjabCinema07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gurbaksh Chahal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Gurbaksh Chahal article has been the subject of long-term efforts by various meatpuppets to shape the article with a POV favorable to the subject. There have been 5 prior ANI threads related to this disruption, with this one being the most recent. PunjabCinema07 (talk · contribs) is the latest meatpuppet to have a go at the article. So far, their efforts at BLPN have been unsuccessful, but they are a threat to our neutrality and should thus be neutralized. At both BLPN and Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal, they have made false accusations of trolling and vandalism against the editors who have fought hard to keep this page from becoming a PR puff-piece [107], [108], [109], [110]. This is the same kind of rhetoric employed by prior meatpuppets on that page, so it would seem that there is a connection between PunjabCinema07 and prior troublemakers (on this page, hit Ctrl + F and type 'vandalism'). Moreover, PC07 has admonished me that I should always assume good faith, which is quite rich in light of their history of making wild accusations. This individual is both NOTHERE and deeply incompetent. Please deal with them appropriately. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

My suggestions have been in good faith and I have made no changes to Gurbaksh Chahal. I have alerted the BLP Noticeboard of your behavior and the other two editors Chisme (talk · contribs) and Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) that continuously vandalize this page. I would encourage editors and administrators to look at the last few vandalized edits made from November 24, 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&oldid=928084378 and compare it to how much it was just vandalized today. It's clear you have personal bias to this page and have some ulterior agenda for it be written in a negative and libelous manner turning this into a WP:Attack_pages. I have reviewed the history and whenever any other editor such as Joydeep ghosh has tried to help write this article to WP:neutral point of view, was attacked with the page locked and further being vandalized. I urge others to look at the edits made by Winged Blades of Godric,Lepricavark, Chisme and hold these three editors responsible for vandalism. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I rest my case. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

After the sheer amount of vandalism made today on Gurbaksh Chahal. I rest my case. It's abundantly clear you are working in conjunction with Winged Blades of Godric and urge you to disclose if you are getting paid to vandalize this page. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• The account is near-confirmedly an UPE account, whose sole editorial activity has been limited to Draft:Rubina Bajwa, rumored to be in a relation with G. Chahal. Somebody block this account, please. ∯WBG^converse 15:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Unsupported allegations of paid editing, vandalism and meatpuppetry, combined with general tendentiousness = WP:NOTHERE. Or almost. Be mindful, I beg you. ——SN54129 15:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@PunjabCinema07: This is a content dispute, and you have already reported at WP:BLPN. calling edits with which you disagree vandalism is not something you should be doing.-- Deepfriedokra 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, this is a clear UPE account with the task of main-spacing Rubina Bajwa. Three separate NPP reviewers (me, GSS and Satdeep, who accepted it once on wrong premises) had draftified it, asking for an AFC acceptance but he has reverted all of us. Note this comment by a fourth editor; further, the Joydeep ghosh, PC07 refers to in the BLPN has been since blocked for spamming. ∯WBG^converse 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: You are not helping yourself.-- Deepfriedokra —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: - What on Earth did I do? I did not entertain him any; there's a reason as to why the page is ECP protected. ∯WBG^converse 15:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@PunjabCinema07: These are long term, established, trusted editors, who have shown they are here for Wikipedia. You might want to reconsider your words.-- Deepfriedokra 15:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry if I offended here. But, I request you to take a look at the vandalism that is taking place on Gurbaksh Chahal today and try to stop it from further damage. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note I returned this to Draft:Rubina Bajwa and move protected. It should be reviewed via WP:AfC.-- Deepfriedokra 15:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• This is a content dispute. Please discuss competing versions on talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. If unable to attain consensus, please seek WP:dispute resolution. For violations of WP:BLP, please discuss at WP:BLPN. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra 15:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  The content dispute can be discussed elsewhere, but PC07 is a NOTHERE editor and ANI is the appropriate place for discussing behavioral issues. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• @PunjabCinema07: I have received your email and am not inclined to intervene in this matter. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Add me to the above. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ad Orientem, this seem to be some kind of mass-canvassing-attempt given the comments by DBigXray, Anachronist and 331dot over this thread. Given he was already warned by Anachronist to not admin-shop (hours back), can you kindly check whether the email sent to you post-dates the warning? ∯WBG^converse 15:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: It predates Anachronist's warning and was probably a mass mailing thing. But it does not violate the warning given the time stamp. Beyond which there are enough cooks in this kitchen. No need for me to join the crowd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Query has user been template:PAID warned?-- Deepfriedokra 17:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

   Done-- Deepfriedokra 17:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  And they deny it. Can't say I believe them, given that 1) they are an SPA on an article with a history of SPAs and 2) they believe everyone who disagrees with them is being paid. I think we're giving this user way too much leeway. After all, they still won't stop with the false accusations of vandalism [111]. They don't get it and they aren't going to get it. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have again suggested PunjabCinema07 stop accusing other editors of vandalism.-- Deepfriedokra 18:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

PunjabCinema07 wrote, “I urge others to look at the edits made by Winged Blades of Godric,Lepricavark, Chisme and hold these three editors responsible for vandalism.” An objective look at my contributions to the Gurbaksh Chahal article will show that my contributions are well-sourced and fair-minded. The problem here is that friends and paid friends of the subject want to bury his past as a domestic abuser. Chisme (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Chisme I suggest you assume good faith on my suggestions and not enter personal attack territory by labeling me as a "paid friend." I've seen from the talk pages how you have bullied other editors on this page and I won't tolerate the same abuse. One objective read on my thread would suggest that I am ONLY helping to neutralize this page to BLP standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gurbaksh_Chahal PunjabCinema07 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You accused me of vandalism. You're wrong. I never bullied anybody. I only prevented this page from being white-washed. End of story. Chisme (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Chisme, this tells a different story. Mysteries Abound? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal#Mysteries_Abound:_Dating_in_Encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed Draft:Rubina Bajwa at AFC in response to a request by User:Deepfriedokra. A previous article on the subject was deleted in 2017 after AFD. This draft does not show any new notability after 2017. If the draft is resubmitted again without new evidence of notability, I am prepared to nominate the draft for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• For the record - this is the first time I have seen this discussion. I was completely unaware of it when I nominated Gurbaksh Chahal for AfD, and did so based strictly on content and the TP discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Since this thread is still open, I want to clearly memorialize this disturbing, threatening, intimidating post.-- Deepfriedokra 06:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite Block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

PC07 has been give more than enough WP:ROPE. We've seen repeated accusations of vandalism (which required numerous warnings to stop); mass-canvassing of admins via email; pointing to a blocked spammer (joydeep ghosh) as the editor they want to imitate (which should be a NOTHERE version of the duck test); repeated accusations that other editors are paid and/or editing in concert; telling other editors to AGF while blatantly assuming bad faith of those same editors; the list goes on. This behavior is IDHT and NOTHERE, in addition to being reflective of an individual who is entirely out of touch with how Wikipedia works. They've learned some basic Wikiterms, but they can't/won't use those terms correctly. This is exactly the pattern of behavior that I have previously observed from other meatpuppets on the Chahal page, which leads me to strongly believe that this editor has some undisclosed connections to the article subject. Enough is enough and it's time to show them the door. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support after this post with continued aspersions and personal attacks directed towards WBG. I do admire the courage to remind others to WP:AGF about their edits while they WP:ABF about others. They have no idea on how to handle an editing dispute and aren't interested in learning how - they've had warning after warning JUST TODAY and continue. Enough. Ravensfire (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

They've been blocked for 72 hours for their disruptive actions, had ECP removed after gaming the system and been warned by a variety of admins, plus have more watching their talk page. Some WP:ROPE here may be worthwhile to see if any of this is absorbed. They were still tossing around asperions and showing zero faith while demanding it be shown towards them, which is not helpful. Reverting to their preferred version while demanding others use the talk page is also signs of a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor and while they've denied a COI, given the whitewashing on Gurbaksh Chahal and their (re)creation of Draft:Rubina Bajwa who just happens to be dating Chahal, I'll hold my suspicions. Striking support for indef, for now. Ravensfire (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Support again after the bombastic rhetoric and threats continue. Ravensfire (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Obviously, ∯WBG^converse 02:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Also, he's trying to game ECP. ∯WBG^converse 02:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Winged Blades of Godric, noticed that too (poor IaBot is getting overworked tonight!), wonder if this is Bothiman's latest sock with Vijay (actor) under ECP. Ravensfire (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not the first time, I am seeing gaming via IABot. There needs to be some kind of anti-abuse measures. ∯WBG^converse 03:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support very likely an undisclosed paid editor per this comment by Satdeep Gill who was contacted by Gurbaksh Chahal to whitewash his page and to upload images. I guess we need a CU here to check if Gchahal2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has any connection with PC07. Gchahal2019 made no edits on en-wiki but uploaded a couple of images to commons-wiki. GSS ^💬 04:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support a block for personal attacks. Neutral as to whether it should be for 72 hours or indefinite. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor so these personal attacks need to stop. When does personal attack territory apply to all of you? Or is this there when anyone tries to disagree with you, you bully them by trying to ban them? Apparently, assume good faith doesn't apply here, and you can harass new editors like me at anytime? Winged Blades of Godric, Lepricavark, Ravensfire? PunjabCinema07 (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Paid or not, you won't be any kind of editor for much longer if you continue down this path. If you wish to continue editing, you would be wise to disclose whatever connections, financial or otherwise, that you have to Gurbaksh Chahal. You are not going to convince anyone that you just randomly happened across Chahal's article. Clearly, you got there from somewhere. Lepricavark (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not that we need further evidence to support an indef, but now that PC07 has gamed their way into having ECP, they are causing disruption in mainspace despite the fact that any reasonable person would realize that such edits haven't got a chance of standing. Lepricavark (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm going to bed. PunjabCinema07, enjoy your temporary 'victory', but I'll be astonished if you're still around when I return. Tell Gurbaksh I said 'Hello'. Lepricavark (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, when will the personal attack territory stop from you? I believe the editors here have made it very clearly that this behavior needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• I gave them a 72 hour block for disruption Please feel free to unblock if you disagree. @Bishonen: could you check my work if you are about?-- Deepfriedokra 12:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not comfortable being the only admin looking at this. Somone else should opine.-- Deepfriedokra 12:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm not an admin, Deepfriedokra, but I've put a lot of hours in here, and it looks completely fair. I would have closed this, but there it s a question on the table about a NOTHERE indef. (IMO, you'd have been good on that, too). John from Idegon (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details here, but if the disruption was limited to that one article, why not partial block or pull the EC user right? Both would have worked. I see that you've done the latter, but then reversed yourself (?). El_C 13:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Cause I'm not comfortable being the only admin looking at this-- I'd I feel I was acting out of emotion. Someone with a fresh look should decide a course of action.-- Deepfriedokra 13:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if that article is the only source of problems —is that the case?— in which case we have two mechanism of equal usefulness to employ. El_C 13:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The editor was engaging in personal attacks, calling other editors vandals. The personal attacks were both on talk pages and in edit summaries, which are more problematic because they are difficult to redact. A partial block would not have been sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. But their block will expire in three days — what do we do then? And again, is this all about this one article? El_C 15:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved admin (other than having been canvassed in email, as noted above). I've been following the developments here, and I agree with the 72 hour block. The user has not attempted any of the WP:DR methods available. I will remove the EC right to encourage PC07 to do that once the block expires. If I see a good-faith effort at dispute resolution and understanding of the policies and guidelines here, I'll restore the EC right. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Or we could partial block them just from that article (not including the talk page), leaving them with the EC right for other articles. Although the manner in which they gained that user right does seem to be somewhat suspect, so maybe that point is moot. El_C 15:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

ECP has been removed from them by Anachronist.Ravensfire (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support I know it's too late as PunjabCinema07 has been blocked for 72 hours, but I wanted to add my 2 cents to say he should be permanently blocked. His insults to others, his mysterious background knowledge of this article in spite of being a newcomer, and his bot-gaming of Wikipedia demonstrate rancorous bad faith. A prediction: When his 72-hour sentence expires he'll be back for more. He can't help himself. There will be another round of what to do about PunjabCinema07s on the notice boards, after which he will be blocked permanently. Why not get the job done right and early? Why not block him now? Chisme (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry, Deep, I was AFK when you asked. I'm actually in favour of an indefinite block of PunjabCinema07 as an obvious undisclosed paid editor, and generally disruptive with it. AGF is not a suicide pact. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC).

  @Chisme: FWIW, it's never too late to extend a block. I have not looked at his reply to my block notice, if someone could look at that. I will not be likely to be around till Tuesday. And I think it's important that this be clearly a community decision and not a rogue admin going of the rails.20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)-- Deepfriedokra

• Support. This is clearly not a good-faith member of the community. Guy (help!) 11:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Has anyone started SPI yet? We have a sock or meatpuppet I guess see M.A.K. Writers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GSS ^💬 12:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support and we need an SPI. They are either paid or the person themselves. Happy to send some evidence to whomever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• And now the meatpupupet ring is back to trying to completely remove all references to Chahal being a woman beater [112]. The attempted addition of puffery was bad enough, but the whitewashing is completely intolerable. There's no reason to waste time negotiating with such blatant meatpuppets. Lepricavark (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Has anyone reported at WP:SPI? I agfsock wared the new one. Going back to bed. -- Deepfriedokra 18:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• I have blocked User:M.A.K. Writers indefinitely fro editing in article space. They may discuss on talk pages. They have disclosed COI and PAID, but the disclosure is only partial and is incomplete.-- Deepfriedokra 07:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree the whole COI thing is definitely something that deserves a blocking, but I feel that Lepricavark could have handled this better, and is not behaving much better than Punjab is. You also have to take into consideration that Punjab is fairly new here - only been here for 2 months, and may not have a full grasp on how the policies work. If they do get an indefinite block, I definitely think a standard offer should be allowed after six months. Foxnpichu (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  The account is new, but given the abundance of similarities in the rhetoric employed by PC07 and the prior POV-pushers that have attempted to make the article more favorable to the subject, I don't believe the person behind the account is new. Lepricavark (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I just received the following threat from PunjabCinema07 on my Talk page:

How much money are you being paid to write negative content on Gurbaksh Chahal page? And, who in San Francisco hired you? Walls are closing in on your operation.

What am I to make of this Deepfriedokra, Winged Blades of Godric, Lepricavark, Ravensfire, GSS, Bishonen, Doc James, Atsme? What is "walls are closing in" supposed to mean? Chisme (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It means PC07 isn't about to be invited to join Mensa. It's an empty threat. I've been subjected to similar threats from these people in the past. Remember, we know who Chahal is, but he has no idea who we are. Lepricavark (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Lepticavark, it's an attempt to intimidate not based on fact or reality. If you look through some of the old ANI threads Lepticavark link in their original post (this link) it's obvious PC07 is a sock of prior accounts who made the same bombastic threats. Just laugh and move on. It's more likely you'll wake up with blue and orange striped skin! It more than reinforces that this person comes with an agenda and unclean hands. Ravensfire (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

'Hey, y'all. the ante has been raised.-- Deepfriedokra 23:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as I wrote earlier, the man can't help himself. He doubled-down and threatened me a second time on my Talk page. Chisme (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal for indefinite CBAN for M.A.K. Writers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

M.A.K. Writers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is a subsequent/subsidiary issue of the Punjabcinema07 WP:AID and WP:COI editing thread. After Punjabcinema07 was blocked, came M.A.K. Writers with this post to Gurbaksh Chahal. As I found the COI/PAID disclosure ambiguous, I partial blocked for articles, while allowing talk page discussion. In response to my notification that I had partial blocked, M.A.K. Writers responded thusly, I will get paid what ever you do because I was just a extra that came due to issues, so I don't care. Thank you for informing, have a good day. Now while I appreciate their honesty, it seems evident they are here to trouble-shoot Gurbaksh Chahal on behalf of outsiders, rather than to help us build the encyclopedia. Their first edit summary on their talk page is Created page with '" I am expected to get paid (but it is not a deal) for this by a friend of Gurbaksh_Chahal.-- Deepfriedokra 09:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support clearly NOTHERE. Lepricavark (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. User's reasons for being here appear orthogonal to the project's goals. Guy (help!) 08:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support – The user posted a kind of paid disclosure on their user page, but subsequently blanked it – since they have stated ([113] and [114]) that they are hired and will get paid and so on, it looks like they are actually trying to hide their status as a paid editor by removing the disclosure (which they have been told more than once is required). In any case, not here to help the encyclopedia. --bonadea contributions talk 09:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support Anyone this person hires should be blocked aswell. One does not get to make legal threats get blocked. And than simple hire someone to continue on from there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Question - what is M.A.K., and does this username imply shared use? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Reply A fair question, and one that has been much on my mind. Haven't gug into it The on again/off again paid disclosure in the context of coming to edit while Punjabcinema07 was temporarily blocked seemed sufficient for me to partial block. The rest os up to the community.-- Deepfriedokra 16:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Deepfriedokra and others. MrRight2020, a CU verified puppet of Punjabcinema07 has just been bloked. M.A.K. Writers is clearly part of that effort, and is not here to help build an encyclopedia. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom Levivich 05:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Another question - the user is already indefinitely partblocked from editing articles, which seems to have very effectively halted their disruption. Does the community desire a site ban anyway? If so, for what reason? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:COI/WP:SPA/WP:NPA violations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently removed various WP:COI/WP:PROMO/WP:UNDUE material from Marcrauch (talk · contribs) from two articles ([115] and [116]). After leaving them a COI notice at User talk:Marcrauch#Managing a conflict of interest, they became combative, and refused to debate things on the talk page of these articles, despite several requests to do so ([117], [118], [119], [120]).

When asked if I had a special role on Wikipedia, I say I didn't [121], and that they need to take things to the talk page and failure to do so could see them being blocked for COI editing. That lead them to again restore the inappropriate material, followed by conspiratorial ramblings [122] and personal attacks [123].

This person clearly isn't here, so I recommend an indef block. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have blocked as a promtion-only account. Feel free to get anyone to unblock if you successfully engage with him to the point that he acquires the necessary amount of Clue. Guy (help!) 14:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unconstructive edits by IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This IP has been making hundreds of minor changes recently. Some of them may be OK, but many are wrong and have been reverted by myself and others. This includes MOS issues like adding "small" text in infoboxes and adding colored text. They have added captions that just state the obvious (like "logo" under a company logo), used infobox parameters against the documentation (like |status=completed for a historic building), added the same parameter to an infobox that doesn't use it (see an example when they even reverted my fix). The talkpage for this editor has many warnings about unconstructive and unsourced changes with no response by the editor. Pinging @Epicgenius who has seen some of this. MB 16:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsubstantiated information concerning Hybrid x Heart Magias Academy Ataraxia...

• Mkaname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WarOfWeeabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both of these accounts are one person (the above account admits it on the bottom account's talk page), but that is small potatoes compared to their vague, unsubstantiated, and likely biased edit to Hybrid x Heart Magias Academy Ataraxia. He claimed that Funimation cancelled the release and was giving up on ecchi anime series, yet we find no sufficient evidence stating such nonsense. Mkaname even made this unsubstantiated edit nearly two years ago, and it had since been undone. It assumes such based solely upon the announcement that the Interspecies Reviewers simulcast was pulled, because it did not meet their standards. This is not possible. Funimation has licensed a lot of series with content (near-)similar to Hybrid x Heart, and it was all well-within their standards, unlike Interspecies Reviewers, which was apparently too chock-full of content for simulcast. I request serious action be taken against both accounts. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

And I would like to point out, for the record, that Funimation never uses the term "ecchi". Its website and app do not have "ecchi" as a genre. The closest they have to it is "fan service". DawgDeputy (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

[Rebuttal] I would to point out that I've never had any incidents in the past other than this one circumstance and the activity gap between the two accounts is consistent with that of a lost account. Also would like to point out that "fan service" is just a Western localization of the Japanese word ecchi. Furthermore I asked how to include a source and was never given an answer I believe DawgDeputy was out of line as he didn't seem interested in civil conversation or helping me get the source posted that I had asked for help posting, he seemed more interested uncivilized argument. MKaname —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute. What you both have presented is not an urgent issue or disruptive editing and doesn't belong on AN/I. Discuss it on the article's talk page, and if you can't come to an agreement there (with the input of other editors of the same article), please use one of our dispute resolution processes. Mkaname/WarOfWeeabs: if you intend to use both accounts, you must declare their relationship on your user pages. Alternatively, stop using one of them. Using multiple accounts without disclosing their relationship is socking, and is against policy. creffett (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I just placed a notice on the talk page. We shall see what other editors have to say about it. Plus, if what Mkaname stated was true, then Funimation would have removed everything from its fan service genre entirely. They did not. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

What is more, Mkaname stated (as WarOfWeeabs) in the edit summary on its recent edit to Hybrid x Heart, quote: "Added rescinded because On January 31st Funimation made a statement that ecchi anime was below their companies standards.". The bold lettering was completely false. According to Anime News Network, Funimation provided this statement when they announced they were removing Interspecies Reviewers from their streaming platform (but nothing about the license all together): "After careful consideration, we determined that this series falls outside of our standards. We have the utmost respect for our creators so rather than substantially alter the content, we felt taking it down was the most respectful choice." The lettering in italics-- they only referred to Interspecies Reviewers and nothing more. And the chances are, Interspecies Reviewers may be licensed strictly for home media. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the second account has only had 2 edits ever, and they were both after the first account hadn't edited for nearly 4 months, at which point the first account then declared the relationship - the multiple account issue is a red herring not worth mentioning (but pick one and use it!). Given that the two of them combined have a single mainspace in that 4 months, and edit this article about once a year ... this shouldn't be here. A single one-word bad edit shouldn't yield an ANI complaint - and I have no idea if this is even a bad edit. Surely User:DawgDeputy should know better how to handle an editing dispute based entirely on a single edit of one word (is that even a dispute?!?) without going nuclear on the first attempt. Complete AGF failure. Nfitz (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) (Came here because I occasionally Ctrl+F ANI for certain keywords like "Japan-" and this was one of those days.) I'd just like to point out, as someone with a BA in Japanese and translation studies and level N1 on the JLPT (and since real-world credentials are useless on Wikipedia, several hundred articles on topics related to Japanese culture created/expanded), that "fan service" is just a Western localization of the Japanese word ecchi is complete nonsense, and if Mkaname (talk · contribs) is making article edits based on this poor understanding of the subject matter then a serious case could be made for a WP:CIR topic ban or block, the comments from my distinguished colleagues above that this is a content dispute and the OP has failed to AGF aside. (Note that I am not saying that the OP and any other editors disputing with Mkaname are any more competent to continue editing in this topic area. Note also that I am slightly biased by my intense resentment of editors who have not looked at any of the content in question saying that something is a "content dispute" and that it should be dismissed as an issue for ANI.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Jaggi Vasudev

There are too may disruptions related to this controversial Indian Baba and his foundation Isha Foundation in recent days. I even got offer for paid editing on my social media but I declined; I disclosed about it on WT:India. @Jp7311: is continuously pinging me (even after I warned them not to ping) and harassing me. They are not even understanding difference between vandalism and good faith edits; and calling me vandal at BLPN repeatedly. I tried to let them understand my edits but they’re intractable. It seems they are closely connected with subject. Note that there is editor User:KumareshPassoupathi accepted COI with organisation and then suddenly there is rise in new editors and stale accounts which are reverting and forumshipping.

• Here they called vandal.
• Here again they sought explanation for my edit summary but it was based on content.
• Here they are not understanding consensus and still seeking answer by pinging me. The incident was simple, I removed promotional unecnyclopedic content which was reverted by User:Bbb23 then I took it to t/p where I and User:DBigXray did consensus but this user is not understanding it and calling me as malicious intent.
• Here they’re alleging I blocked someone on Wikipedia but you know, I’m not admin.
• I have opened SPI about this new user and another new user due to duck properties and similar editing behaviour but was declined. I also gave COI warning about Jaggi but later I found my already warning to user, so, I removed it.

This is becoming quite disappointing and user is not understading my edits. I can't AGF more, please act something on these pages and these users which are doing WP:TE. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Admins,

Request you to please visit the BLP Noticeboard - Jaggi Vasudev for complete details of the discussion with Harshil169 and others regarding the Jaggi Vasudev page.

To be sure, I have not pinged them even once after they asked not to be. It really was just a courtesy so they could be notified of developments - and defend their actions if they chose to.

As for the SPI, grateful to certain Admins for not allowing any devious tactics to derail this much needed discussion.

Thanks, Jp7311 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I recommended that Harshill69 bring this thread here on my Talk page. Their presentation of evidence against Jp7311 is not the best, but at the BLPN thread, which I suggest you read in its entirety only if you are a glutton for punishment, Jp7311 has gone nuclear screaming (all caps, bold, highlighted yellow) accusations of vandalism. I will copy the first one here to give everyone a taste, but there are several more afterwards in the same style:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

RAMPANT (ONGOING) VANDALISM by Harshil169:

'Pls see above 'malicious removal of encyclopedic content' from Jaggi Vasudev page by Harshil169 one of many instances of vandalism (some others listed below) & request appropriate action including to disallow their editing of the page.'

User has violated Wikipedia policy on VANDALISM: The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.

Jp7311 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• In normal circumstances I would block JP7311 for this kind of conduct, or at least give them a final warning, but (a) I have not examined the thread or the "merits" of Jp7311's allegations, and (b) I have edited the article in the past.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I realize that is mostly the conventional way WP:INVOLVED is read — even though the policy refers to disputes rather than to someone having edited the article in the past, per se. At least that's how I interpret the policy. @Jp7311: please take the following as a final warning against accusing established editors of vandalism —see what vandalism is not— which, if you do again, you will be sanctioned for. I am unfamiliar with the dispute otherwise, too. El_C 18:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear El_C, I'm surprised to receive this final warning - I got no 1st or 2nd warning. You have objection to my 'accusing established editors of vandalism'? But why? I don't think that vandalism should be permissible just because it is being done by an 'established' editor, do you? I haven't broken any wikipedia policies, and this editor has literally broken dozens, so this seems really strange. I would appreciate it if you could become familiar with the dispute and reconsider this, thanks. - Jp7311 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp7311 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

For your repeated personal attacks, you could have been blocked without any warning. In addition, you are not helping yourself by doubling down and repeating your accusations of vandalism. I strongly urge you to ameliorate your conduct, or you will find yourself unable to contribute to Wikipedia. And sign your posts properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23. Thanks, your feedback is well taken and I'll remove the yellow highlighting also reduce the caps. And if there is anything else that you feel I need to change, do let me know. On vandalism, I stand by that and request you to please examine the merits of the allegations when you have a chance. Thank you. - Jp7311 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp7311 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, Bbb23 duplicating another user's signature in an apparent quote... AGK was just reprimanding Fram for that over at WP:AN the other day. I wonder if this is any different. Modulus12 (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Modulus12? Are you sure you're in the right place? El_C 09:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @El C: I think Modulus12 was referring to this discussion, in which AGK "berates" (for want of a better word) Fram for including signatures in quotes. All the best, ——SN54129 10:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Serial Number 54129 — I see. But I still do not quite understand how this relates to this report, or to what Bbb23 wrote therein. El_C 10:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty irrelevant, El_C, a distraction at best. ——SN54129 10:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: ah, I see. Thanks again. El_C 10:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed – irrelevant. Nothing is wrong with appending {{unsigned}} to an unsigned comment (and it does not even resemble the matter discussed at AN). AGK ■ 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@AGK: I was talking about the giant quote in Bbb23's comment above at 15:56, 1 February 2020, with yellow highlighting. There is no unsigned template; it directly copies the signature, in the exact same way Fram did. Modulus12 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note:- @Bbb23 and El C: Please see this edit. Person is still accusing me for bad faith. They are saying that opinions shouldn't be use for the BLP which clearly means they don't know ANYTHING about Wikipedia. Kindly, take some action because this person is ruining my energy and keeping me away from quality contributions. Please apply WP:DS to the pages which I mentioned and add them into your watchlist. Best,-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and El C:, Since this is being twisted to somehow become about me, let me give you what is probably the biggest violation, probably libelous, and clear evidence of acting in bad faith.

On December 31, 2019 this person deleted a very important video statement - directly from Jaggi Vasudev, on the death of his wife. Given insinuations that he had some involvement in her death (despite the fact that she died in a public place with many witnesses present), this was a very important and highly relevant statement that had been put up by some other editor. They also deleted the text:

"She passed away in January, 1997 and then about 7 months after her death, the New Indian Express newspaper reported it. A case had been filed against Sadhguru, accusing him of causing the death of his wife in the Bangalore police station. It was later transferred to Coimbatore Police and was closed after investigation as they police found no foulplay."

The very next day, on January 1, 2020, Harshil169 added a new section on this topic, except it is now worded very differently:

"In 1996, his wife, Vijaya Kumari was passed away and her father alleged that Jaggi has murdered her. However, Jaggi calls the incident as 'mahasamadhi' and claimed that he has told about it to her before nine months. Jaggi has cremated her body while the body is burried after samadhi, according to beliefs. Police couldn't gather enough evidences and case against him was closed."

When adding content of such a highly sensitive nature about a living person, it is important to (a) get the facts right and (b) not put a spin on things. But because of both having happened, and their highly disparaging comments about the organization being a cult, and the subject speaking "nonsense" and "gibberish" my personal opinion is definitely that they are operating in bad faith.

1. "Jaggi has murdered her" is completely unacceptable. It is intended to imply that there is an ongoing case/investigation when there isn't. It may be one word, but completely changes the implication. If discussing an accusation of murder, one had better get it right.

2. "Police could not gather enough evidences" is VERY different from "police found no foulplay". Again, intended to instill doubt in the mind of readers. Even the source they have provided (which by the way is in Hindi) says पुलिस जग्गी के खिलाफ कोई साक्ष्य नहीं जुटा पाई और ये केस बंद हो गया which Google Translate translates to "The police could not gather any evidence against Jaggi and the case was closed." BIG difference between NO evidence and INSUFFICIENT evidence. Again, devious twisting of words with no concern for the potential reputational damage to the subject.

3. What do they mean by "case"? There has never been a 'court case' because nobody brought any charges to court. Only an FIR was lodged, no case, ever.

4. They are omitting some very important facts. (i) It was 9 months after her death that someone suddenly decided to file a police complaint. Pretty material fact. (ii) she died in a public place with many witnesses present, and the video statement would have shown that. (iii) the police FIR was closed due to zero evidence of foulplay and he was completely cleared of this allegation.

4. They are arguing about the fact that JV cremated his wife and didn't bury her "according to beliefs"?

5. Nowhere in the source article does it say anything about "he has told about it to her nine months before".

4. Very poorly sourced. For such a grave and serious topic, they have given only 1 source? And that too a Hindi language article from The Print?

6. She didn't even pass away in 1996 as they have stated, but in 1997.

As an established editor I am certain that Harshil169 knew what they were doing and the grave potential for damage. And to prove my point please see statement they made on the Swarajya Magazine talk page, that "As per WP:BLPCRIME, we don't even include names of accused until convicted as it can affect the living person negatively". This was to justify the deletion of content they didn't like from AltNews (which they incidentally have used to slander JV).

Regardless of whether Harshil169 acted in bad faith or not, their actions have caused irreparable reputational harm to the subject.

Jp7311 (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, Harshil169, those are indeed multiple and severe violations of our living persons policy (and as an aside, an especially poorly-written passage). I, therefore, have partially blocked you from editing that article and its accompanying talk page, indefinitely. Please be much more careful with how you edit articles that pertain to living persons or, next time, you will be sanctioned far more severely. El_C 10:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, as for your important video statement — what is that even supposed to be about? That link does not work. Is it even in English? Harshil169 is most likely right in contending that it is not a reliable source and, therefore, it cannot be used as attribution for content. Also, your passage, as well, is especially poorly-written. All in all, this incident does not reflect well on either of you, sorry. El_C 10:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I missed that exchange with Bbb23 above where Jp7311 continued to accuse Harshil169 of vandalism. Whatever policy violations Harshil169 may be guilty of, vandalism is not one of them. Obviously, Jp7311 didn't bother to click on the link concerning what vandalism is not, which I made available to them. As a result, I've blocked them for 24 hrs for violating the no personal attacks policy. El_C 10:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

El C, we don’t add name of accused when they’re relatively unknown. I wasn’t aware that this person is unknown outside Wikipedia. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of any of that, you needed much, much stronger sources, at the very least. The content you submitted makes claims which are difficult to verify. If what Jp7311 says is even remotely true, then this is pretty bad. You say murder — what evidence do you have to support that? El_C 10:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You writing that police "couldn't gather enough evidences and case against him was closed" –versus– "police found no foulplay" — indeed, there's big difference between how those two statements are framed. And the thing is, we seem to have no reliable sources for either statement! El_C 10:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is my defence which I would request @El C: to read.

1. I had used word alleged which is verified by multiple sources. One example is this. We don't use name when person is UNKNOWN and accused. This person is pretty much known relatively outside the Wikipedia.
2. I didn't use the word insufficient evidence either. It was added by another editor when they overhauled the article completely.
3. Where did I mention about legal case? Case is pretty common word to describe some situation.
4. The same source says he didn't bury according to belief. The line is कथित महासमाधि के बाद विज्जी के शव को जग्गी ने जला दिया था. हालांकि मान्यता के अनुसार कथित समाधि के बाद शरीर को दफनाया जाता है, पर जग्गी ने ऐसा नहीं किया. which can be translated as after so called samadhi, jaggi burnt Vijji's body. But according to beliefs, body is buried not cremated.
5. Is there lie? The same source says ये भी कहते हैं कि अपनी ‘महासमाधि’ के बारे में विज्जी ने नौ महीने पहले ही बता दिया था. which means He has told about death before nine months to Vijji. Did they read article completely?
6. As far as I remember, I added year 1997 in my original edit. I don't know what happened. The print is fairly reliable source according to discussion held at WP:RSN. There is near consensus to use Print as [reliable source]. Yes, I have near native fluency in Hindi. I don't need google to translate it. Please reconsider your decision of partial block and if needed then take guidance of some Indian admin.

Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

If you can find an admin with a basic grasp of Hindi that would be willing to look into this, that's more than fine with me. I have no objection to them lifting the block or otherwise acting as they see fit in this matter. All I know is I am unable to verify the really serious claim you make. El_C 11:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

El C, I am pinging Titodutta to verify the claims here and Hindi translations of them. He also has near native fluency in the Hindi. Multiple sources say that Jaggi was accused of murder by his father-in-law. This, this and this. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

🙏Please Avoid Suggestive Insinuations!🙏


Hi, Harshil169! Please refrain from making suggestive insinuations about whatever you're going through!

Note that there is editor User:KumareshPassoupathi accepted COI with organisation and then suddenly there is rise in new editors and stale accounts which are reverting and forumshipping.

— User:Harshil169

My CoI apart (self-declared, while drafting an article on Isha Vidhya, an education Non Profit, that I was going to submit for review because I didn't want any bias in that article), repeated requests for clarifications on the Talk Page about points that were simple, straightforward and unambiguous ( Like reasons why Notability applies to the Isha Foundation Page, etc) were ignored and/or side-stepped.

After a rally of questions in talk page going unanswered/whataboutered, personal attacks being launched on me, and a tiresome period where I tried reasoning, I've given up on the whole thing and moved on.

I suggest you please leave me out of this.
I've made my point about my observation that a tag-team of admins are causing edits that don't look unbiased, and possibly follows a pattern. That was the end of my involvement.

I don't know what long, wieldy arguments you guys are getting into, but I've moved on cause I have neither the patience, nor any faith in your ability to afford an unbiased audience to any honest efforts to improve the quality of that article.

So, please deal with it, ignore it, that's your call.
Just don't get my tired self involved here.

Hope you have a nice week ahead! KP (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Usedtobecool has just finished their investigation of the dispute — their findings are most instructive. El_C 09:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• (responding to the ping.) I would remind others that we have a history of disruption on this bio by the PR team of Jaggi Vasudev and editors hired by them. (see Regstuff history) Some editors here are acknowledged disciples of this guru. Around a year back I was a target of a similar harassment campaign by folks after I had edited this BLP. It seems now User:Harshil169 is being targeted in a similar manner. There may be content disputes but personal attacks should not be tolerated and offending parties must be swiftly blocked. We must not allow harassers to drive away contributors who are here to build a neutral encyclopedia. FYI, admins El C, Titodutta Bbb23 --DBigXrayᗙ 11:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• @DBigXray: I blocked Jp7311 for personal attacks earlier today. El_C 11:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Bbb23:, @My Lord:, @Tamilmama:, I would like to inform you that based on the above evidence, Admin El_C placed an indefinite block on Harshil169 from editing the Jaggi Vasudev page. Harshil169 then split this discussion and started a new one on Partial blocks Noticeboard where they canvassed their supporters to "build consensus" and the block has since been lifted. Yes all of this happened in a matter of less than 24-hours, while a block was on me for "personal attacks" for having accused Harshil169 of vandalism - despite presenting hard evidence. Anyways, what is more, they have misrepresented on the Partial Blocks Noticeboard the nature of what has been discussed on this page. And when I tried to contribute the facts there, deleted all my contributions! If any of you are inclined to "undo" their blanket deletion of my edits it would be good - as I am not blocked from editing there and perfectly within my rights as an editor to do so. It was their decision to split the discussion. They are simply trying to confuse people and make this tedious for the Admins and 'prevail at all costs' that way. I personally have no skin in the game and am all for having this page be factual - if something was promotional it should of course be changed. But this kind of vandalism and libelous actions need to be checked, especially as there is an organized effort of several editors to keep it going. Thanks. - Jp7311

I would also like to remind everyone that this discussion started on the BLP Noticeboard. When it wasn't working out too well for them there, Harshil169 shifted the discussion to this Admin Incident Noticeboard. And now that it isn't looking good for them here, they have yet again shifted the discussion to the Partial Blocks Noticeboard. Even Admin El_C asked why they had done that. This is a clear case of trying to make this difficult and confusing for everyone concerned so that they ultimately avoid being held accountable for their actions. -- Jp7311 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp7311 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

For having accused Harshil169 of vandalism (for the third time), Jp7311 has been blocked for 72 hours. I keep referring them to what vandalism is not and they keep not reading it, it seems. El_C 01:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Severe lack of competency by Dopesickdotcom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dopesickdotcom has spent the last few days making the following edit to Dopesick but also to a variety of other articles as can be seen here, here and here. Despite my repeated warnings, personal pleas on their talk page, reverts from Myxomatosis57 & Viewmont Viking and detailed reversion edit summaries they continue regardless. They have made zero attempts to discuss or explain (not that there is much to discuss here) and although I have said countless times that Wikipedia is not a dictionary they seem to have some serious CIR issues. Please could an admin cast an eye over these edits. Thanks. Robvanvee 07:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin note: the user being reported was nearly simultaneously reported at UAA by a third party. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 07:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin note 2: Apart from WP:NAD, there is a possible WP:ADMASK issue, considering that the added content is not exactly a dictionary definition, but a promotional text found on the website pointed out by the username. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Goodness, didn't even see that. Just gazed over what appeared to be a dictionary entry without actually reading it, but quite right. The edit seems purely promotional. Robvanvee 08:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

VirusTotal reports dopesick.com as clean, but my adblocker objected to it. Narky Blert (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fullmetal2887 violating WP:NPOV

Edits by Fullmetal2887 related to the presidency of Donald Trump show a pattern spanning nearly three years of violating Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy by clearly expressing editorial bias.

• United States Senate
• Impeachment trial of Donald Trump
• Fox News
• Donald J. Trump Foundation
• Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia

The most recent violation, made on 31 January 2020, deserves particular attention because it has widely discredited Wikipedia. It remained online for 1 hour 13 minutes before I undid it. That was long enough for screenshots to go viral on social media. After watching the hilarity ensue on Twitter, I called out Fullmetal2887 at his user Talk page. He did not respond. Two hours later, though, Fullmetal2887 did respond to my request for increased protection of the page he had violated, United States Senate. "I stand by my edit," he defiantly declared, "which was 100% factually correct." Subsequently, back at Fullmetal2887's user Talk page, administrator Fuzheado advised him: "Please stop adding opinionated and inaccurate information." Again, Fullmetal2887 did not respond.

The scandal has now spread from social media to news reports.

• The Independent
• HuffPost

The latter outlet, incidentally, misinterpreted Wikipedia's edit history and credited Flyboyrob2112 for the "prank" instead of Fullmetal2887, who began it all before Flyboyrob2112 flew in to repeatedly restore Fullmetal2887's reverted content verbatim.

Fullmetal2887's defacement has also had a copycat effect that exposes Wikipedia to further disrepute. On 1 Feb 2020, first-time user Ethan Pond attacked Democracy, obviously inspired by Fullmetal2887. After reverting his edit, rollbacker Aoi informed Ethan Pond at his user Talk page that his contribution had been undone because it "did not appear constructive." Again following Fullmetal2887's example, Ethan Pond responded defiantly.

In view of Fullmetal2887's established pattern of violating WP:NPOV, I request that he be sanctioned with an indefinite topic ban prohibiting him from editing all pages relating to the presidency of Donald Trump. NedFausa (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I've indeffed the user per NOTHERE pertaining to this edit. If they wish to ameliorate that block with a milder restriction (such as a topic ban), they are welcome to draft an unblock request. But, indeed, having that edit for an hour on the mainspace is too damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. I, for one, am unwilling to take the risk of it happening again without some especially strong assurances. El_C 18:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: There was a third confirmed user to have added that vandalism to the article (all three were indeffed by me), so I have EC protected the page as an Arbitration enforcement action. As mentioned on AEL, will probably downgrade again to semi in week or two — again, please remind me if I forget. El_C 20:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Bad block. @El C: A quick look at Fullmetal's contribs shows that your reason of WP:NOTHERE is false on its face. One bad edit does render an editor NOTHERE. If an otherwise productive editor has a problem with political articles, a TBAN from the community is a lot clearer than forcing an editor to agree to one as an unblock condition from an indef. And your citing concern over Wikipedia's reputation is, frankly, bullshit. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, "bullshit," you say? Well, two admins have declined the unblock request so far. But, noted. El_C 15:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think the block was needed to prevent further damage as they seemed unrepentant about the nature of their edits. If they calm down some, I think they should be given an indefinite topic ban from American politics - from their statements and actions, they don't need to be editing in this area. Ravensfire (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support indefinite community topic ban of Fullmetal2887 from all pages relating to the presidency of Donald Trump. Weak support for an indefinite community topic ban from USA politics. Oppose the inaccurate block reason, weak support for the block until the community has enacted a topic ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• Good block. For completeness, my support for the block was stated at the Talk page of Fullmetal2887 with this edit [124] where I also agreed with rejecting the unblock request. El_C was justified in imposing an immediate block - Fullmetal2887 had a chance to rescind the edit and apologize for a temporary lack of judgment but did the opposite. Instead, the user said "I stand by my edit, which was 100% factually correct." [125] This was a clear indication that the user was not apologetic or contrite, and was prepared to repeat the disruptive, WP:NOTHERE actions again. Now that the user has admitted they are the person behind the Twitter account that bragged about the vandalism, it clearly violates WP:NOTHERE (self-interest, amusing outside parties, editorial dishonesty, lack of interest in working constructively). The user's actions are indefensible, and the admin blocking actions were most certainly justified. With time we can figure out what the right long-term remedies should be, but for now the individual should not be allowed to edit until more uninvolved admins can help evaluate the situation and suggest courses of action. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I opened this thread 1 day 7½ hours ago with a request that Fullmetal2887 be sanctioned with an indefinite topic ban prohibiting him from editing all pages related to the presidency of Donald Trump. Subsequently, Fullmetal2887 was indefinitely blocked. Now that he has apologized, both here at his user Talk page and on Twitter, I ask administrators to please reconsider Fullmetal2887's unblock request and sanction him instead as I originally proposed. NedFausa (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have offered Fullmetal2887 a conditional unblock, exchanging the block for a topic ban from American politics plus a removal of that stupid "Drumpf" extension. For details, see here. Bishonen | talk 15:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC).

Can a sanctioned sock return freely?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BecomeFree is apparently the third account of a user who has been previously sanctioned for socking.[126] They seem to be under the impression that it's okay for them to return if they edit different articles from those they were editing when the sanctions were applied. Is this right? The user is making (what I see as) problematic edits to the Carnivore diet article. Alexbrn (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

No, no user can return if they are indefinite blocked on two accounts per policy otherwise everyone would be doing it. This user should be immediately blocked per policy rules. I was sympathetic at first because I thought he had two accounts and he said the other was due to a mistaken vanishing issue but it appears he was blocked on two accounts, and in total he is now on his third. He also said he would no longer edit controversial articles but is doing it again. He will not publicly disclose his other accounts so we cannot see what he was editing before. I suspect there is a long-case of disruption with this user. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This guy was using four accounts, he has been banned Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's User2083146168 (talk · contribs).  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Now got an IP newly active at Carnivore diet and a fresh account at Monotrophic diet, making the same sorts of edits - likely socks? Alexbrn (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

BecomeFree has advertised his ban on about 10 Reddit boards, see my comment here at page protection. This is case of meat-puppetry. I think the article should be locked. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

not very civil...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please let this user know it's not very polite to call someone "a prick". Let alone twice.

[[127]]

[[128]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:241C:A99D:28E1:5DA4 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

If you want to talk about uncivil, take a look at these edit summaries. – PeeJay 18:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• • Helpful advice I'd say. Not like unnecessary name calling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:241C:A99D:28E1:5DA4 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with an evading IP, here. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, the /64 was just checkuser blocked, but who knows the mystical reasons behind that. El_C 18:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aek973

• Aek973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 185.17.129.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Aek973 seems to think that there is some vast pro-Korean conspiracy on Wikipedia, and that all the evil admins are out to enforce Korean ideology and ban all the Russians (spoiler alert: there is no such conspiracy, and we deal equally with everyone who runs afoul of our policies, regardless of nationality). I ran into Aek at the Teahouse, where they claimed that some users were engaging in socking. I, and many others, tried to be of assistance. It was quite clear however that their accusations of sockpuppetry held no water: they tried to accuse folks of being the sock of User:Theroadislong, which is laughable. I tried to explain to them why it was unlikely that sockpuppetry was happening; i.e. that just because users agree with each other doesn't make them socks. Aek didn't like that, and shot back with this fiesty series of edits. They had already been warned about civility and not casting aspersions by User:Quisqalis [129]. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Goguryeo, opened by Aek, gives me further strong nationalist vibes that expresses an interest to right great wrongs. Now, if someone thinks that they can talk this out with Aek, please do. But I gave it a try and it didn't work. Otherwise, take your pick: a block for casting aspersions, WP:NOTHERE, WP:RGW, civility...oh and if someone does block make sure to get the IP address I've linked at the top, as Aek seems to be using that as well as their account. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Recapitulation. So you're saying an editor here for < 1 week is exhibiting battleground behavior, is changing articles along their own POV, while accusing others of sockpuppetry, and has nommed an article for AfD, while talking an aggressive stance about their own rightness?-- Deepfriedokra 07:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a distortion. You should first look at the cause of the conflict. And a conversation at Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse#Not_ethical_behavior_of_Korean_users_How_can_I_act_if_he_ignores_this_warning? As well as the history of edits and Talk pages that are the cause of the conflict.Aek973 (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems to support my conclusion. It does not matter what the source of the conflict is. Please do not accuse those who disagree with you of sock puppetry, or claim a conspiracy among editors to promote an off wiki agenda, or otherwise direct comments at your perceptions of editors. Please discuss content and sourcing based on policy. Please understand that there are more experienced users who understand policies and guidelines better than you do. I would recommend taking a deep breath and heeding CaptainEek's advice. Please understand you are violating a core principal of this project, WP:CIVIL.-- Deepfriedokra 09:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Below I have already answered in detail about the situation and why there should be equal punishment if there are equal violations. If one side is punished, the other should be punished in the same way for similar actions. Unfortunately, this has not happened for 12 years and this is a huge problem. Aek973 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Aek973: Please clarify what administration you are referring to when you say, "But why does such an administration support it? Is that a question? Russophobia or money?". Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don’t need to provoke me for a formal violation of the rules and subsequent blocking me by manipulating the rules, as has already been done with other Russian and Chinese users, among whom are scientists who have faced the coordinated work of Korean users in upholding the ideals of state ideology in a number of Wikipedia articles.Aek973 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

    Aek973, We don't block people because of their nationality, we block folks who are being disruptive. Anyone who manipulates our rules or breaks them will find themselves in trouble. I don't know of what accounts you speak of, nor do I know how you know they were Russian or Chinese or scientists, but my guess is they were blocked for good reason. Of the account User:Gnomsovet, which you linked to earlier, they were blocked for sockpuppetry, which was identified using special CheckUser tools. I also have no clue which Korean users you're talking about, or who you think is trying to uphold some Korean ideology, or for that matter why you're so adamantly fighting against them.

    This really is your last warning: either you will be civil and cooperate with folks to improve the encyclopedia, and not cast aspersions of misdoing, or you will be shown the door. This isn't because of your nationality (which I have no clue what it is and I don't particularly care), its because you're being an obstacle to collaboration. Drop the stick, and be nice. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• You are playing "I can not hear." I indicated a link about which specific users in question. He indicated in detail on the discussion pages and on the discussion link which specific problems are being discussed. You just ignore it. And say that the lock supposedly concerns everyone who manipulates - but why doesn’t it concern Korean users who have been doing this for 12 years. in the interests of the state ideology of their country. Why are they allowed to bring the situation to conflict and they are unpunished for their unethical behavior? In addition, judging by the discussion pages of the mentioned users, these are different people. Nevertheless they were told User_talk:Gnomsovet "Even assuming that you are two people, joining a dispute for the sole reason of supporting your acquaintance is meatpuppetry and is not permitted. Personal attacks of course are not permitted either. You'll appreciate that the admins have enforced "the execution of project rules" by blocking you. Huon (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)" Korean users are doing the same, but this remains without sanctions. Anyone can see the history of edits and posts of conflicting articles. See that articles are always and methodically blocked on a distorted version in favor of one point of view - the Korean State Ideology. Moreover, all attempts to present in the articles equally all three points of view are blocked. Articles are rolled back to pro-Korean distorted versions. Always blocked are users who just want to present the position of all three parties equally. Do not remove Korean. And just imagine equally Korean and Chinese and Russian. This is not correct even from an ethical point of view.Aek973 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Aek973, A few points I seek clarified: 12 years? Whos been doing this for 12 years? You? Please link me to the users in question. From what you have said so far and what I can see, you ire lies with three editors. Correct me if I'm wrong. You mention Koraskadi, Jungguk, and Theroadislong. Theroadislong is not at fault in any way here, he is an established veteran editor who has no personal stake and who I'm almost certain isn't Korean. Koraskadi and Jungguk may or may not be Korean, it doesn't really matter. I'm fairly sure they are separate people based on the nature of their accounts and timing of their account creation, and do not appear to be engaging in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. They are two users who happen to agree on a subject. That is not illegal. However, being one person creating two accounts, or one person who solicits their IRL friend to join Wikipedia solely to engage in tag-team editing is illegal. But that does not seem to be the case here. What is the case here is that there was a content dispute. You made this major change to Balhae. It was not neutrally written, and thus was undone. You then engaged in discussion, which is a good thing, and exactly what should be done in such situations. But then, things went south and you started flinging wild accusations, not based in the evidence we demand on Wikipedia. Instead, you should have used, and could still use, dispute resolution. We have disputes everyday on Wikipedia, but we have processes to deal with them. I encourage you to follow those avenues to help solve issues. From a view on the content, I make a note: writings about the controversy around Balhae should probably go on Balhae controversies. But even then, your additions need to be written neutrally, which they did not seem to be. Not that I'm saying that the other folks in this dispute were neutral either. But they were at least civil about it, which is why you're here and they are not. Understand very clearly: you need to cooperate and be civil. These intractable disputes can be solved, it just takes a lot of time, effort, compromise, and research. If you don't think you can approach the topic neutrally, then edit something else. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have carried over and expanded upon my advice on user talk page. They've not edited since posting here.-- Deepfriedokra 21:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, See above replies, plus a new note on their talk. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek: They are using more policy based arguments in their discussions. So long as they do not resume the personal attacks and/or aspersions, I think we are OK. Any other admin who believes a more stringent response is in order can do so if they see fit. If problems resume, then that would necessitate a block. -- Deepfriedokra 02:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Aek973 edit warring

While refraining from personal attacks in so far as I've seen, Aek973 (talk · contribs) is now editwarring was on Balhae controversies, if anyone would care to sift this mess.-- Deepfriedokra 18:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC) On the other hand, the edit warring seems to have stoppedd 10 hours ago. -- Deepfriedokra 19:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. me and aek973 have some disputes regarding the article in Balhae controversies, and I think it would be good for none of us to edit article until we come to agreement in talk page for project korea. Jungguk (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

the edit conflict is between

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae_controversies&oldid=939126221 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balhae_controversies&oldid=939149717 Jungguk (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

With a Diff template: diff=939126221 by CiaPan at 15:46, 4 February 2020, and oldid=939149717 by Jungguk at 18:53, 4 February 2020. --CiaPan (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

i said my opinion in talk page of balhae controverisies, and i hope aek 973 replies soonJungguk (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

post archive addendum Based on this "There is no pit - you are the enemies claiming to our lands which must be destroyed. There is nothing to talk about with you." and this, in which user states

I’m not going to discuss on the Korea project what is not relevant to the history of Korea. I am also not going to waste my time on useless discussions with aggressively trained and supportive Korean users. Wikipedia is a project hostile to Russia. Engaged in misinformation.
If you want Russia to be your enemy, it will be your enemy.

I've indefinitely blocked as nothere. There are other indications of intractability and non collaborative attitude on their talk page. Any other admin may review, as per my usual statement on my actions.-- Deepfriedokra 19:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Insertcleverphrasehere

Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs)

Hi. I'm seeking some clarification here. As you may know, I create a lot of articles, all of which meet the notability requirements. I've been doing this for nearly 15 years or so. However, this user has started to tag all the ones I've created in the last hour or so, via WP:NPP. I've had a discussion with them, but we clearly disagree about this. I find this not to be helpful to see red dots pop up every few minutes with page patrol tags, etc, on these articles, and quite frankly, a time-sink in dealing with this, Any help here would be grateful. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts has been creating single source stubs (they meet the SNG but we require multiple sources for verifiability). I noted that as an autopatrolled user their articles should not have major issues like this, as they can't expect NPP to be checking over their articles.

I asked them to please add at least two independent references that either demonstrate the GNG or else demonstrate meeting the SNG (each currently has only a single source that shows meeting an SNG criteria). I added the {{more references}} tag to several articles that I saw come through the feed as a group (7 or 8 of them were visible amongst the most recent 20 or so).

Lugnuts reverted the tag without explanation and without adding additional references. I re-added the tag in places where I could not easily find a second source (I actually added sources to most of them). As for the others, Lugnust has reverted the tag repeatedly without fixing the issue. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 19:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, looking at the logs, it is clearly not true that all your articles meet notability criteria. Guy (help!) 19:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is - these all meet WP:NOLY. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, well, that depends how you interpret ‘presumed notable’ (many consider this wording to indicate that the SNG does not create notability, but merely indicates a rule of thumb of what is likely to pass GNG). I actually can’t find sources for a lot of these people to meet the GNG, but anyway I haven’t even asked for that! (I’m aware that a lot of these competitors competed decades ago and there are almost certainly offline sources to meet the GNG). But a bare minimum of at least two independent sources that verify meeting the SNG is required for verifiability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, the FAQ at the top of WP:NSPORTS: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Based on that, if someone has done a reasonably thorough WP:BEFORE search and has not found that sort of coverage, then the articles are fair game for AfD. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, Given the time period of these subjects (competed decades ago), I would expect a thorough WP:BEFORE search to include scouring newspaper archives and/or magazines. Since I don't have access to those and have not done that, I personally don't think AfD was appropriate in these cases, and it really wasn't part of the issue here. If the people in question had competed in the 2010s for example, and I was unable to find sources online, then I might consider AfD in spite of meeting the SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, oh, sure, I didn't mean to suggest that the articles should be sent to AfD, just adding a third-party interpretation of the relevant rule. Tagging the articles as needing sources seems like a reasonable middle ground to me. creffett (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no minimum requirement of sources. WP:GNG states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Generally expected does not equate to MUST, as in must have two (or x) sources. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, Autopatrolled editors should NOT be trying to quibble about how badly they are allowed to source their articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already asked you once, so I'll ask you again - please stop pinging me. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

(The ping is added automatically as part of reply link, apologies). If an editor is routinely violating 'generally expected' core principles of the notability guidelines they probably shouldnt be autopatrolled. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Lugnuts, See WP:GNG. No, not all your articles are notable subjects, because some have been deleted.

Creating articles based on a single source is generally considered disruptive. In this case, many of them are based on a single results listing. NOLY is a subject-specific guideline and does not replace the project-wide consensus that Wikipedia is not a directory so subjects must have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources.

This is what Sander v Ginkel was doing that precipitated his ban. Don't do it. Guy (help!) 20:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Some deletions? What, one or two from years ago? We're talking about creations in the last hour or two - let's not create any red-herrings here. "Creating articles based on a single source is generally considered disruptive" is it? Please can you show me the policy and or diffs of where this was agreed on WP? Sander was adding tons of into BLPs that had no sourcing. I'm not doing that. Again, anothe red-herring. Please stay on topic about NPP, not someone else's contributions. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Now Guy has made this very WP:POINTY AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it's pointy. I would expect that you know coming here means conduct of all involved is looked at. You've asked for scrutiny of your article creation. From the bit I looked at I found nothing wrong. Guy found something else and decided to use a community process to see what others think. That feels like everything working as it should. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Notwithstanding notability, doesn't, e.g., Lino Elias have BLP issues? Specifically (without having performed research, but taking Insertclever at their word that they are "unable to find decent sources", it only indicates that they are notable for participating in one Olympic game (implicating WP:BLP1E) and do not appear well-known (implicating WP:NPF). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757, Well, yes and no. I wouldn't take something like this to AfD as due to the time period (1960s) (edit: sorry; 1990s, but still pre-internet) there are likely offline sources not available through google (perhaps newspaper directories could yield more?). Id personally be happy with two independent sources demonstrating meeting an SNG criteria, at least when it comes to older historical topics/subjects (though other patrollers might be more strict, and I've seen articles deleted at AfD on these grounds). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not really seeing anything sanctionable here, as this is fundamentally just a disagreement about whether an autopatrolled editor is expected to comply with GNG on every article or whether they can lean on SNGs alone, which is a gray area policy-wise. That is possibly a discussion worth having, but I don't think that AN/I is the right forum for it. As an added note, I would advise ICPH to wait more than a few hours before tagging articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, With regards to these articles, hours would have added nothing, as Lugnuts has been clear from the start that there was no intention of adding additional sourcing. I'm personally of the mind that tagging after 10 min or so can be valuable if you send a message to the user as well, explaining why you added the tag (they are more likely to be online and ready to fix issues than they are a couple hours later). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rosguill. I'm not asking for sactions, just clarification. If CleverPhrase wants to drive-by tagging, then fine, it'll just leave dozens of articles with a big tag on the page that will remain on the article for ever. Which is what happens with most tagging I see. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I sent you messages regarding what needed to be fixed. Please don't misrepresent me with "drive-by tagging". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)While I agree that Lugnut's stubs should be better sourced, I'm not sure I see the need to tag them all. A single sentence stub clearly is in need of more citations. Thus adding a tag is...stating the obvious, and contributing to an enormous tag backlog. WP:DRIVEBY tagging isn't very useful. By that same token, a single sentence stub isn't very useful either. The moral here: quality is more important than quantity. But I don't see anything actionable. Lugnuts should be careful to make sure their stubs meet policy, but I can't imagine us removing the autopatrolled tag. And ICPH wasn't misusing NPP either, though their tagging should remain...sensible. But I fault the users less than policy: this issue seems to have emerged out a gap in notability policy, one that should be adjudicated with a formal village pump policy decision, not at ANI. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Is it appropriate to tag an article with Template:Refimprove that has one reference clearly demonstrating that it meets an SNG and supporting the facts contained in the article? What a great content discussion. I really would like to have it too as I have strong opinions about it (spoiler: I think one reference can be OK, but there are a lot of howevers attached to that). If this discussion happens (and I hope it does) I hope someone will let me know.
  But let's look at conduct. What this forum actually can address. Is ICPH doing anything wrong with tagging these articles with ref improve? I would emphatically say no. They are not stalking Lugnuts contributions - they are looking at this kind of article as a set and Lugnuts keeps creating new ones that qualify. Perhaps this could be avoided if ICPH used Twinkle or manual edits to place the tag rather than page curation so Lugnuts doesn't get repeated notifications. 10 minutes is a reasonable time to wait, especially for an editor who is creating 2-4 articles within 10 minute timeframes.
  As for Lugnuts, I am not thrilled with an editor saying "I am knowingingly creating articles no one will ever improve". I have been creating stubs of my own for Caldecott books. But I'm also working on taking Caldecott books to GA so while they might be stubs now, I would hope to improve them someday to at least GA level. For Lugnuts creation seems to be the end of their desired involvement with the articles. If hundreds of Olympians merely have 2 sentence stubs written about them forever well so be it. That doesn't thrill me at all - especially because unlike my books these are BLPs to which we owe a much higher standard of care and consideration. However, in the end, I don't think there's anything sanctionable there really either. If I thought their SNG creation inappropriate it might make sense to take away autopatrol. But I would be opposed in this instance to revoking Lugnuts autopatrol. So as someone who considers himself both a new page patroller and content creator here I see nothing really wrong with either editor's actions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • {{Refimprove}} and related templates are for unsourced statements. If there are no unsourced statements, those templates should not be added. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

    NinjaRobotPirate, Perhaps {{BLP sources}} or {{One source}} would be more appropriate in some circumstances, but 'more references' is the most appropriate tag in many cases. Especially where one source is used but that source is inadequate (due to not being a high quality source or just being a stat listing). The wording on the tag does apply to the articles that I added it to in this case, even if the template documentation doesn't consider microstubs when giving advice where to use it and where not to. We don't have a "Microstub with one flimsy source" tag, but I will make do with what we do have. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Let's not beat around the bush here: these articles are awful. They are database scrapes created not to impart information to the reader but because they nominally meet some low, low, low "notability" guideline. I have never been a fan of creating tons of tiny one-sentence microstubs that send the reader flipping madly from one page to another in search of tiny dregs of information. Don't get hung up with the idea that "meets my crappy SNG"="Automatically entitled to a shrine". These aren't biographies; they are event listings or match scorecards that contain no biographical information beyond a name and a DOB, and even those are sometimes incomplete. A better way to present this information is to merge it into lists like "Foobleckistan at the 1957 Olympics", or "List of San Blortinese Tiddlywinks players". Reyk _YO! 22:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Reyk here. An encyclopedia should not be made up of one sentence entries. Reyk suggests some merges, I would also suggest lists. As Barkeep has stated I am not sure there is any sanctionable activity here but I would hope Lugnuts would endeavor to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. Just because something is technically not prohibited by guideline or policy it does not mean it is best practice. Regarding Insertcleverphrasehere I think they have done nothing wrong. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  I think folks have a good point here: there is no doubt that Lugnuts is a prolific content creator. 70,000 pages is truly something. But of those...Lugnuts has a mere 9 FA/GA. Quantity yes, quality...not so sure. Lugnuts, if you're reading: I would challenge you to change how you're thinking about content creation, and try to create some truly "epic" pages. More GA's, more FA's, more pages that show that you really are one of our best content creators. Even if every article you made started as a C class, that would be an enormous improvement over stubs. You certainly don't have to, but its a challenge I hope you'll take on :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mass creating stubs is spam. I know not everyone agrees with this viewpoint, but I think it is (and has always been) one of the biggest drains on resources and one of the biggest impediments to the project actually growing. It's just noise, it gets in the way of everything. It kills the article-to-editor ratio. It encourages other spammers. It makes the encyclopedia overly large and unwieldy. It spreads our resources thin. I would prohibit single-source stubs if I were King of Wikipedia. Levivich 05:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• I understand the conflict, but I don't think there's any wrongdoing here by anyone, from the creation to the AfD. I also don't think one sentence stubs are a problem as long as the topic is notable. What we need to have is a discussion as to whether WP:NOLY should still grant presumed notability to all individual Olympians. I, for one, would strongly prefer changing it to any individual medalist or sportsperson who passed WP:GNG as a result of their participation, though this could wreck some of our potentially notable historic/non-English speaking articles. I think we can assume any medalist will receive some coverage. Any person medaling in a team sport should look to that sport's SNG or to WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• I will strive to be a bit more diplomatic than Reyk and Levivich here, but I agree with their underlying point. Microstubs were great in Wikipedia's earliest years but after 19 years and six million articles, we need a greater emphasis on quality rather than quantity. In my opinion, it is a really bad practice for editors with the autopatrolled flag to crank out large numbers of microstubs with a single reference. New articles created by trusted users ought to summarize multiple references to reliable sources devoting significant coverage to the topic. That results in an encyclopedia that we can all be proud of. Who can be proud of junk? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  I do not think I agree with that. Well, I mean, I agree that we should be doing our best to find sources and avoid microstubs. However, in many cases even microstubs are better than nothing. This is one of the latest articles I created: Bello Monte station. It has two templates, two lines of text on my screen, and one reference. (I could have added more references, and I will do that if someone tags the article, but they will likely be in Spanish anyway). I am sure some users would say it is a microstub. However, two weeks ago there was no information whatsoever on the English Wikipedia on this metro station in a city with several million population - and now there is, location, date of opening, basic history (no photo, but if someone takes one it is trivial to add). Is this really a disgrace to Wikipedia to have this information? If someone has access to specialized sources (which do exist), they are by all means welcome to improve the article, and I will help whatever I can. One can discuss whether having a separate article is the best way to present this information - may be all such articles should go to the list, and only made separate when there is more to say about individual stations. This could be an interesting discussion, and I am sure there will be two sides arguing opposite points. But I can not agree with the notion that I in any way damaged Wikipedia by spending my time to find this information and by creating the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think the key difference is that Bello Monte station is clearly notable - a very quick search and a check of the Spanish-language Wikipedia article shows that it would pass any AfD (there are photos there you could probably incorporate as well.) The problem with these stubs is there's really no way for us to improve them any further, and their notability is based on an unclear SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 08:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a microstub is vs just a stub. The first sentence of WP:STUB is "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." The nutshell says An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub. I'm not sure when creating stubs became dirty but Cullen is right that attitudes have shifted from the beginning of the project until now. I am not concerned by stubs. I don't think our policies or guidelines supports the idea of stubs being a bad thing - though if push came to shove consensus might support changing that. I am, however, concerned by permanent stubs. If an article is a stub (microstub?) now and there is little reasonable expectation that someone will come along and fix that, well yes I am concerned about that. And I'm very concerned when those permastubs are BLPs. A likely PERMASTUB BLP is true in this case and I hope Lugnuts takes concerns about that on board. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, To clarify what I have been referring to as 'microstubs'; these are stubs that have only the bare minimum required to provide barely enough context to identify the subject and what they might be notable for, and expound into no more detail about the person or the person's life. Basically; an infobox (sometimes missing), one or two lines of text, once or two sources (links without WP:SIGCOV and only there to demonstrate meeting the SNG and avoid BLPPROD). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've started a discussion about WP:NOLY here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• I would like to echo Reyk, Cullen, et al., and perhaps also encourage anyone mass-creating these kinds of microstubs to take a page from my book and make lists from which can theoretically be spun out articles if enough information for a second sentence can be found. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  I agree lists are far preferable to permastubs. Listifying stubs conserves resources all around, while preserving the content, which can always be spun out later to start-class articles by anyone who chooses to do so. For example, Bello Monte station could be merged with List of Caracas Metro stations (or Caracas Metro Line 5). Levivich 21:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at Inserts other recent editing, they've been showing battleground behaviour with several editors over various issues. There recently deleted text for seasons articles for many teams that appear to meet the WP:NSEASONS, and redirected the articles elsewhere. Mostly for the current seasons (where previous seasons exist), but also for historical seasons for major teams, such as Juventus F.C.. When they got challenged on that, they pushed to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Charlotte Independence season where they proceeded to argue with everyone that disagreed with them (which was everyone). When that failed, instead of admitting their error and misinterpretation of WP:NSEASONS they started a discussion elsewhere at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Clarification regarding NSEASONS. I'm not sure what's going on here, or the root cause - but something has clearly gone off the rails. Nfitz (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Things seem to have cooled down - I don't see any reason to keep this open. Nfitz (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Are there resource constraints for which you should not make stubs? Definitely no. Should you create stubs with an intent to improve them? Definitely yes. Is mass-creation of stubs helpful? Probably not. If you're converting redlinks to bluelinks, increasing coverage of important topics, by all means do create stubs. It is true that some topics have very limited information on them (unknown species, radical theories being some) even if they are worth being covered, I feel those subjects deserve to be a part of the Wikipedia definitely, their lack of coverage does not mean they do not deserve inclusion, so by all means, invoke WP:IAR and include them. What matters is that if they benefit the encyclopedia, subjective opinions about GNG vs. SNG, resources running out are all red herrings that have no basis. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  QEDK, Your advice is great for content creators, but saying that those are red herrings... they are red herrings upon which reviewers must make their decisions. And when people argue the other side, it results in reviewers getting burnt even when they were in the right (or at least within the ambiguous realm of the policy). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Lugnuts has not listened to the many suggestions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  Willbb234, Lugnuts isn't required to. Our policies allow them to keep creating stubs like that; our page reviewing guidelines then encourage reviewers to tag them for improvement. I'd like it if Lugnuts took time to find and add additional sources, but their not doing so isn't really an issue we need to be discussing here. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Lugnuts is a great editor ... however those articles really are poor!, I don't see how stubs like those help or give our readers any sort of useful knowledge ..... Personally I don't see a problem with Inserts tagging here. –Davey2010^Talk 22:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

History of WP:BLP violations at Mark Normand

• Mark Normand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Defamatory and sometimes graphic BLP violations at least since February 2019. Requesting rev/deletion going back that far. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Not a bad idea to protect the article indefinitely, either. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

   Done What a goddamn mess. I've revdel-ed most of the offending revisions, if I've missed any, please pick up after me. I've semi-ed it for 2 weeks, feel free to up it. And lastly, do not post revdel requests to this noticeboard (please!) Going off for the night. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  • • Looks like you got all of it. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• This article has suffered vandalism bad enough to require revdel both in 2019 and 2020. Per QEDK's comment above, I've changed the protection length to indefinite. This comedian's work seems to get attention, not all of it good. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Carnivore diet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Carnivore diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is seeing a lot of edit warring and possible sockpuppetry. Not sure whether page protection or user blocks is best here, but could someone please look into it? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I converted the semi-protection to ECP. Hopefully, that will resolve the problem. It looks like someone above said it's meat puppetry from Reddit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

LOL --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Page was put under ECP by NinjaRobotPirate, but that did not stop the edit war.[130] I think the redirect page should get full protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, the page it got redirected to (Monotrophic diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) might need ECP or PCP. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SOYLENT GREEN IS EDITORS!

-EEng

Disruption in Catalan-related articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Editor keeps a heavily disruptive behaviour even after repeated warnings, with the only intention of adding POV-ish, unsourced or very poorly-sourced material to Catalan-related articles and going into personal attacks and edit warring when reverted. Behaviour includes:

• Persistently adding Google Translate links as sources (diff diff diff) as well as deliberately ignoring WP:CIRCULAR and WP:WINRS by adding links to other wiki articles, either from this one or from other language projects ("deliberately" here means that they acknowledge themselves they are doing "circular" linking, yet keep doing it anyway, even disruptedly when warned not to do so: diff diff diff diff).
• Tendentious and disruptive editing (diff diff), coupled with edit warring by reverting either without edit summaries or with personal attacks (National Front of Catalonia, Mossos d'Esquadra, Spain or Front Nacional de Catalunya (2013), as examples). User also edited my own user page to call me "fascist" and "anti Catalan" (diff) and uses edit summaries to insult others (diff diff diff) as well as an apparent obsession with accusing everyone, everywhere, of "Catalanophobia" (diff, plus previous diffs).
• WP:THREAT here ("Como lo vuelvan a cambiar sea denunciado el autor por delitós de odio (Catalanofòbia) a l'as autoridades internacionals. Suficients dictadura aguantado este cuerpo").

Shows a battleground behaviour from the very beginning and seems to be here only to push a particular POV. Could be a situation of WP:NOTHERE; in such a case, it should be dealt with accordingly. Impru20^talk 00:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what @Impru20: has stated, making a strong case for WP:NOTHERE, there is the plausible case that Sylas is an alt-account of Breizhcatalonia1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also makes the most of the occasion to drop similar tantrums diff. A possible case of projection.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Support indef, vandalizing someone's userpage with "fascist Catalanophobe" [131] is already too far, not to mention the legal threat. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Indef them now. The threat and accusation of racism are both things that regularly see their makers blocked on sight. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 20:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked per WP:NOTHERE - the user is here to Right Great Wrongs not to collaborate. Anyone can unblock if they think the user can be talked down from the Reichstag. Guy (help!) 10:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP tagging articles with poorly written custom templates

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

See especially [132][133][134][135]. Note that they are edit warring over their tag at Criticism of postmodernism. Here's a weird edit summary [136] and here they're using a talk page as a soapbox. [137] They have no edits besides adding template tags and that talk page comment. Bringing this here because they have a suspicious familiarity with templates and the abbreviation "rv" for "revert"; they may be a sock or LTA that someone here can recognize. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Similar occurrence on MissingNo. as seen here where they argued weasel words, bias and a lack of 'negative reception' while also demanding The Cutting Room Floor, a wiki, be used as a source? They're also familiar with 'deletionists' on the site too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Bbb23 and Berean Hunter - this appears to have fallen through the cracks. Is this IP an LTA? They are continuing with adding poorly written custom tags, being suspiciously familiar with and using WP:NOBITE as justification, [138] misusing talk pages, [139] adding poorly written synthesis to an article, [140] and so on. Even if they are not an LTA, there are major WP:CIR issues here. Something should be done. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Derek Mackay

• Derek Mackay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Afternoon. Can we see some action over at Derek Mackay's article. Has resigned today from his ministerial position amid variety of allegations. However many edits, and some edit summaries are likely BLP breaching. Small sample provided. Also a lot of IP activity for what is going to likely be an evolving story. Thanks[141][142][143][144] Koncorde (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Semi-protected. I'll have a look to see if anything needs rev-deleting. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. I have posed a pertinent question on the Talk page there. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Leedsproject2019

Leedsproject2019 has been moving and redirecting Leeds-related articles from mainspace to WikiProject space. See this, the article "List of people from Leeds" was in mainspace and I noticed that it got wiped and moved to WikiProject Leeds. CatcherStorm ^talk 15:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• The user did this in error and has agreed to stop doing it. I've fixed all of the moves and deleted anything that was left over in mainspace. Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Offensive language by user:Resujonoi

Offensive language used by User:Resujonoi in my talk page here. A clear case of WP:NOTHERE. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, I have reported them to WP:AIV. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks LakesideMiners. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked them for PAs/harassment - I note that they blanked your talk user page earlier, and it's not the first time they've used foul language to berate someone. Just out of interest Fylindfotberserk, do you know what they were talking about with regard to the deletion of templates? They were obviously worked up about something, but I wasn't able to figure out what it was. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks for asking. That user was deleting ENGVAR and MOS:DATE templates in December, this one for example. So we were asking them to stop deleting those templates in our edit summaries and warnings. Now today, after I removed an irrelevant image from the Farrukhabad article, they started with their "why are you deleting templates" rant. It is likely that they do not know the difference between a maintenance template and an image. Possibly WP:CIR issue. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

User:RelaxedSloth42

I am reporting User:RelaxedSloth42 for edit warring and impersonation. In this edit, he said Beyonce's soundtrack album The Lion King:The Gift is a studio album. I undid his edit and told him the album was released as a soundtrack album. He undid my revision in this edit and I reverted his revision in this edit. I told him I would report him if he reverts my edit again. He removed the message I left on his talk page and undid my edit before removing his initial entry.

He copied text from my userpage in this edit and proceeded to copying my entire talk page in this edit. I left this note on his talk page asking him to remove the text he copied from my userpage. He did not comply with my demands and removed my note from his talk page in this edit. He also left this note on my talk page, saying his user page "has quite a likeness to yours I'll admit". I don't know exactly what this user is trying to achieve by impersonating me. I'd have reported him for just edit warring but after he copied text from my userpage and talk page, I had to report him here.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Their addition of "It is important to note that, however similar this page may seem to others it is actually unique" doesnt make it any less creepy, either. Whether clueless or trolling, they're still making up stuff as their text lays claim to writing 4 GA's and 145 articles (and they appear to have only edited on two days, 5 May 2019 and February 2020). At the very least it all needs to be deleted. Curdle (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk page replaced with custom 4im warning. Invalid^OS (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed they were playing games with their talk page too. Thanks IOS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: No problem. Invalid^OS (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• User page deleted and salted. If they convince another admin they're going to knock it off, the page can be unprotected without talking to me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Versace1608:, remember you have to notify people if you report them here. I have just done so this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I apologize for not leaving an ANI template on RelaxedSloth42's talk page; thanks for doing that.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Role account?

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

Does this edit mean that it was made by a role account? I have zero experience with role accounts. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I would interpret it that way, yes. The wording's pretty unambiguous. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 20:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It could also mean that the account is controlled by one person who tries to implement changes suggested by the organization (in which case it might be undeclared paid editing).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep. We can't really do anything more right now than wait for them to reply to Number 57's polite question on their page. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC).

A slightly tangential question I had about the account was whether their editing counted as a conflict of interest. The article isn't about an organisation they represent, but it is about an event they are organising (but as a government agency they aren't making any money out of it). It somehow strikes me as inappropriate, but I can't quite put my finger on why. Number 57 21:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A conflict of interest doesn't have to involve money. Anyone editing an article about an event they are organising clearly has such a conflict. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

QuackGuru

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

So QuackGuru has made a lot of helpful contributions, and is especially good at supplying references. I support people who passionately and thoughtfully discuss content disputes, and several of our discussions have lead to improved content. But I see complaints from multiple editors on various pages about ownership, reverts that other editors found unwarranted, removal of problem/dispute tags without discussion on the talk page, and personally I feel like several of our discussions have been bogged down in wikilawyering, silly semantic arguments, difficulty appreciating the perspectives of other editors, promoting content other editors find to have an anti-smoking or anti-vaping POV, and a lot of just saying "no" to any argument for changing content, even in cases where several other editors agree. These behaviors seem to match some of those listed at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I'd like to work together more constructively, but I'm not sure how to do that, and I notice that the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, so I thought I'd bring it up here. It also seems interactions with QuackGuru have caused User:Mfernflower to quit working on this topic, which is a red flag that something is wrong with the local Wikipedia culture. The talk pages in question are Talk:Nicotine pouch, Talk:Hospitalized cases in the vaping lung illness outbreak, and Talk:2019–20 vaping lung illness outbreak. -- Beland (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: I'd be very interested to see specific diffs of where QuackGuru was responsible for wikilawyering [and] silly semantic arguments. I took a look through the first of the pages you linked, Talk:Nicotine pouch, and I see a lot of instances where, if we assume QuackGuru is wrong on the substance, his behaviour could be called tendentious wilawyering, but it is outside my area of expertise, and assuming a reported editor is wrong on content, when no evidence of such has been presented, is against normal ANI procedure. (Heck, the last time I filed an ANI report, I did present a mountain of evidence that the reported editor was wrong on the substance, and it was still dismissed as a "content dispute".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you can be both wikilawyering and also happen to be defending the right content. But it's important to the culture of Wikipedia that the correct content is defended against objections by reasonable arguments that address the concerns raised, rather than a discussion that simply protects content, right or wrong, by exhausting anyone who raises a concern. That sort of frustration and burnout is why we lost an editor, and if objections are heard and discussed fairly, it raises confidence in the objectivity and stewardship of the project.

To answer your question directly, at Talk:Hospitalized_cases_in_the_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak#NPOV_issues there's a silly argument that seems to be claiming that "some patients are telling their stories" is not supported by an article about teenage patients sharing stories, and that the claim that teenagers are telling their stories can't be combined (as a violation of WP:SYN) with another claim about people in general being hospitalized and testimonials being reported in the press. This is a distraction from the initial complaint, which is that the text in the article isn't neutral. The main defense of the disputed text is that it is referenced, and can't be generalized because it is not supported by sources, even though there were sources referenced in the body of the same article supporting the claim that patients of various ages (teenagers and otherwise) had shared hospitalization stories. It was frustrating to have to literally list out the ages from every case mentioned in the article; it seems no progress is made in the conversation until every spurious defense is directly contradicted in comments. I went along with idea that claims should be hyper-constrained to the words in the source, which made the article text much worse, and so then it was obvious it needed to be removed, and was.

In Talk:2019–20_vaping_lung_illness_outbreak#Predicting_the_future_in_a_scary_way, we get into another silly argument about whether or not a claim is speculative. QuackGuru argues both that the claim is not making a prediction, and that the prediction has come true. It seems like I'm just getting whatever argument most strongly rebuts the previous comment, rather than a response that argues reasonable points and is trying to work toward a compromise that takes other editors' opinions into account.

At one point in that section I tried to break out of this pattern and elicit consideration of the underlying objection. So then why would I raise an objection on the grounds that it's speculative? I asked, and the reply sounded very lawyerly: See WP:NOTCRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions." That's for unverifiable speculation. Even if it were speculation, verifiable speculation is not against the rules. Your point is moot. It seems this has been interpreted as any speculation that can be found in what could be considered a reliable source (I'm thinking of you, New York Times) is appropriate for the encyclopedia, which is certainly not the case for medical claims. It does fit the pattern of making any logical argument that justifies keeping the current content unchanged, even if it's gratuitously mypoic and not particularly in service of good writing. -- Beland (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place for a chat about your disagreement with another editor. Are there diffs showing problems that should be addressed by administrators? What noticeboard or wikiproject discussions have occurred? People have "silly" arguments every day at Wikipedia but even assuming that to be the case, something much stronger would be needed to warrant an ANI report. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel that characterizing this as "my disagreement" is dismissive of the complaints from and the effects on other editors. I'm not asking for anyone to be blocked from editing, but it does not like a good idea for behavior that causes other editors to quit the topic to go unaddressed. An assessment from someone not involved in a content dispute and suggestions for change would be helpful. -- Beland (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri88, seriously? It's what QG does. Far and away the most annoying of all editors-who-are-usually-right. Guy (help!) 10:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I looked through one of the talk pages linked by Beland, and I saw stuff that could theoretically be sanction-worthy if the editors he was arguing with aren't themselves POV-pushers, undisclosed paid editors, incompetent, etc.; I know we are supposed to assume that they are not, but they are not the ones with an ANI thread being opened on them, so the assumption is rather the other way, pending diffs to the contrary. Effectively dominating the talk page by posting there a bunch of times and consistently placing the burden on the other party might be a violation in theory, but we don't (or shouldn't) sanction editors for doing the right thing in the right circumstances just because it might be the wrong thing if done in the wrong circumstances. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

QG sometimes annoys people, but they're heart is in the right place and they don't mean to be annoying. They can be quite ingenuous, and in their own way, almost charming. The proper venue might be WP:DRN. I don't think it's OWN if they are correctly and factually supporting their edits in policy and with RS.-- Deepfriedokra 12:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, QG annoys people, not exclusively POV-pushers and undisclosed paid editors. Do please note that I'm by no means claiming all, or most, of the people he argues with fall into these categories. But I believe, as a personal opinion, that many of them do. The proportion of UPEs in any field is at the end of the day in the eye of the beholder — it's in the beholder's guesswork/individual judgment/experience — that's where the "undisclosed" comes in. QG is a positive for the encyclopedia, and I hope no civility cop decides he'd be even better if we squashed him a bit. Bishonen | talk 14:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC).
  • Bishonen, I always think twice before disagreeing with you, but I think we might have different views of what a "net positive" might mean. My idea of a "net positive" editor is one who doesn't have a long history of declaring that anything written in your own words has "failed verification". And my idea of encyclopedic content doesn't include breathless descriptions of trivial like "15-year-old Kegan Houck on September 30, 2019, felt dizzy and vomited after using his friend's vape during school at Owen Valley High School", and it certainly wouldn't repeat that level of detail – whole paragraphs that related the person's age, symptoms, treatment, the names of the medical facilities, and the short-term outcome, based on WP:PRIMARYNEWS – through (so far) 16 separate individuals. That's magazine content, not encyclopedia content, and QuackGuru has steadily resisted any effort, across multiple articles, to provide encyclopedic summaries, or even the principle of Wikipedia:Don't be evil ('cause every Wikipedia editor really wants punish these vapers by making Hospitalized cases in the vaping lung illness outbreak to be the top Google hit for their names for the rest of their lives, right?). This editor produces an enormous amount of friction in the community, and I regard continued participation to be a net negative – not a complete negative, but one whose benefits in resisting changes proposed by potential paid advocates has been swamped by the amount of time the rest of us spend explaining that there's a gap between plagiarism and failing verification, and that encyclopedias do not contain a list of every single hospitalized vaper who talked to a reporter for a newspaper you can read for free online. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: My idea of a "net positive" editor is one who doesn't have a long history of declaring that anything written in your own words has "failed verification". is a quite extraordinary and outrageous accusation. I don't often edit e-cigs articles or the like, but I have a history of interacting with QG, and he has never once tagged anything I wrote in my own words as failing verification. You really should withdraw that personal attack post-haste. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, I do not say that he does this for absolutely everything anyone has written. But I do say that he does this far more often than the average editor, and that he has repeatedly perseverated in declaring that a given statement has "failed verification", even after multiple experienced editors have told him that it doesn't. I also say that he has done this on remarkably flimsy grounds such as using a word that both (a) isn't the exact word in the source but (b) is very widely accepted as being a synonym for that word. Consider, e.g., his insistence that a sentence failed WP:V because it said "young people" when the source said "youth". We have been dealing with complaints like that for years. If you have not followed the e-cig articles, or any of the multiple areas that QuackGuru has been banned or restricted from over the years – I don't think there's a single complete list anywhere, but the 2015 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles is especially relevant reading (don't overlook the pair of diffs in their findings of fact, which show QuackGuru claiming that the WP:DAILYMAIL is a fine source when its POV happened aligned with his, but that other POVs require academic review articles) – then it's possible that you are unaware of the problems.

Which reminds me: User:Beland, you're in the wrong place. If you think QuackGuru is being disruptive, then you need to take this ArbCom resolution straight to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. You are unlikely to get any help here at ANI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

On your advice, I have opened Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#QuackGuru. Thanks for the pointer; I hadn't seen that decision before. -- Beland (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You said he has declar[ed] that anything written in your own words has "failed verification". Conversely, that he has repeatedly perseverated in declaring that a given statement has "failed verification", even after multiple experienced editors have told him that it doesn't is not what you said, and even if it were, it would still be a personal attack to claim that he has done this even once unless you present evidence. The only diff you provide is from five years ago, of him making a single revert and referring to a talk page section here, where he interacted with four editors, two of whom have as of now made more than 5,000 edits (i.e., could theoretically be called "experienced"), and of those two one was indeffed for sockpuppetry in 2018 -- not seeing how "multiple experienced editors" come into the mix. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you really not seen QG do this? I have, and I don't even edit regularly in these areas! --JBL (talk)

Hijiri88, dude, he does this all the time. Guy (help!) 16:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hijiri 88, in English, "a long history of ____" does not mean "always does ____ every single time".

And, yes, I could provide you some diffs, or you could put his name in the AN search box and spend 20 seconds finding many previous complaints. Or you could read the talk pages of any article where Quack's been active for a long while. Or you could read the ArbCom case. Or you could wonder exactly how it is that one editor could end up with separate editing restrictions on (from memory) religion, pseudoscience, alternative medicine, and chiropractic, plus a "last chance" warning from ArbCom over exactly this kind of behavior. The diffs I gave you are all in the ArbCom case; I would not want you to be able to dismiss evidence of such behavior as just my own personal opinion that Quack has indeed caused disputes over things like whether youth actually means the same thing as young people (obligatory links to dictionary definitions: wikt:youth#Noun definition #3, definition #2 here, three definitions in two varieties of English there, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This may illustrate the style of discussion some of my colleagues above refer to. I have had little personal interaction with QuackGuru, so cannot make any first-hand claims about how typical this is, but after reading the comments above, I feel it may illustrate the point. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I should clarify something for all of you who seem to be ganging up on me for whatever reason: I never said "QuackGuru never does X" or even "QuackGuru doesn't do X very often"; what I said was that if you are going to claim (on ANI) that QuackGuru does X very often, you need to present diffs or other evidence. (I also found myself dragged into a silly semantic argument wherein I had to defend the simple truism that he doesn't literally do it with every single time he sees a piece of text that is written in a Wikipedian's own words.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• QG is generally established as a useful asset, laying down a heavy barrage on the sundry quacks, POV-pushers and icky vested interests that assault the Project. It's sometimes quite a lonely job, as few have had the stomach to address the issues with (for example) our e-cigarette pages. In recent years however, some of QG's artillery has been misdirected, in particular when crying "failed verification" and calling for lifting of exact wording out of sources in ways which range from unnecessary to actually misrepresenting the overall gist of the source. I am reminded in particular of some exchanges at Paleolithic diet, e.g.[145]. While it's probably still the case the overall QG helps the Project, I think the balance has been shifting and if it continues we are going to reach a tipping point. Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • See Paleolithic diet: "As of 2016 there are limited data on the metabolic effects on humans eating a paleo diet, but the data are based on clinical trials that have been too small to have a statistical significance sufficient to allow the drawing of generalizations.[3][6][23][failed verification]" The first source is from 2015 and obviously fails verification. It can easily be fixed if others acknowledge there is an issue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but that's a different issue to the edit[146] which was in question in the discussion I linked to (and quite apart from anything else, copy-pasting text into Wikipedia with only superficial wording changes raises copyright issues). Alexbrn (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
      • A source from 2015 cannot possibly verify "As of 2016". There is a lot more problematic content. Stating "Maybe" is not helping. The edit[147] was a bit vague. The source said more than that. It can be improved. See the conclusion. There is a failed verification tag using the same source as the edit in question. Do you acknowledge the current wording fails verification? Would you like it fixed? QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I have no idea, the article is not on my watchlist and I haven't been following it for a while. Your failure to address the actual point I raised is just more grist to the mill. Alexbrn (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed boomerang topic ban for Beland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Beland was warned of the sanctions in December 2019.[148] Beland violated consensus by redirecting the article not once[149] but twice.[150] The deletion review was against the merge[151] Beland deleted content that the outbreak could be more pervasive twice.[152][153] Beland thinks it was a policy violation to include the content sourced to a recent review and is complaining at AN/I about this content. AN/I is not the place to argue over content. This warrants a topic ban for Beland for making an AN/I report against me over a disagreement about the content. Support a topic ban for e-cigs as proposer. QuackGuru (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You didn’t even bother to identify what topic. Levivich 14:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is e-cigs. QuackGuru (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a disruptive move on your part, QuackGuru. I suggest you withdraw it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It is disruptive to report me here for a content dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

QuackGuru, You may wish to read WP:POINT. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 15:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Beland deleted content that the outbreak could be more pervasive twice.[154][155] After Beland deleted the same content for the third time[156] they reported me to AN/I. QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a deeply absurd proposal and the decision to make it is in perfect keeping with the problematic behavior Beland describes. --JBL (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, gee, QuackGuru. Are you trying to make me sorry I called you a positive for the encyclopedia? This silly proposal of yours is certainly not an example of it. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose to close and send them to WP:DRN

• Support as proposer Their highly articulated verbiage is wasted here. It is also misplaced. I recommend they apologize to each other for getting overheated and seek the usual remedies for a bloody content dispute.-- Deepfriedokra 18:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  Civil is a pillar. And I intend to do what I can to enforce it. Though I think WP:POINT is something more disputants should read before coming here.-- Deepfriedokra 18:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support The previous section about a topic ban from is the kind of thing that causes chronic issues in these types of discussions. Two editors have a dispute on a talk page, which is complex because it has a content dispute angle and a conduct allegation. One of them hauls then other one to ANI essentially asking for a "third opinion" (which is another way of saying An assessment from someone not involved in a content dispute and suggestions for change. The other editor responds by asking for a topic ban. I predict this will devolve into the usual debates about whether Wikipedia should even have a civility policy. IMHO, these types of things should absolutely have to go through dispute resolution or mediation first before being considered here. People shouldn't be allowed to try to win debates by pulling in an administrator or trying to get people they disagree with reprimanded. ANI should be intractable or severe problems, not as a sort of super charged dispute resolution. Michepman (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the concern about people trying to win disputes by getting the other person disciplined, though there are some complications. In practice, bad behavior of this sort is almost always directed against people who the perpetrator disagrees with, so disallowing people who are in or who have experienced content disputes from filing complaints eliminates most legitimate complaints. It would be nice if objective administrators went on patrol looking for uncivil behavior, and admonished editors on the spot. I don't see that happening in most cases, though I have thought about doing it myself as a way to help close the civility gap on Wikipedia. Right now it seems some topics are alienating to anyone who doesn't have a tolerance for a lengthy, angry argument, just as a function of the personalities who lurk there. As for the problem of people filing disciplinary complaints as a bad-faith way of winning content disputes, I think the best way to deal with that is the way it is being dealt with: uninvolved, hopefully objective people look at the whole situation (not just the complaint) and determine whether the complaint is legitimate, spurious, and whether the complaintant has also misbehaved and deserves discipline. I knew when I opened this thread that my behavior would also be judged, and I think that gives people an incentive to avoid uncivil retaliation when confronted by problematic behavior. -- Beland (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't have a problem with people filing complaints about people they happen to also have content related disputes with. My problem is more the use of WP:ANI, a board that is explicitly for This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems being used to resolve more general disputes or to seek third opinions / guidance on managing debates between editors. The last time Quackguru was reported on WP:ANI was back in September of last year; if you haven't seen that discussion yet, you can read through it. As you can see, it was a master class in how a discussion on WP:ANI can drag on weeks, ranging haphazardly throughout a range of content and conduct disputes and exhausting the energy and patience of at least a dozen administrators and other editors, without coming anywhere near close to a productive resolution to any solution. That discussion was closed by Barkeep49 with what amounts to an admission of stalemate. I think that this discussion will go the same way, because I am seeing the signs of it in the above discussions (not just the retaliatory accusation against you but the way above discussions are ranging into a discussion on whether QG is correct about the content or whether the people he disagrees should be considered paid editors). I don't know if WP:DRN is the best approach (Hijiri88 makes some valid criticisms of that below) but the current system of using WP:ANI for this does not seem to be solving matters either. Michepman (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose No ANI closure should obligate anyone to use DRN until serious structural reforms are implemented that make DRN actually work. The most recent full archive contains two "successful" resolutions, one "failed", and 19 "procedural closes", and of the 19 roughly 13 are actually failed (I'm not sure how "parties refuse to participate" or "one party brought the dispute here in bad faith without using the talk page first" is not a failed dispute resolution) and the other six actually belonged on either ANI or SPI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• No dispute with QG is ever resolved until he gets what he wants or is forcibly removed. Just saying. Guy (help!) 10:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Looking at one issue. User:Beland requests that an "update" tag not be removed as the that section ONLY has sources from September 2019.[157] Was tagged in this edit.[158] Than was quotes as evidence for arbcom action here. Seriously? If you have newer sources than add them. September is only a couple of months ago. This was seriously frivolous. Yes of course send them elsewere. No arbcom is not the solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I think you've confused two different sections; I'll add a clarification and rationale on the talk page. -- Beland (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply to User:Deepfriedokra and others

If there is a content dispute, I am willing to mediate it at DRN. It would be helpful but not required for an administrator to be given a Sword of Damocles after the parties are notified (re-notified) of discretionary sanctions. Any party to the dispute can be warned once and then topic-banned if they do not comply with the rules of the mediation, and blocked for 24 hours for any breaches of civility. Are the parties willing to take part in mediated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Let's ask @Beland and QuackGuru:. And a failed DRN should be required before bringing a contract dispute here. Haven't the patience of Robert.-- Deepfriedokra 09:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  If people start bringing their contract disputes here I think that will be just about the last straw. EEng 16:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

We have a policy that covers contract disputes. Contract disputes are usually dealt with by lawyers, and Wikipedia administrators are quick to block in event of anything that appears to be a legal threat. (In one ugly dispute over intellectual property, I wrote that almost everyone has the privilege of editing Wikipedia, and anyone has the right to use United States courts and to warn of their right to use United States courts, but that no one has the privilege of editing Wikipedia at the same time as they are warning about the possible use of United States courts. The block came within 24 hours, and has been there for a few years.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply to User:Hijiri88 and others

I will encourage discussion of reforms to DRN at Village pump idea lab. However, many DRN cases were never suitable for content dispute resolution, and should not be considered to be failures of dispute resolution so much as either conduct disputes or good-faith confusion of some sort. I encourage discussion at the idea lab. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

But if DRN is already being treated as a go-to for disputes that are not about content but about user conduct (as one particularly editor repeatedly claimed was the problem here, for instance) then surely that rather supports my point that DRN doesn't work and/or is being abused by people who don't want to address user conduct even when it is at the root of this or that problem? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Then that would be a failed DRN . -- Deepfriedokra 09:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not claiming there's a content dispute, I believe it's a behavior problem. One that causes more reliance on dispute resolution mechanisms than should be necessary, like getting third opinions and running RFCs. Those methods have been successful in overcoming obstructionism, but it's just exhausting to have to do that or have a long argument all the time. -- Beland (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DragonDancereturns420

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• DragonDancereturns420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Consistent history of overall disruptive editing from vandalism in articles to a user page that even says they're "not here" and the use of a racial slur on a user talk page. The user should be indef'd for this unexcusable action. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Indef'd. WP:AIV could have worked for a report on this user as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pudeo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made an unprovoked personal attack, accusing three editors of WP:Tag team editing. According to the essay, Wikipedia's definition of tag teaming is "a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." The only evidence Pudeo cites is that the editors have edited some of the same articles.

I requested here and here, and Objective3000 requested here, for Pudeo to show evidence of coordination or strike their comments. Pudeo refused, and instead doubled down.

I would like for an administrator to rectify this in accordance with the warning at the top of WP:AE: "Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." Thank you. - MrX 🖋 21:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX I can't possibly see how there is a personal attack in the first link provided. Please quote/be more specific. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Willbb234:

• "It is evident without a doubt that there is tag-teaming at play here. After Snooganssnoogans recently brought up SashiRolls on Awilley's talkpage, MrX and Objective3000 commented there within an hour[159]."
• "Based on the editor interaction tool with Objective3000 and MrX, it's fairly obvious they are following each other's edits to give back-up."

From WP:NPA"What is considered to be a personal attack?... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Lazily showing that editors edit some of the same article is not serious evidence. - MrX 🖋 22:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why does this need to be here and not in the AE thread you opened about SashiRolls (talk · contribs), who similarly has said that you tag-team and what that thread is about? In fact, I did provide some diffs in my AE comment. As I mentioned on my talkpage, there are 93 articles that you, O300 and Snoogans have edited within 10 minutes of each other according to the editor interaction tool (I still find that result incredible). Writing my own analysis that you tag-team is not a personal attack in an AE thread where your own behavior is being also evaluated as a filer. --Pudeo (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belkas SC

Tired of reverting promotional and unsourced content by a COI account; in fact, Wikipedia's magic sensors won't allow me to revert the latest edit, thinking it's vandalism. See also the article talk page, which has another version of this. Asking for reversion to the last acceptable edit, and a block of the disruptive account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I reverted and warned in my dif. Someone beat me to the partial block.-- Deepfriedokra 12:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It's always trains - British Rail Class 153 and editing against sources

user:Jwoch & (their IPs) seems to be a single issue account, intent on changing the manufacturer of British Rail Class 153 from one company to another, based on a claim of managing the project. This conflicts with the sourcing of the article.

This has been recorded several times in the past, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#Editor repeatedly changing information to contradict sources. At that point they were indefed, but later unblocked.

Sadly, although it seems this user is here in good faith, they just don't seem to get it that all the sources disagree with them.

~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Also a note that this Porterbrook data sheet doesn't appear to be on the internet - see a search for "site:porterbrook.co.uk class 153". Obviously not a requirement for sources to be online, but when your source contradicts every other source, the Sagan standard applies. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

109.150.19.176 is the latest IP, and referred in his edit summaries to Porterbrook's website, as did user:Jwoch in recent comments on User talk:Redrose64, but on User talk:109.150.19.176 I have pointed out that there appears to be no such evidence on that website.--David Biddulph (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to get too bogged down in the details. As I read it, they were indefinitely blocked for poor sourcing, and now they are not only still maintaining the same behavior but logging out in order to do so. The first may be a competence issue, the latter is certainly evasion of scrutiny, and combined, that = immediate restoration of the earlier block—with no option for private appeals, no offence @JzG:! ——SN54129 20:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, none taken. AGF is not a suicide pact. Guy (help!) 22:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• The Porterbrook data sheet probably was on the internet at some point, prior to the current site design. See [160] on Archive.org. Unfortunately the data sheets themselves were not crawled. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• 153 Brochure.pdf —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Alex Noble, I unblocked on the basis of a promise to stick to sources. He seems not to get it, still. I have reblocked. Guy (help!) 22:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• I wish it was always trains. Then we would have only one topic where fans get worked up about things that most people regard as trivialities. I can understand when people get annoyed about Middle Eastern politics or Brexit or whether Donald Trump is a genius, but there are many other things, which are certainly not limited to trains, where nearly everyone just looks on incredulously when they become contentious issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  See User:EEng#EEng's_half-serious_list_of_topics_on_which_WP_should_just_drop_all_coverage_as_not_worth_the_drama. EEng 02:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  Imagine if wrestling with trains became a thing. Arghh. John from Idegon (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  Beauty pageant contestants wrestling with trains. EEng 08:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  I should just throw together a random controversial category generator out of those. "RuPaul's Catalan footy career." "Wrestlers who play video games." "Beauty pageant winners with disputed musical genres." "Anime about snooker on a train." ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, most of those categories are populated. No kidding. EEng 18:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Richinstead

• Richinstead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Long term promotional account, with some copyright violations today. Appears to work in public relations for the university. Hasn't responded to messages re: copyright, advertising or COI. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I was drafting a thread at ANI while the IP posted (that was fast!) This was brought to my attention by a report at WP:AIV by the IP. The IP warned the user regarding UPE and asked them to disclose any association (Special:PermaLink/939634821), all of which was subsequently removed without any reply (Special:Diff/939636212). Seeing the contributions, it is obvious that there is some connection between the subjects they edit and themselves, whether it is COI or UPE, I'm not sure about, and in such circumstances I'm not comfortable making a UPE-block, whereas other more experienced adminstrators could have made a call. So, it's probably better that this is discussed at a centralized venue. If you're replying about something I said and not the issue itself, consider pinging me as I'll be away working on a bot! Thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a really long term promotional editor. I say 'really' because this dates from six years ago, when the user may have been editing on behalf of a different institution [161]. And [162]. Thank you, QEDK. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I am aware of that, yes. I'm fairly new to the mop corps so I'd rather leave it up to the oldies, as I'm not that well-versed with UPE blocks, that's all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Not intending to belabor the obvious, nor directing that at you. Making it more transparent for subsequent readers. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• The point of a block would be preventing further similar contributions if warnings don't help; it is currently not entirely clear if this is the case. The user has received their first warning about the topic today, after 10 years of registration. It is probably reasonable to use {{uw-paid1}}, and possibly even {{uw-paid2}} and {{uw-paid3}} before blocking the user. That said, I guess neither qedk nor me will hesitate to do just that if needed. I think we can close this thread; this is being dealt with. Thank you for noticing the issue, dealing with the promotional edits and filing a report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, none of this is true. Just trying to help edit pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richinstead (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• You mean like this [163]? And this promotional text and copyright violation [164], or this [165]. Or this [166]? Or this [167]? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess both of you are correct – trying to help and making mistakes aren't mutually exclusive. I still think this can be closed now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem with closing, and I appreciate your diplomacy, ToBeFree. My response has been based not only on the lengthy history of promotional edits--one can't simultaneously take credit for years of 'helpful' contributions and claim ignorance of the most basic premise of neutrality--but on the unwillingness to own years of unacceptable edits. Instead my report was referred to as 'fake news.' So no, I'm not inclined to offer slack. There's not a clear indication that they understand what's unacceptable about their edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Cluebat needed on Balija

Balija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Protection and EW clueiron required. Ideally by someone with an inclination towards Indian caste issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A caste iron? EEng 06:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

While you are at it, you can hit Andy Dingley with a "civility ban hammer". 2600:1003:B846:797D:A876:3B24:39A3:548F (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

IP is unnecessarily Removing my Contents with Perfect Reference in the article Balija

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

An IP address of 49.206.124.217 is always removing my article in Balija page. eventhough i created it with Perfect Reference so Please Block him or take necessary action on him to prevent editwarring. Please consider this admins — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)]] comment added by Sathyanarayana naidu (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Jeanette Wilson page

I have recently discovered a Wikipedia page set up in my name. It is libelous and malicious and was the work of a group of individuals who call themselves the Good Thinking Society - they are trying to stop my UK and NZ tour. I have a screen shot of their facebook group post congratulating themselves on the creation of my page. Please can the page be taken down ASAP -

File:Facebook group

Good Thinking Society

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace11111 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Peace11111 Please withdraw your legal threat, or you will need to be blocked. Legal threats are not permitted on Wikipedia. While it is certainly your right to take legal action, you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both simultaneously. I've already explained how you can address allegedly libelous content, which you seem to have done. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Powell (disambiguation)

Hello, I just stumbled by accident on this vandalism that has lasted for almost 2 months. Someone'd better include such pages in their own watchlist.. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The irrelevant linker is back

Following the expiry of the block due to this ANI thread, this same range is doing it again: [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173]. Pinging @Narky Blert, Samwalton9, Serial Number 54129, Boing! said Zebedee, RexxS, and Bbb23: from the previous discussion. ミラP 22:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought maybe they'd given up? I've seen only one example in the last month or so (1 day IP user, 5 edits, 3 reasonable-looking, 2 piles of rubbish reverted).

See also Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 14#Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words. Narky Blert (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Still mostly disruptive changes, very unlikely to be constructive. I've re-blocked the IPv6 /64 range for a little longer. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Note. Experience suggests that it only or largely edits in sections titled "Tokusatsu". Narky Blert (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Three years is way too long. I've reduced the block to six months – even the stickiest addresses typically don't stay allocated to the same person for that long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This editor bounces between IPs like a Super Ball in a squash court. (A mate tried that once, with a black one. The ball shattered on impact, and he and his opponent spent the next few minutes cowering in the corners until the fragments came to rest.) I've seen addys in both the 1xx and 2xxx ranges; few used for more than a single day, and often stale when found. Long blocks risk collateral damage. Narky Blert (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: The filter had to many FPs to set to disallow. I've narrowed it down only to pages containing "Tokusatsu", which I hope is good enough. I have not set the filter to disallow; I'd rather see if the block works, first. If they evade it, please let me know. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: Thanks. Unless this editor changes their modus operandi, I think filtering for "Tokusatsu" should work. They only need make one edit to an article containing that word to come under scrutiny, and I doubt they'd be able to resist the temptation. Narky Blert (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Rajbongshi people

I can not untangle this, and it seems to be undergoing a lot of conflicting edits and original research. What I can request is that someone run a copyright violation check on this, because it seems to be an issue for large passages of the article. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Pankaj Koch at Talk:Rajbongshi people

Blatant threat of legal action by disruptive editor User:Pankaj koch here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that that is a blatant threat of legal action, but could well be interpreted as an attempt by someone without English as their first language to say that they will take action within Wikipedia, which is allowed without a block. I see that the user has been blocked for this by User:ToBeFree, but would personally not agree with that block without further clarification about what was meant here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the block reason isn't ideal, but the block appears to be necessary. I have seen this message, but will wait for the pending CU result before commenting further. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I would have blocked myself per WP:CIR, as this user's proficiency in English doesn't seem to be sufficient for participating in an English-language collaborative encyclopedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I will replace the block reason by "Disruptive editing with a conflict of interest". I am merging this ANI section with the above section; both seem to be about the same topic. Regarding checkuser, the account has now been described as "unlikely" to be a sockpuppet, so a part of my original concern has been alleviated. The "legal threat" by itself indeed isn't a good reason for a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

'Seeking Legal Action'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have just blocked Jarmusic2‎ (talk · contribs) per 'If this information Is not change I will be seeking Legal Action as the DEAL IS DONE AND HE IS FINALLY A DODGER.' I here seek review of the block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. Seems like a standard lblock. El_C 08:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorse, @Beetstra:, this seems a fairly standard legal threat (with no DOLT concerns, at that). They have now (just about) withdrawn their legal threat in their appeal, which can be reviewed in the normal way, but the underlying block was fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully it will be reviewed in the same spirit as any other unblock request that said so you people can stop crying... ——SN54129 10:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Or I did not know you guys are crybabies :D ——SN54129 10:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave any unblock request to an uninvolved admin. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that the user has been unblocked, having withdrawn their threat of taking legal action. El_C 10:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 110.33.138.212

Hello, I have an issue with 110.33.138.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) arising from edits on 7 February to Alec Douglas-Home, which is a featured article. The IP began with an edit to main narrative which duplicates information that is already held in a footnote. I contend that the information is trivial and should not be in the narrative of a featured article, though it is perhaps worth mentioning in the footnote. I reverted the edit and emphasised the trivia aspect in my edit summary. The IP restored the statement and I reverted again with a request that they follow the terms of WP:BRD and raise the issue on the article talk page. I also pointed out the duplication aspect. The IP restored the statement again with what amounts to a personal attack.

I have no intention of going anywhere near WP:Edit warring. The IP has ignored my request for BRD and, given their attitude in the edit summaries, I doubt very much if discussion will achieve anything. I see in the person's contribution history that a similar attitude was displayed at 2012 Australian Labor Party leadership spill when Nick-D twice had to revert and later inform the IP that personal opinions cannot be included in articles. The IP appears to favour indiscriminate information along the lines of "this was the only time that...." Examples of this approach can be seen at Geoffrey Palmer (politician), Walter Nash, 1960 Australian Labor Party leadership election, 1974 Australian federal election and, most recently, Bob Ellicott. This stuff tends to be added as single sentence paragraphs which are of course deprecated and, much more importantly, it is never sourced.

I have left the Douglas-Home article alone since the last restoration as I would prefer a consensus on the matter. If that should go against me, fine, but I would argue that the statement is duplication of WP:IINFO which reduces the quality of a featured article. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Having just seen this edit by the IP which reverts a request by Materialscientist for a source, I will step aside for the time being because I am being accused of malpractice. In fact, I am merely trying to preserve article quality in the face of some questionable edits by this IP who has been criticised and reverted by three or four other editors besides myself. I don't think the IP's edit summaries are particularly edifying. They include: "This is not a good faith edit as No Good Shaker has no understanding at hand and had been going through my edit history as retaliation for a disagreement that develop at the Alec Douglas Home article", "Bbb23 is being troublesome", "Unlike No Great Shaker, I am an Australian and I know what I am talking about" (justifying original research?) and "No need to prove what 2 and 2 equals to" (repudiating WP:V). I think a sysop needs to look at the contributions and decide if this IP is here to help build the encyclopaedia according to site conventions or if they are here to do whatever they feel like doing. On the face of it, the edits appear to be AGF but the IP's attitude indicates otherwise. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing - David James Connolly Australia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

David James Connolly Australia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted spam links to a website called truckerjacket dot com into jean jacket, which I removed. The user subsequently created a WP:POVFORK at Trucker Jacket which I redirected, but it has since been completely deleted so I imagine my edit got reverted in-between.

creffett, who nominated the article for speedy deletion, left a conflict of interest message notifying David James Connolly Australia about paid editing, but the COI was denied.

The COI is obvious from the editing but were there any doubt, the Australian Business Register shows that a David James Connolly owns the business being promoted.

Either our editor is indeed the same David James Connolly and owner of the website they are promoting (whilst denying paid editing) or they are masquerading under a misleading username. Either way, could an admin ensure it does not continue?

Many thanks, Dorsetonian (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked as an advertising only account. MER-C 13:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Dorsetonian (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tregias003

After receiving a plethora of warnings on their Talk page and being blocked just a month ago, Tregias003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still displaying problematic behavior:

• making unsourced additions: 1, 2, 3
• removing content without explanation: 1, 2

Robby.is.on (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for administrative enforcement of 5patrickgilles5

FYI

 – Copied much of the text and diffs from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#America is still the place

I had been fixing some broken redirects on Special:BrokenRedirects and, in so doing, noticed that the above-captioned user had incorrectly replaced the redirect with a simple bibliographic entry at the America is still the place redirect. I kindly reverted the edits (had to do it in two steps as I don't have rollback privileges) to establish consensus at Talk:America is still the place. What follows is the copied text and relevant diffs from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#America is still the place.

Per the discussion at autoconfirmed editor 5patrickgilles5's talk page, as well as my own talk page, I'm requested temporary extended confirmed protection of this redirect to allow the consensus process at RfD to play out. The editor insisted on creating an uncited bibliographic entry for this article name, which I've kindly explained Wikipedia is WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY and that the correct place to incubate their article is at Draft:America is still the place. Since the editor is still not assuming good faith and adhering to WP:BRD, WP:ECP for a week or so, or some other enforcement, is necessary.

• Initial diffs here and here (done separately because I don't have rollback privileges). After advising the editor to follow WP:BRD, the editor still insisted on adding back the bibliographic entry here.
• Comment I noted that the editor is also trying to do the [174] same at the I'm Charlie Walker redirect and that John from Idegon warned the editor via edit summary. Noting the COI warning the editor received from Marchjuly, I'm now thinking at least a temporary block may be in order for this editor and/or a removal of their "autoconfirmed" status.
• Comment Now the editor, while presumably in good faith, is casting aspersions and, incorrectly, attributing Marchjuly's earlier notification re: potential COI to being from me in this edit.

Given the above, I think, at minimum, the editor's "autoconfirmed" user right should be manually revoked, and the editor should be temporarily blocked or blocked from editing the related redirects and target page. Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment As the editor has now, after needless intransigence, finally begun the Draft:America is still the place in Draft: namespace as I suggested. So, a block or partial block is not likely necessary, but I would ask the editor revert this edit and for an administrator to delete the revision. Similarly, temporary WP:ECP may still be necessary for the redirects to Mike Colter. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 23:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I had edited two pages with factual first-hand knowledge exempt from any conflict of interest. Dmehus has, without concensus, and his/her own words, "I had been fixing some broken redirects" which were not "broken". A draft page had just been create less than 10 minutes ago to resolve the issue with civility and Dmehus is now requesting "revoking my user's privileges". This request falls far outside the codes of civility and should be a warning to all contributors that Dmehus can no longer be considered a "neutral" party in this discussion. His/her own words, "I think" and "user right manually REVOKED" and "Blocked" should not be taken lightly. I call on neutral parties to temper Dmehus' quest for punishment of others on the platform and restore civility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5patrickgilles5 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Noting the unsigned comment...where are you, SineBot? For clarity, the immediately above unindented paragraph is not from me. Doug Mehus T·C 23:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The editor is now parroting me by repeating my notices to the editor back to me in this edit diff. Doug Mehus T·C 23:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

So that edit need not be revision deleted, but the editor should revert it. Doug Mehus T·C 23:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

---

@Dmehus: just use the {{unsigned}} template. @5patrickgilles5: maybe it's time you take a step back, discuss the changes you are proposing and... learn the basics before effectively defacing pages. Just take a breather, acquaint yourself with Wikipedia and go from there, please. El_C 23:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

El C, thanks for the template; wasn't aware of that.

I think it needs a little than the editor taking a step back, not a block necessarily, but, perhaps, page blocks temporarily of the redirects to Mike Colter and/or revocation of their autoconfirmed user right given the consistent failure to adhere to WP:BRD. Doug Mehus T·C 23:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) BRD isn't really policy, but just sort of recommended practice; so, even though not adhering to it in and of itself isn't a really good idea, not following it isn't a blockable offense per se. Edit warring, violating WP:3RR or violating WP:PAID, however, are all blockable offenses. If all that stops, and attempts by are made to 5patrickgilles5 understand how Wikipedia works (particularly with respect to COI and PAID eidting) and then seek resolution through discussion, then there should be no need for any blocks to be issued; if things don't settle down, on the other hand, then that's when an administrator should step in and take action. Whether an article about the film itself is currently warranted or the page should be re-directed might be worthy of further discussion at WP:AFD or WP:RFD since there does appear to be some disagreement about it, but again it will be the community which decides such a thing based upon Wikipedia policy and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• Comment: I posted this message on the user talk page of Bovineboy2008, which I'm guessing that "5patrickgilles5" saw because he subsequently posted this asking for help on my user talk page. I responded here. I then added a {{Welcome-coi}} template to the 5patrickgilles5's user talk page with this edit and a {{Connected contributor (paid)}} template to Talk:I'm Charlie Walker with this edit. An account named Strong Island 4 posted this on my user talk page, but I'm not sure why. It could be WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT or just a coincidence. Anyway, I responded to that post here. 5patrickgilles5 posted again on my user talk here and here, and I responded here. That's the extent of my involvement in the matter as to whether "I'm Charlie Walker" should be a redirect or an article.
  My personal opinion is that 5patrickgilles5 probably meant well when he created the article about the film back in April 2015, but wasn't aware of WP:COI or WP:PAID he did. When he tried to have the name of the page changed, it got noticed by others and converted to a revert, most likely per WP:NFILM or WP:TOOSOON#Films. 5patrickgilles5 saw this and disagreed with this, which is where the WP:EW started. While I think 5patrickgilles5 should possibly be cut a little slack per WP:BITE, the edit warring should stop and he needs to understand that at least on Wikipedia he's probably going to be considered to have a COI with respect to the film, and also most likely would need to meet WP:PAID. Once the film has been released, it might generate enough significant coverage (not sure if that's the case now) for an article to be re-added about it; even in that case, however, 5patrickgilles5 would should to follow WP:COIADVICE/WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and would need to understand WP:OWN means neither he nor anyone else associated with the film has any final editorial control of a Wikipedia article written about it. So, perhaps an administrator warning is all that's needed here as long as the situation doesn't worsen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Concur with that, and I'd just add to adhere to WP:BRD, WP:AGF, and not cast aspersions. Doug Mehus T·C 00:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

See also my and the editor's talk pages. I do want the editor to self-revert the good-faith confusion of you and I, and for that revision to be deleted. Doug Mehus T·C 00:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You can restore the original signature yourself per WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors if you like; just give that as your reason in your edit summary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, it wasn't a signature issue, though. In the text of the content, the editor addressed me by full name. Given that it was unwarranted allegation, I thought it useful to delete the revision. Doug Mehus T·C 00:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Understand now. I get why that bothers you and it's right to ask for a retraction/clarification, but I'm assuming it's just due to confusion and your response will make it clear to anyone reading the thread that it's most likely just a mix up. This might also just be a mix up as well because silly errors are sometimes made in the rush to post a response, especially regarding contentious matters. At this point, it might be better to wait and see if things settle down and let the admins handle it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Marchjuly. Yeah, El C said it basically just makes the editor look silly, and from the sounds of it, I guess any administrator looking at that reference to me and seeing your notice would look at the diffs, eh? I'll leave for it now, but I am hoping a non-involved administrator or editor will close this ANI thread as the editor has been sufficiently warned and told to adhere to BRD, to assume good faith, and to consider the guidance Marchjuly gave them re: potential COI considerations. Doug Mehus T·C 01:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked Strong Island 4 as a sock. I've taken no action against 5patrickgilles5 as the master for the moment. I've reverted the article back into an article. It makes no sense to redirect the article to one of the stars of the film, especially with that name, which was inappropriate from the get-go as it's not the name of the film. Clearly, some community discussion is needed, so after I restored the article, I nomininated it for AfD to let the community decide its fate. As for 5patricgilles5, I am a hair's breadth from blocking him for disruption and NOTHERE. If he doesn't calm down, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

187Ernest

187Ernest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in disruptive behavior, and appears to be WP:NOTHERE.

I am going to go back farther in history than usual, because he has made few edits per year, but the edits he has made have been largely disruptive. Sometimes we have trouble recognizing editors who disrupt or vandalize in slow motion.

• One previous block for deliberately introducing false information:[175]

• Deliberately introducing factual errors:[176] (He called the book title "Cracker: Cracker Culture in Texas History" when the actual title is "Cracker: The Cracker Culture in Florida History"[177]. This appears to be an attempt to fool new page patrollers regarding sourcing for the Texas cracker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page, which 187Ernest created with a snarky edit comment less than 24 hours previously. (Please note that he had previously been warned about deliberately introducing incorrect information.[178][179])

• Deliberately introducing factual errors, citing a source that does not support the claim:[180][181][182]

• Another example of a claim not supported by the source:[183][184][185]

• Edit warring and personal attacks: [186][187][188][189]

• Copyvio:[190] (the actual edit was revdeleted)

• Joke vandalism:[191][192]

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - 187Ernest has made 916 edits over seven years, and their talk page is filled with warnings, yet this editor has responded on their talk page just four times:

1. [193] - "🖕🏼Don’t you Wikipedia editors have anything better to do than always correct my editing and blocking me for 24 hours. All you guys do is correct my edits your being very abusive towards me. All you Wikipedia editors probably don’t have lives, wives or girlfriends or you all probably don’t have jobs please do yourselves a favor and get a life and get a job".
2. [194] - "You need to get a fucking life User:Robvanvee and you and other Wikipedia editors need to stop notifying me every time I edit something on Wikipedia".
3. [195] -"Leave 187Ernest alone... Please leave me alone".
4. [196] - Removed comment #2 above.

Low-quality edits and a combative attitude do not improve the project. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The worst offense is deliberately introducing false information. Look at This edit and try to verify the claim in the source cited. Most vandalism is obvious and quickly removed. This type of vandalism sticks around. It could be years before someone checks that particular false claim and notices that the source doesn't support the claim. An editor who does that is a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia and should be indefinitely blocked, Clearly the multiple warnings and previous temporary block had no effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Constant introduction of false information

• Juansantos123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Microsoft Translator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Google Translate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See the previous ANI discussion, after which Special:Contributions/2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64 was blocked for three months. After the IP block ended, the user Juansantos123 has continued more or less the same activity on the same or related pages. In addition to some useful edits, the user continually introduces speculative or outright false information related to translation services and the Hong Kong MTR; all eight of their edits since 5 February have introduced false information. The user has not responded to any of the messages on their talk page, and nor did any of the IPs. Jc86035 (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Notifying ComplexRational and EdJohnston (from the last ANI discussion). Jc86035 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Jc86035 Thank you for the notification. This looks like a duck to me, and if so, has not learned anything from their past blocks and still refuses to communicate. Regardless, I'd go straight for an indefinite block for a history of disruptive editing and CIR. ComplexRational (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

NOTHERE, CIR or both

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jaguar E-Type AstonMartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been dumping incoherent stuff mainly into James Bond-related article talkpages since August 2019. He's also dumped some incoherent BLP violations on the talkpage of Donald Trump. The account edits are low volume, but still the question arises if they should be allowed to edit on this wiki. Dr. K. 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

72.226.21.114 reported by FlightTime

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

72.226.21.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Multiple BLP voi's, changing leinage to what they believe. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hi FlightTime, I find the lack of policy/guideline links in the discussion at Talk:Bill_Maher, and an apparent disregard of WP:BLPCAT concerning, so I'm moving this here – it may need more time and explanation than a usual AIV report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any excuses, guess I should try and do better in the future. Thanx. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries from my side then; I guess I should just have asked you directly instead. That was quick, thank you too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I would of replied quicker, but I was at PokerStars :P - FlightTime (open channel) 20:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Spam by Mdendr

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

About one and one half years ago User:Mdendr was warned about indiscriminately adding links to the site http://www.epistemeacademy.org with no attempt to integrate the addition to the structure of the article. Similar edits were made around 15 March 2019, although no warning was issued at that time. The behavior resumed today, for example, [197] and [198]. Editing links to this site seems the editor's primary activity in recent years. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wuhan vandal revdel please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we clean the last few edits and summaries please. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change of Date format in multiple articles

I've never had to make a report before so please excuse any mistakes or ommissions.

An IP editor 212.116.64.26 is changing dates DMY format to MDY in multiple articles.[[199]] [[200]] [[201]] [[202]] [[203]] [[204]] [[205]] [[206]] [[207]] [[208]] [[209]]

And probably a few more besides.

When reverted, they simply revert despite explanations on their talk page.[[210]] I don't have any special tools and it is becoming increasingly difficult to revert without removing intermediate edits. I have probably also broken the 3RR. Sorry.--Ykraps (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Previously blocked for this kind of behavior by El_C. Favonian (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

They obviously don't want to discuss this, so I have renewed the block. Favonian (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• OT - but are they methods, or thoughts of implementing something, so that dates (and spelling variations) can be shown in the language/region variation of the reader (rather than the language/region variation of the subject)? On one hand, I can see why some would start fixing what is "clearly wrong" in their eyes. On the other, we are forever inconsistent, particularly for articles where the selection of local formatting/spelling isn't going to be clear. Nfitz (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, yes although that can be a bit tricky, albeit much easier if all dates were converted to a template format. There would also be a side issue of people asking why all the dates had changed whenever they switched between browsers with different language/regional preferences. Getting back to the main point, even if all dates were in template format, you'd still need someone to do the back-end work, and historically speaking that kind of stuff has tended to proceed at a glacial pace. volunteers? 74.73.230.72 (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia User "钉钉" Block request

Hello? My Name is "브릴란떼(Brillante)" I'm From Seoul, Rep. of Korea

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

This user attempted to edit the "Yeouido" document several times, making photo disturbances close to vandalism, which prevented other users' free editing.
On the bus ride on 21st December, 2019, I took Yeouido directly with my smartphone and recently uploaded photos to Wikimedia Commons and started using them in Yeouido documents. No, it was a biased way of returning to the past. I clearly told myself that it was a photo I took myself, but I continued to abuse it as if it was a clean picture.
We ask for the proper handling of this user and leave a link. This is My Picture Thank you. --브릴란떼 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(Reply from a non-admin) Since there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says that photos taken on a bus are automatically accepted, this seems to be a content dispute, about the relative merits of two photos. Which should be discussed on the article talk page. I suggest you start such a discussion, before an actual admin notices this thread and decides to block both of you for edit-warring. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on Talk:Yeouido#Which should be the lead image? shows that the original photo is more accepted by the community. It is a consensus from the community. 钉钉 (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@브릴란떼:, comrade, your Wikipedia editing stint is off to a bad start if you are using claimed ownership to justify bringing a content dispute to AN/I when not even your first dozen edits have passed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 08:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• The same battle also rages on other wiki's, under the same user names, as evidenced by the edit histories of the same article. Korean history Japanese history, Chinese history. User:钉钉 primarily edits at the Chinese wiki, and has been there for nearly eight years. The transgressor appears to be User:브릴란떼, who wants to place their own photo over the one used for a long time - though this should be over now, given the consensus at Talk:Yeouido#Which should be the lead image? that the original image that User:브릴란떼 keeps removing is superior. Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible rangeblock?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's ongoing trolling re the alleged whistleblower from BNSL addresses (an Indian mobile operator), often triggering Special:AbuseFilter/1008.

• 117.209.176.0/20
  • 117.209.184.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.209.224.0/20
  • 117.209.227.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.219.208.0/20
  • 117.219.220.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.249.128.0/20
  • 117.249.134.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 117.249.215.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.251.224.0/20
  • 117.251.232.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

There may well be more, log entries for the abuse filter are suppressed. Is this worth rangeblocking, or should I just carry on playing whack-a-mole? Guy (help!) 16:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Based on checkuser results, the vandal has access to the following ranges:
  • 117.209.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 117.219.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 117.245.96.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 117.249.128.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 117.251.224.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

There is fairly high collateral damage. If we consider their activity significantly harmful, I suggest hardblocking all of the ranges for not more than a day or two. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the interest of all BSNL users (BSNL is the largest Internet provider in the country), I plead with you to remove these rangeblocks. Participation in Wikipedia is already low from developing countries. You should not block an entire country like this. I can assure you that the people will exercise self control and not trigger the AbuseFilter in the future. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.243.20.58 (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

NEGUS1010: personal attacks

NEGUS1010 (talk · contribs) became very incensed when asked by Whpq (using the regular politely worded template) if they are a paid editor. N1010 replied with personal attacks, to which Whpq, still very calmly, replied with an explanation of why the template was placed. This resulted in another attack, for which N1010 was given a AGF notification. The attacks have since escalated; I gave N1010 a final warning for personal attacks and for requesting that other editors disclose their real identity, and since then they have among other things (for someone who claims to be here only to edit articles, they spend a lot of time and energy on tweaking and perfecting insults on their user talk page) posted this, which is really beyond the pale. (I removed that and they restored it.) They seem to be quite angry, and I am not going to involve myself further, except for posting the ANI notice to their talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 22:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for personal attacks after warning. El_C 22:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Could the "beyond the pale" edit I linked above, and subsequent ones including the same external link, be revdeled (or am I being unnecessarily sensitive?) --bonadea contributions talk 23:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we're alright, actually. Unless I'm missing something. El_C 00:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

An external link to a review of a handgun added as a "reference" to the sentence "This your final warning [sic]", directed against a fellow editor, after having repeatedly asked for that editor's real name? I would not consider that all right, but I am not an admin. --bonadea contributions talk 07:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I blocked a few NEGUS1010 socks, including NEGUS1010X, Sarrounia, and SEKHEMX. It might be worth considering an indef block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support indef block- The incessant insults and now the socking suggests this user is clearly not here to edit the encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 06:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Already done. User indeffed. El_C 06:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please help with WP:AIV backlog

Not attended to in the last five hours. Multiple reports. Hydromania (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems resolved... for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

KHMELNYTSKYIA and topic ban violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The user has been topic-banned from Ukraine topics broadly construed, as arbitration enforcement. They have been twice blocked in October for the topic ban violation, on 24 October for a months. All their edits after the block expired are about Ukraine.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Blocked indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated unsourced genres

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user ignores final warnings, previous blocks and personal pleas on their talk page by continuing to add unsourced genre's as can be seen here, here, here and here for example. They have also taken to adding sources that do not make any mention of the genre's they add as can be seen here. On top of all that they have yet to make any effort to communicate with any of the editors (myself ,FlightTime & ValarianB) that have brought these issues to their talk page since their previous block for the same reason. Please could an admin cast an eye over these disruptive edits. Robvanvee 08:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

More since this report was filed

• 1
• Source calls it "deep sea rock". User adds "Space rock" to article.
• Source calls the album a rock opera. User adds "rock opera" to song genre. Robvanvee 11:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe they can do one of those "block them to get their attention" types of blocks? It's the non-communication that irritates the most here, the other problem (mass genre changes sourced to ephemeral "100 of the best songs ever!" lists) can be discussed pending a response. ValarianB (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. User:Tamer Gunner's editing history shows a single purpose focus on adding and changing song genres without sourcing and/or adding false sourcing. They have persisted despite reverts and warnings by multiple editors. After a previous block for this, they jumped right back into the same behavior. Attempts to communicate have gone unanswered. I've blocked them indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Defamation process

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the article ro: Mircea Ciobanu (painter) I was threatened last night with a defamation process by the ro: User: ClayAMC with whom I collaborated by email to write the article starting in December 2019. As as a result, I deleted the entire content of the Mircea Ciobanu page and the discussion page. The problem was a text of an art critic who did not agree with it and was the only one who balanced the neutral point of view. In addition, I also received a book written in 2012 by ro: Grid Modorcea that said different things that were not suitable. I did not intend to introduce defamatory facts, which I can prove by correspondence with ClayAMC. I do not know if he will really do what he intended, but maybe you can help me if things get worse. You can get in touch with ClayAMC and settle the dispute. Asybaris01 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You **** fuck

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ima leave this for the next admin. For the record, my warning on their talk page was prompted by this edit. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

YourNanTasteNice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I blocked YourNanTasteNice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an offensive username. Any admin is free to adjust or lift the block, help the user rename the account, or whatever, no need to ping me first. Guy (help!) 11:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will challenge you on that one. Looks like they'd have been blocked indef shortly anyway if their first edit is anything to go by. Canterbury Tail talk 14:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Not Rosguill

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Similar to previous recent incident involving Not Hog Farm apparently attempting to impersonate Hog Farm, who was subsequently blocked by kingboyk, I noticed this user's name show up at AfD and RfD. The user was just created today and its only contributions have been in threads in which administrator Rosguill participated.

I've reported the user at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but am wondering, given the close timeframe between the impersonations and the modus operandi between the two imposters, is it worth requesting a quick CheckUser if not an SPI?

Thanks,
--Doug Mehus T·C 16:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't bother filing anything. I've blocked the user as an impersonator and, with some difficulty because of all your SPA tags to their edits, removed all their edits from the redirect discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, Thank you. I wasn't sure if it was necessary to tag with SPA. I will leave off that step if I see something similar happen again. Doug Mehus T·C 17:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, you have 8,000 edits, 40% of which are to Wikipedia space, and you keep breaking stuff and venturing uninformed opinions. I suggest you just edit articles for a while. Guy (help!) 17:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I've suggested that before; doesn't work.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus, Bbb23, and JzG: I've tagged the accounts in case they come back with new sockpuppets. ミラP 21:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: I've removed the tags. You should not be tagging users as socks. Please don't do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23, Dmehus, and JzG: Thanks. Just to be safe, anyone wanna be on the lookout for WP:DUCKlings at RFD? ミラP 02:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I'm a WP:RFD regular and will be keeping my eyes open. Narky Blert (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Many, many years ago I requested my user and talk pages be deleted, which were done as at the time I was not terribly well. I believe a decade or so later that this may have been helpful for myself at the time, but it seems now it was a kindness not granted to many others.

Can I therefore please have User:Ta bu shi da yu and the corresponding talk page undeleted. Also, a request for comment: should my other accounts User:Tbsdy lives and User:Letsbefiends redirected to Chris.sherlock (talk)? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• User talk:Ta bu shi da yu already exists; it's just a redirect now, but the history is there. User:Ta bu shi da yu can be undeleted if you want, but it is perfectly fine to delete a user page upon the user's request, so its deletion wasn't done out of process. Just note here if you really want it undeleted, rather than thinking it "should" be because you were given some kind of special treatment. I don't know the policy-based answer to your request for comment, but the commonsense-based answer is, it should be completely up to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I can confirm I prefer it to be undeleted. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the userpage as requested. The user talk page was already restored in 2005. Redirecting the other accounts makes sense, but is not mandatory. El_C 23:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I was led to believe that my user talk pages were never undeleted. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

They were restored back in 2005 by MarkSweep (log). El_C 23:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

*User talk:Tbsdy lives needs its history restoring as well. The out-of-process deletion was done on the basis that the editor would never return to Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Sorry, hadn't seen the restoration. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You have made a number of false allegations about me over the years. You consistently used this point to attack me. I believe you owe me an apology. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

For what? And stop dishonestly claiming I've made false allegations against you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"the old talk pages have not been restored”. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"old talk pages have not been restored comment on the 7th January, Tbsdy lives talk page restored on the 9th. DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of that, certainly ST47 didn’t inform me. You are definitely hostile towards me, have had it in for me for a long tine and I do my best to ignore you. I won’t make the mistake of acknowledging you again. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Such a graceful apology! DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23 what further needs to be discussed here? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Review of ST47 decision

My user talk pages were restored, I feel vindictively, by ST47. My concern was that he never notified me (not that he did the action) and didn’t notify anyone of reversing the actions of another admin, SlimVirgin. I am taking this here for review. I realise many will not like this, but I believe admins must be accountable and transparent in their actions. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Chris,

Looking at his deletion log, the only user page that I see restored is your former account's user talk page. User talk pages are typically not deleted so it probably shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. I would just blank it, if I were you. And I don't think anyone would have made the connection between the two accounts if you hadn't filed this complaint. Sorry but I think you are drawing more attention to this matter than you probably wanted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't read the discussion above this one when I posted my comment. Now I really think you are prolonging what might have been a discussion between you and ST47 (and any admin) and drawing attention to this matter on a highly visible noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Liz, the page was originally deleted because I had made some suicidal comments. In the thread above I asked to have it undeleted, but I was hoping to do so when I was feeling well enough and in my own time. Because ST47 didn’t ask for this to be reviewed, he potentially left me vulnerable. I have to assume that someone with his experience would know that if another admin with the experience of SlimVirgin wouldn’t just delete a user talk page, so him not advising anyone when reversing another admins actions is, to my mind, suspicious and vindictive. Incidentally, a few people have claimed I am “playing victim”. I in fact did end up in hospital. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, now I'm even more sure, Chris, that you should have contacted an admin via their talk page or via email. I don't know why you would choose to reveal such personal information on our most active noticeboard. You have my sympathy but I think posting this complaint was the wrong way to go about getting the results you wanted. Posting on ANI made you more vulnerable than any talk page comments would have. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I did. They deleted the message. What would you have had me do? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I do not know why Chris believes my actions were vindictive, as I am not aware of any previous encounter with any of his user accounts. It is possible that we met "back in the day", but I certainly don't have a long enough memory to hold a grudge from so long ago. The only page that I restored was User talk:Tbsdy lives. As best I can recall, I did so while browsing an AN thread related to Chris which mentioned his previous accounts, and noticed that one of the old talk pages had been deleted. Per WP:DELTALK, as they are usually needed for reference by other users, I restored it. I agree with Chris that users should be accountable and transparent in their actions, which is coincidentally the basis for WP:DELTALK. I have made no effort to shirk from either accountability or transparency, and indeed the restoration is visible in the page's rather remarkable deletion log. Despite the mentions of ArbCom in that log, the deletion appears to have been a normal admin action. SlimVirgin's decision to deviate from policy by deleting the talk page in 2010 may well have been entirely reasonable given the circumstances at the time; since Chris has returned, so should his talk page history. ST47 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you at least explain why you didn’t advise the deleting admin (or bring this here) or even have the courtesy to inform me? That page got deleted because at the time I was suicidal. WP:DELTALK states that “ Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason." Slim would hardly have added that to the deletion log. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Is there something on the talk page in question that should be revdeled or suppressed? If so then please email URLs of the relevant revisions to Special:EmailUser/Oversight. ST47 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Not as sorry as I am! So let’s get this straight. You ask me this now, but never bothered to ask or find out at the time? Kind of about a month late for that... if you had asked for review then this wouldn’t have been a problem. Can I ask why you didn’t at least advise me you had undeleted my user talk page? This seems vindictive to me. I can’t imagine why you would not have at least informed me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that undeleted without anyone having contacted me. It was deleted after several discussions; the logs show it was deleted three times by three admins in five months. Chris has explained why above. It was understood at the time that he would not be returning, so the exception was made. Now that he's back, it's probably right to undelete it, but it would have been better to make that decision with Chris's involvement, so that it didn't just reappear on his watchlist. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Slim. I don’t disagree that the user talk page should have been undeleted, but I am concerned that it was not brought to my attention. Now I’ve got to move fast and find out what needs redacting. This is extremely concerning, it is not normal that user talk pages are deleted but there are exceptions. Any admin who reversed this sort of thing is playing with fire. If they do t ask the admin who deleted the talk page why it was deleted, they have no way of knowing if there is sensitive information they may be leaking to the world. You’d think someone with oversight privileges would realise this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Some previous discussion about this can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Ta_bu_shi_da_yu_has_already_left_the_building. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Can I request that DuncanHill refrain from saying my user talk pages were deleted out of process? This was never the case. This is also not related to the current discussion, but instead it shows an ongoing grudge against me from literally over a decade ago. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  DuncanHill, I think it would be a really good idea for you not to comment on Chris at all. Don't be that guy, OK? Guy (help!) 09:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  JzG I though we'd established years ago that it would be a really good idea for you not to comment on me at all. Don't be zat Guy, OK? Anyway, with that out of the way, if he refrains from further personal attacks on me, and mistruths about his history etc, there won't be any need for me to comment on him. You'll have seen above where he falsely accused me of falsehoods, then attacked me after I pointed out the timeline. I don't see why you should have called me back to a thread I'd been trying to ignore since 01:09. DuncanHill (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  DuncanHill, oh, so you have a list of people with whom it's inappropriate for you to interact. Fascinating. Guy (help!) 14:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  JzG, No, I didn't say that, but you've never been one to actually be honest about what I say or do, it would clearly be too much to expect you to change now. Kindly stop trying to stir up even more drama. I was ignoring this thread and you quite deliberately chose to bring me back in, and then you make shit up to have a dig, obviously with the intent of goading me on. There's a word for editors like you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  DuncanHill I wasn’t aware that we could request another editor not talk about them. I am formally requesting that you not comment on me any further. I think 10 years of animosity is quite enough. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Chris.sherlock I had left this thread well alone after your outburst at 01:09, Guy brought me back. I know you have a long history of misinterpreting page histories and of confusing the date (see your attack on me above where you got the dates wrong on the talkpage restoration), it was what made you take against me ages ago, when your recollection of one of your resignations was at variance with the facts. You just don't like being asked to be accountable for your actions. DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m not joking, leave me alone. I may have to eventually ask for an interaction ban for the both of us. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not comment in this subthread after your request at 01:09 until Guy stuck his oar in, and I responded to him. I made it clear then that I was trying to ignore this, and then you quite deliberately chose to bring it back up. Now stop poking me and I'll go off and ignore you like I've wanted to since first I encountered you and your history. DuncanHill (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock, is this resolved now? It looks like most of the history is removed, which seems like what you want. Guy (help!) 09:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

ST47: Chris has been open over the years about his mental-health issues, which have included suicidal thoughts. He is very upfront about this; he's not willing to whisper about it in corners, and that perhaps makes people uncomfortable, but I think it's the right approach. What happened here is that a page that had caused him a lot of pain was undeleted without discussion or warning. Now Chris is expected to look through the page quickly to find anything that needs to be revdeleted or oversighted, but that in itself might be painful. So this has not been handled well. The issue here is not only Chris; he's not speaking on his own behalf only. This is about how we treat people who are experiencing mental-health problems.

I understand that it's hard to know how best to deal with this and be fair to others who don't have their talk pages deleted, but to brush Chris off isn't fair either. (And Duncan, please stop commenting on Chris wherever he turns up.) SarahSV ^(talk) 01:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Since this is apparently open again, thanks for your response and the further information. I of course would like to see any material that needs suppression dealt with as rapidly as possible, if it exists. I'm neither a mental health expert nor an expert on Chris's case, so I can only trust that he is doing what he has to do to take care of himself and seeking help if it is needed. I also don't intend to call into question your original decision to delete the talk page; it was no doubt a reasonable deviation from policy at the time. Merely a matter of changing circumstances requiring a change in the status of that page, as was pointed out in that early January ANI thread, and which I felt would be a fairly uncontroversial clerical action. ST47 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

ST47: thanks for the response, and I understand what you mean about seeing it as a normal clerical action. The question now is what to do. There's no point in deleting it again. At some point, Chris has to sort through it, and he has to be able to see it to do that. I think he would really appreciate a note from you that you understand why he's upset and offering to help him with any deletions. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Seems like a valid undeletion to me, per WP:DELTALK. It's not ideal to skip notifying the editor/deleting admin, but it's also pretty far from ideal the way the editor in question has handled this. There was nothing indicating that the deletion should not be reversed without contacting X, or whatever. If there are revisions that need to be deleted, or oversighted, the best way forward would be to contact the oversight team, or an individual oversighter (I understand that ST47 is an oversighter, and why you might not be comfortable mailing the list in this case). SQL^{Query me!} 03:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

IMO the undeletion and the way it was handled was reasonable. While there's nothing wrong with asking the deleting admin if there's anything you've missed, I don't know if it should be expected in a case like this. It seems to me it's entirely reasonably to treat it as a simple clerical action. Especially since we can't reasonably expected admins to be aware of historic policy changes before they became admins, so they could easily assume it more widely acceptable to delete user talk pages. (I'm not sure if the admin here was actually an admin in 2010 but the general point stands.) And while I don't think there was anything majorly wrong with the original deletion, I do agree that there was no way any admin could easily tell there were special circumstances which might warrant informing the editor the talk paged belonged to from the log. While obviously it wouldn't be appropriate to explain why you are deleting in the publicly visible log, IMO it would be fine to say something like 'contact me before undeleting' or 'contact talk page "owner"' before undeleting'. Alternatively a brief summary could be left in the log before deleting. As for what we do now, I would fully support the suppression of any edits which are of concern. If there is any way this can be handled with the page being deleted, I would support deleting the page again as a temporary measure (say for up to 6 months). Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin opinion: I don't think either SlimVirgin or ST47 did anything wrong here, and what we have here is...a failure to communicate. SV handled a reasonable deletion request, but their deletion log didn't mention that there was private content on the page (which was probably the right choice!). ST47 undeleted the page pursuant to policy without being aware of the history of the page (and they had no reason to suspect there might be something there). Separately, these two actions are fine, but combined they led to harm to Chris.sherlock. If I were in ST47's shoes I'd apologize for inadvertently undeleting the problematic talk page content (and would respectfully suggest that ST47 do so - whether or not you meant to cause harm, it looks like harm was done), but it looks like the page history has been cleaned so there really isn't anything else to do here. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, it wasn't a question of private content, and it was fully discussed at the time. Liz has now reverted Chris's redirect to his current user page. Liz, can you say why you did that? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Noting that it was a mistake and Liz has apologized. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, I closed down this discussion because I took it to ArbCom. I did this because I got asked for clarification on something by ST47, but in the same message got told not to comment further. This was clearly impossible. I definitely reacted from stress, because I am worried about the worst effects of my mental health remaining public. It’s why I won’t ever apply for adminship again (not that I have Buckley’s of ever getting it again, which is how it should be). I suppose I was really surprised that an admin decision to delete the user talk page had been done by someone with oversight access - if anyone should understand the problems with revealing info I would have thought it would be such a user.

I was also upset about the fact that in a sensitive and unusual case an admin would have not informed the person of their actions, not brought it to the admin who they felt made an error and not considered that there is a real life person you might be affecting. I have had several users tell me that my talk pages were deleted out of process. This is not the case, yet again I’ve had a shortcut thrown at me without the admin reading it. The page in question about deleting user talk pages says that it can be done, it’s just not usual. I had both DuncanHill (no, I do not want to interact with you) and ST47 tell me this, though ST4y tried to pass it off as a “mistake”.

I think my reaction last night was bad, and I’m sorry for it. My anxiety levels were off the charts, and as they went down I realised that it would be best to keep this thread closed. I therefore tried to exit this by closing it down. I also cancelled the ArbCom request. FWIW, I am sorry to ST47 for not assuming good faith. Whilst it is my responsibility, I feel I was being goaded by DuncanHill who seems to popup here every time I post anything, accuses me of “out of process deletion” of my talk page and hints down ten year old threads on AN/I. In fact, he even says that I am playing the victim, refusing to be believe my very real issue with PTSD and anxiety. Each time he does this I try my best to ignore him, but each time my anxiety increases. Even when I ask to have pages undeleted he pops up and asks for things I didn’t request, line having User:Tbsdy lives undeleted (something I got told I asked for by ST47 who not only didn’t listen but deleted my comment and ignored it completely.

I have another point I’d like to make. If an admin sees that another admin has made a decision and decides to reverse it, it is good sense to ask that admin why they made the decision. You don’t just say it was a mistake. You also don’t throw a shortcut to the one who questions you about it, especially when you have selectively quotes from it and miss an entire section that actually shows that the decision can be made. If you are an admin, you need to be transparent and accountable. What is extremely concerning time me is that ST47 did not do any of these things. Whilst I was upset with him, he deleted my comments, forcing me to escalate this to AN/I and then ultimately to ArbCom. This could have been dealt with by saying that he felt it was a mistake. But far worse than his decision to ban me from his talk page, which means he feels he is beyond accountability as an admin, checkuser and oversightwr, is the fact he made the decision at all without any review.

What am I looking for? Acknowledgement that people are complex and you don’t always know the backstory behind every Admin decision. If you see an unusual situation like a user talk page having been deleted, don’t just undelete it. First ask the admin who did so, then undelete it. That’s why I created WP:AN - for accountability and as a way for admins to review and discuss decisions. Sure, it’s a drama board I sometimes regret creating, but I did so because Wikipedia can have real and lasting effects on real people. Decision that are made by admins, particularly around user accounts, can be inadvertently damaging. As an admin, you need to be able to discuss your actions, first with the person who you take an action against, and secondly to other admins if you cannot discuss it with the original user. ST47 did none of these things, and it’s true concern that someone with oversight (who knows the consequence for potentially revealing sensitive information) showed such poor judgement. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23 would you please close this discussion? I think everything that had been said was said already. If you believe there are further things to discuss, please let me know. I’m not sure that if I was an admin I would have reopened an AN/I thread for a complaint where the complainer was attempting to disengage, especially when they might not have been terribly well (which I think a few people detected last night). - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Grand Delusion

Hello again, I'm having another problem with editing on the List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons page. About almost two months ago, I agreed that I would start putting sources for the last air dates of certain shows on the channel, which is what I've been doing. However, The Grand Delusion keeps reverting my last air date source for the last air date of Back at the Barnyard and Breadwinners on December 25, 2019 because he's saying that it doesn't count because it's a "one-off airing" even though the source I provided was reliable and that is clearly the last time it was shown on the channel. (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

The filer has been trying to push the inclusion of the airdates for these one-off airings as the "last aired" date for weeks:
February 8, 2020
January 19, 2020
January 15, 2020
January 4, 2020
December 13, 2019
December 11, 2019
Additionally, there is no consensus to support the inclusion of these air dates on the article's talk page - Talk:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nicktoons#Christmas_episodes_on_Nicktoons. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: I posted a notice at The Grand Delusion - FlightTime (open channel)

I have protected the page pending the resolution of the discussion on the talk page. It appears this is a content dispute; the two parties should try to work out the issue by discussing the matter on the talk page. If, after several rounds of back-and-forth discussion an impasse still exists, a seek help by following any of the procedures listed at WP:DR, including possibly WP:3O and WP:RFC. You could also ask from outside help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television or one of its daughter projects. Once both parties have reached an agreed-upon solution to their dispute, OR once it is clear that there is consensus among uninvolved editors, ping me and I will remove the protection. --Jayron32 18:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Persistent anon-IP misuse at Lincoln, England

During the last two days various anon-IPs are adding information about drug-use prominently at the start of the lead of Lincoln, England. This certainly isn't the right position in the article, but they insist. Additionally, the ref. they (eventually) used was an article from five years ago, which was very cautious about how the figures were estimated, but the attempted anon-IP/WP updates are misrepresenting these cautious estimates as hard facts.

1. Does this five-year old estimate belong in the article at all?
2. Should it misrepresent cautious estimate as hard statistics?
3. Should it be prominent at the start of the lead?

Advice and assistance would be appreciated. (I'm at risk of going 3RR.) Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Currently protected by Bbb23. Probably your best bet is to seek discussion, then request protection at WP:RfPP, and report at WP:EWN.-- Deepfriedokra 05:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to talk about SharabSalam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s accusations against me

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

About a second ago, I received a message from SharabSalam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stating that I revert two editors' edits. This is not true as I did not press the revert these two editors' edits. What I did was. He threaten to block me just because I added sources, thinking that I reverted the edits of two editors. That accusation that I reverted two editors did not make sense and is untrue. In order to revert an editor's edit, he or she must click on "undo", then click the "publish changes" and done, you have revert a editor's edit. I have a reason when I added sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present)&diff=940509864&oldid=940509707). He states that Saudi sources are not reliable which I find this not to be true because any source can be reliable, we have Press TV sources, we have CNN sources and we have Reuters sources. Why can't Saudi-based sources be allowed in the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) article. Please have someone investigate this user. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SpinnerLaserz if you want to talk about the accusations you can go to the editwar notice board.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam Here is a deal, this will be more of a dispute because even though I have added a unreliable source, I do also added a reliable source. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the report made by User:SharabSalam at WP:AN3, because no 3RR issue has occurred. Equally, no discussion on the talkpage has taken place. I strongly suggest both editors engage there before running to drama boards. Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kbb2

• Kbb2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've contributed to an article regarding the Gronings language using my own reputable source, and then it kept being undone by this user User:Kbb2. I have since then reverted the edit, but this user has been constantly reverting my edits of cited information, and it has been rather disturbing. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Fdom5997, Have you tried discussing the issue with said user? I see no evidence of any discussion. It may be a simple misunderstanding, or basic point that could be easily cleared up with a bit of talking. Also, anytime you mention someone at ANI, you must notify them, which you have not done. I have done it for you. In general: ANI is the last place to run in a dispute. It is where vandals and trolls, and bad behavior is dealt with. Before coming here, you should generally have thoroughly exhausted dispute resolution, or have evidence of misdoing. So unless you believe there is misdoing, this appears to be a content dispute that should be discussed by you and Kbb2. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 and Kbb2: This is a content dispute with edit warring. Please both of you stop reverting and start discussing. Please see WP:BRD. I echo what CaptainEek says.-- Deepfriedokra 05:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm done with reverting them, yes. I'll take the issue to Talk:Gronings dialect. I'm noticing some issues with WP:OWNERSHIP, when they say things like "do not debate" [211] and "leave my tables alone" [212] and bear in mind that Fdom hasn't addressed a single thing I said in the edit summaries and that the vowel table (the one with monophthongs, meaning the middle one) is unsourced. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I thought I saw some OWN as well. @Fdom5997: over to you.-- Deepfriedokra 13:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Nick Adams (commentator)

Long term edit warring to remove sourced content, back to 2018, claiming defamatory content. May require several measures, including page protection and user block. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks like garden variety edit warring. Have you warned this user? If so, WP:ANEW is the noticeboard for handling these sorts of simple edit wars, normally. --Jayron32 15:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think they know what they're doing, Jayron32; 72.48.31.2 (talk · contribs) and 199.114.230.209 (talk · contribs) look like the same editor. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I noticed the warnings and blocked them for 1 week. If the problems return, let us know, and we'll carry this further. --Jayron32 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

SPA repeating actions of a recently created/blocked SPA on the article "Grsecurity", COI?

• Grsecurity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings, for "disclosure" I am a reader and rarely an IP editor of Wikipedia who knows my way around.

I noticed a section missing in the article Grsecurity and investigated the edit history to find it was originally removed on January 24 by a brand new user "Trollcleaner" who edit warred and was subsequently blocked. Another account "Vox araneae" then repeated this removal with a long edit summary, and this account has also only edited the article Grsecurity and its talk page. This account made similar edits to the page as long ago as June 2018 and was created on "17 June 2018 at 20:16" according to Special:ListUsers.

If the content removed is actually inappropriate to the article or not is up for debate, but the fact that more than one single purpose account is POV-pushing may warrant at least a block if not a sock investigation to see if there are any more accounts. Someone should take a look at this and possibly reinstate the removed content for now (including that removed in 2018, if appropriate in light of these odd editors). May even be worthwhile to do a minor rewrite, but that's neither here nor there right now.

Looking further into the page's edit history right now, there are actually more accounts that have done similar and only edited Grsecurity, including "Juniperridge", "Altheacynara", "Spender2001" (has also edited Address space layout randomization), and IP 188.235.237.93 (but just one edit).

Someone should also notify the user(s), according to AN policy at the top of this page, but as an IP who can't be bothered with wiki politics I'll leave that to someone else.

Please forgive any faux-pas in my posting, and thanks.

50.32.224.60 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Users notified:

• Trollcleaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vox araneae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juniperridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Altheacynara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spender2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.235.237.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Article details: Grsecurity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. The removed section and the associated edits contained false facts for several months, such as "Spengler lost the appeal" (that didn't happen until just recently) and "GPL2 with restrictions", that none of the so called contributors to that section bothered to fix or substantiate. There clearly is POV-pushing, but from those accounts that edited just that section or have suggested and/or attempted similar edits only, actually contributing nothing or misconceptions at best (which I had to fix) on the actual subject. I also resisted the attempts to remove the relevant technical content and tried to discuss changes. But time have shown that the removed section attracts too much people that just push their agenda, and that it doesn't belong to the article dedicated to software. I suggest all the genuinely interested contributors to start an article on OSS, Inc. and/or the "controversial" court case, and contribute there in accordance to the established Wikipedia standards.

As for calling my account single purpose, I do confirm that it actually is. The purpose is to prevent slander and vandalism that keeps being done to the article about the software I actually use professionally and know well (unlike the many other so called contributors with multi-purpose accounts) for more than a decade.

Vox Araneae (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but nothing in the article (regardless of which recent version) appears to me to do anything to establish that this 'set of patches for the Linux kernel' meets Wikipedia notability criteria. Most of it reads like an advertisement, listing endless unexplained features. Rather than waste time trying to figure out who is right regarding this content dispute, it might be simpler to delete it entirely. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the basic fact that many other articles on specific information security subjects lack third-party sources just as much, due to the very limited number of competent writers and therefore publications on these subjects out there. Besides, most of those "endless unexplained features" are, in fact, minor, have very limited scope and pretty much self-explanatory descriptions. All or most of that is rather obvious for a reader interested in systems security. And just like the great many articles e.g. about mathematics don't have a 101 math course as a part of every one of them, grsecurity article doesn't explain e.g. how chroot works, what scope/limitations/flaws it has as a security measure and how grsecurity chroot restrictions address/affect some of those. Not that it shouldn't reference any other articles or external sources, and not that those sources are non-existent (e.g. see this list: https://grsecurity.net/research - care to investigate and contribute links?). But of course none of the "concerned" anti-grsecurity people are interested in actually making the article better. They would rather have it trimmed down to a few description sentences and a "GRSECURITY BAD" section that retells Bruce Perens' opinion and alikes, preferentially (for them) taken out of context (as was attempted before, with Linus Torvalds' opinion (see this talk thread) and present them as facts for readers with less technical background and factual knowledge.

Anyway, if you have any particular suggestions about which features need to be explained or folded into more concise descriptions and how, don't hesitate to make them. For example, with my recent edits I tried to make the PaX section more comprehensive and comprehensible for the reader, and the same could be done to the rest of the article, even though more information also needs to be added in the process.

Vox Araneae (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

vox_araneae You make a great case for removing badly sourced junk from those other articles. I made a start on this one, removing material that was sourced to WikiBooks (which is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia) and the company's own website. There are now two sources other than grsecurity.net, one is PRWeb (so not independent), the other is a ten year old piece in LWN.net. Please add reliable independent secondary sources or this article is likely to be deleted. If you add further unreliable or affiliated sources, you are likely to be banned form that article for promotional editing. I note also that you have no edits to any other subject: that often indicates a connection to the subject, which you must declare. Guy (help!) 10:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

To expand on JzG's suggestions, any expansion of the article needs to start by telling the reader why this particular bit of software is of any significance. Has it been the subject of third-party reviews? Is it actually in widespread use? As it stood, the article told us a great deal about 'features', while doing nothing to establish that anyone really cared. Evidence for that comes from third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. Not passing mentions in technical papers, but in-depth coverage. The sort of coverage that justifies inclusion in an encyclopaedia. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of connection to the subject. As I said, I'm a grsecurity user, for more than a decade. Everything I ever got from the project (i.e. the patches themselves) I got for free, without undertaking obligations of any kind. I also contacted them on IRC and via email and always received free support, again, without undertaking obligations of any kind. However, I have a deep respect for the authors of grsecurity for their self-integrity and the work they have done and continue doing, as well as for that they did it for free for about 15 years. I believe such experience is common among the other long-term grsecurity users that didn't happen to rely on intermediary party (e.g. Hardened Gentoo) support only, and that it doesn't create a conflict of interest for me. I also don't think that grsecurity needs any advertising, especially in a form of promotional edit on Wikipedia. However, I also think that it doesn't deserve to have its page being vandalized by the people promoting a hateful agenda. Yet since that's exactly what happened to the page in the past couple of years (and the past few months, btw), as I see it, and since no one else tried to prevent that at the time, I decided to do it myself and registered the account shortly afterwards.

If the above circumstances are enough to create a conflict of interest according to both the letter and the spirit of the Wikipedia standards, then I really wonder what kind of motivation a volunteering editor should have, not to be accused of COI.

Vox Araneae (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"I ... don't think that grsecurity needs any advertising, especially in a form of promotional edit on Wikipedia". Good to hear, since as of now the article doesn't contain any. What it lacks however, is third-party sourcing that establishes its notability per Wikipedia guidelines. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

So you accuse me of promotional editing? What parts of my edits are promotional and why? What are the criteria? Among the other things, I've removed the section with false facts. Is that too a promotional edit? Besides, most part of the content that JzG have removed and the agenda-pushing trolls was calling advertisement is from 2008, when (and as for many years after that) grsecurity was publicly available and free of charge. Was that content promotional too? Has it become promotional at some point? When? Is "reads like an advertisement" an actual criterion? Vox Araneae (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It is entirely possible to promote things that are free of charge. People try to do that on Wikipedia all the time. Religion, politics, which end of a boiled egg to remove, etc, etc and so on ad nauseam. The best defence against this is to insist that the notability of article topics is demonstrated through independent sourcing, and that the article content complies with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. A policy which I'd have thought makes clear enough that articles shouldn't read "like an advertisement". Even more so when what the article is promoting is actually a product now being offered for purchase, as grsecurity now is. So even if you have no COI, and are writing about this product out of the purest of intentions, the article still needs proper third-party sourcing, and still needs to read like something other than a sales brochure. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This answers none of my legitimate questions. Those are just words of an IP commenter who implicitly tries to claim some authority. You imply that the article indeed contained promotional/advertising material, yet when I asked you about the criteria, you provided none. And your opaque reference to NPoV doesn't clarify anything. Anyway, I think I should comment on that point of view, regardless of who expressed it (so the rest of the you's in this reply are generic).

Being a person who actually interested in practical information security, I can relate to potential readers of this article. So, what an interested reader would rightfully expect? Have you asked this question to yourself? He/she would expect a concise, yet comprehensive description of what the software actually does, how it does that and with what relevant properties: scope, drawbacks, limitations, side effects. And most parts of that "endless features list" served that purpose just fine, for most of the minor features it contained. Even though it did need some editing, claiming that it did read like an advertisement speaks more in favor of your disinterest in what the article is about and/or what it said, rather than about if it contained anything undue. In other words, as long as the subject of the article and the field of practical systems security in general aren't among your interests, your feelings shouldn't matter in the context of any decision making - unless you're going to elaborate your concerns (i.e. actually start caring about the content, not an agenda or any side issues like "the GPL case", which, by the way, isn't about GPL at all).

What really would be reading like an advertisement, are empty words and promises without the essential technical details, i.e. a common marketing bs, like a feature list that would list opaque promises instead of technical descriptions. That's why I asked about particular criteria. Obviously, none of the Wikipedia concerned readers or admins have to be interested in the field of systems security, but if you don't, then your uninterested person's opinion is naturally irrelevant.

I understand the requirement for 3rd party sources, yet it's obviously wrong (or just dishonest) to imply that grsecurity only has passing mentions in technical papers, which the above IP commenter did. There, for example, a research paper on formalization of grsecurity RBAC policies: http://secgroup.ext.dsi.unive.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PID2308633-camera.pdf - is it in-depth enough for you? ;) I'm aware of many other similar sources that scrutinize different parts and aspects of grsecurity, as well as of the sources that indicate its relevance. But at this point of my Wikipedia editor experience I'd rather have the article deleted, than do the work to assure its existence, being restricted in it to the set of outdated external sources only; and for what, to maintain a playground for trolls? Seems like grsecurity founder Brad Spengler happens to have a similar view: https://twitter.com/grsecurity/status/1226485832686632960. So go ahead, Guy, delete it. I would only participate if any one else does the work to keep the article alive.

Vox Araneae (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Kingboyk's indefinite NOTHERE block of User:Trollcleaner. The others listed above may or may not have a COI. It would be beneficial to have an article on Grsecurity, though it would take some patience to produce a well-sourced core of material that would actually be informative. If the article were fully reviewed at AfD my guess is that it would be kept. The Register is interested in the GPL licensing court case and keeps reporting on it. The Register gets a pass from WP:RSPS ("The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles..") I believe that LWN.net should be usable as a source for technical material. Pulling in long lists of features from the Grsecurity web site is not going to be useful. If the article is going to mention any court cases it should probably insist on using genuine third party reporting, not any court pleadings or any statements from the parties to the case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Ed; this should easily pass AfD given the depth of coverage from The Register. The other side of that coin is that the GPL licensing case merits coverage in the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Except it's not a GPL case at all, but a defamation case "about" expressing "a mere opinion" (according to Perens and his lawyers).Vox Araneae (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's role is to simply note what third party reliable sources say, not interpret them based on the wishes on someone's lawyer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure. And what the "reliable source" says in this case? There are no mentions that GPL, any part or aspect of it was tested in court, because it wasn't. Vox Araneae (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Alex-h

Edits by Alex-h show a repetitive pattern such as adding falsities to articles, use of trash sources and the unbiased source, Radio Farda (most of the time).This shows that he has consistently violated neutrality and his edits are destructive. I want administrators to check this user more closely because edits are standing in the articles.

• First: adding falsities to articles

1. The source says that A group of prominent Iranian writers, poets, playwrights, and actors have asked two Italian stage directors to stay away from the Islamic Republic's official Fajr drama festival, but He wrote that They have taken this decision on the request of some Iranian artists who have already boycotted the festival. The source does not say the festival is boycotted. There is nothing about the effect of this request by Iranian actors on making a decision by Italian directors!
2. The Source says that Ali Khamenei has said Iranians should fast Ramadan style to show “the enemy” they can resist its sanctions. but he just wrote that Ali Khamenei, said that under the school of thought of Khomeini people should fast like in Ramadhan.
3. The source says that "Several members of the victims' families have been forced to participate in interviews with the regime-linked media and stress on their allegiance to the Islamic Republic Supreme Leader," a foreign-based Persian website, Zeytoun, reported on January 23, but he wrote that Iranian regime’s agents force families of victims of the downed Ukrainian airliner to have interviews on state TVs declaring their total support for the Iranian government and the Supreme Leader, Khamenei. Otherwise, the government won’t deliver them the bodies of their loved ones.. It is the claim of Persian website, Zeytoun reported by Radio Farda, but he mentioned it as a fact instead of the claim of Zeytoun.
4. The source says that Some injured protesters, including those with painful wounds, did not seek hospital treatment for fear of arrest, Amnesty International (AI) reported, but he wrote that Human Rights organizations, including Amnesty International, report that ‘’’many’’’ Iranian protesters wounded in November demonstrations, still cannot use hospital attention as they may get arrested. the source doesn’t support “many”.
5. The source says that Mohammad Maleki, died of a bullet wound he had received on January 25., he wrote that Two injured protesters, Mohammad Maleki, 23 and Amir Ojani, 43 years old, died in last days of January, of acute infection and respiratory problem. There in nothing in the source about Mohammad Maleki died because of acute infection.

• Second:using of trash sources

While he was warned for using trash sources, he repeated the behavior again and again, see these edits cotton, themediaexpress, ncr-iran, ca-news-forum. He uses unreliable sources for stating extraordinary claims which need extraordinary sources. Saff V. (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: this noticeboard is for intractable behavioral problems rather than content disputes. Neutrality and original research issues are the domain of dispute resolution and accompanying requests. El_C 13:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C:thanks for attention, but it seems that you didn't read my complaint carefully. I am not here for posting content disputes, I talk about intractable behavioral, writing lies and attributing them to sources repeatedly. I am here to report that Alex-h persistent vandalism such as adding falsities to articles. Some evidence was provided above.Saff V. (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: you should condense your complaint if you realistically wish for it to be reviewed by participants here. Also, please avoid accusations that involve terms like "lies" and "vandalism" (see what vandalism is not), as these constitute personal attacks. El_C 14:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: how should I condense my complaint while all the above material is needed for making a decision on him?Saff V. (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: my advise to you would be to limit yourself to maybe two examples of what you consider to be the most egregious violations. Perhaps retain the rest of the documentation in a hatted, collapsed field...? El_C 14:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C:I give it try, does it look better?Saff V. (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Saff V.: better, yes — but I'm still skeptical it's condensed enough to solicit further participation. El_C 14:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: You can check the contributions of user. I only brought his a few destructive contributions.Saff V. (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., yes, it does seem from those examples that Alex-h tends to play fast and loose with the facts and with proper attribution, and with proper sources. That is a problem that they need to acknowledge and address, otherwise some IRANPOL sanctions may need to be applied, up to and including a broadly construed topic ban from the Iran topic area. Please respond at your earliest convenience, Alex-h. Thanks. El_C 16:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El_C, sorry about this. As you can see, I have made many good contributions to Wikipedia in the past. In this particular case, I admit I have failed to look at the sources carefully. I will do so from now on, attributing and fact-checking with great care, especially in these controversial articles. Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding challenged material that sources doesn't say anything about them (such as boycotting of the festival or Mohammad Maleki died because of acute infection), doesn't mean "you have failed to look at the sources carefully".In addition, It is not clear why unreliable sources were used repeatedly while you was warned before because of that. Also I think, to response to the discussion which was reported 5 days ago, saying sorry is not enough.Saff V. (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I'm actually fine with giving Alex-h another chance, providing they are well aware that further misattribution and reliance on unreliable sources will almost certainly to lead to sanctions. El_C 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing

User:Cambial Yellowing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been some ongoing issues with this user and ongoing WP:TE at Douma chemical attack. Any warning or feedback regarding their behavior has been ignored or dismissed as "sanction gaming".

They have escalated the behavior a bit recently, with the accusations of bad faith bleeding into article talk space, [213]. They also recently advised a newer editor to ignore warnings, telling them that they "have done nothing wrong" after despite their recent WP:ASPERSIONS violation, [214], and sarcastically awarding @Berean Hunter: with a goat in article talk space after Berean bluelocked the article, [215].

I don't know if this level of disruption warrants sanctions, though from what I have seen the bar on sanctions for Syrian Civil war topic areas can be pretty low (they were notified of the subject-area sanctions, [216]). I am hopeful that a clear admonishment from the community and a warning will be adequate to get the disruption and habitual, casual accusations of malfeasance to stop.

Examples of TE:

• [217]
• [218]
• [219]
• [220]
• [221]
• [222]
• [223]

Additional examples of accusations of sanction gaming by Cambial:

• [224]
• [225]
• [226]
• [227]
• [228]
• [229]
• [230]

Notifications: [231], [232]. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I'd issue a partial block if I was able. Especially with this edit where he dismisses claims of tendentious editing as absurd and not worthy of serious discussion in his edit summary. Invalid^OS (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from that article. I note that El C blocked for edit warring a while back and might remember the user? Guy (help!) 14:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This editor is attributing the actions of other editors to me, presumably in an effort to somehow bolster the lack of substance to their case. I have not "sarcastically awarded [anyone] a goat", nor do I know what that means. VQuakr also mischaracterises a talk page message as "advising a newer editor", though the editor in question has roughly 7 years editing experience to my ~9 months. This is not the first time editor VQuakr has attempted to use false reporting of actions as requiring sanction, as a tactic to try to keep editors they disagree with away from certain articles.

The diffs provided as evidence of TE (and the edit summaries) speak for themselves; they were fully explained, linked to policy, and the majority were reversions to status quo. This editor has already brought some of these same diffs to the ANI as supposed "evidence" but again there was no violation of policy. In my view bringing these same diffs again months later suggests "admin shopping". My warning to the editor, the content of which was entirely fair, against abuse of talk page templates was prompted by an accusation and warning template about pretended 'edit warring', after I made a single edit; this was my first article edit in more than a week, and the first ever regarding the particular material involved. (An edit immediately following was to restore inadvertent wiping of an admin template).

This ANI post is the latest in a string of ongoing behavioural problems with editor VQuakr. They refer above to "accusations of bad faith bleeding into article talk space", citing a diff of an edit which came after, and was a direct response to, their spurious accusation of canvassing , and similarly groundless accusation of tagbombing — in the article talk space. To enumerate fully the occasions on which this editor has mischaracterized actions to make them appear improper:

[233] ("ownership" following the reversion of the addition of a source which, at the time, was considered unreliable by RSN, a fact which was linked to in the edit summary)

[234] ("edit warring" following VQuakr continuing to add material from this same source without discussion)

[235] ("edit warring" following a single edit, material on the U.N. website)

[236] ("personal attack" following a comment on a source being considered unreliable in 'Perennial Sources')

[237] ("canvassing" following a 'reply to' sent to the last editors to comment roughly one hour prior)

[238] ("personal attack" following my pointing out that the previous accusation was not acceptable)

Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper is the definition of WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Attributing one editor's actions to another is WP:GASLIGHTING. I have asked VQuakr to please stop this on more than one occasion:

[239]

[240]

To their credit, VQuakr suggested I take this to ANI previously, but as I stated then, my understanding is that ANI is for "chronic, intractable behavioural problems". Perhaps I should have done so: but at that point, VQuakr had not actually tried to obtain a sanction against me a second time using these mischaracterizations and spurious accusations. They are now doing exactly that, and I ask that admin pageblock VQuakr from my talk page (presumably they can still ping me on their own talk page (?) if they feel the need to contact me) and temporarily from the article under dispute.

Regarding this block; the admin has not actually given their justification for it. My recent editing on the specific article has been sporadic, and always with direct reference to policy in edit summaries and/or notification in talk:

[241] — [242]

[243]

[244]

[245]

[246]

I assert that there is no justification for a block in the edits above.

Cambial Yellowing❧ 14:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The goat was misattributed. El_C 15:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Actually the goat was added by another user: FrankBierFarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Yes, JzG, I remember Cambial Yellowing's block, vaguely. I remember they were quite aggressive at the time, but I got the sense that they have since moderated their behaviour somewhat. But I still get the impression that they lack patience, especially in regards to edits that they consider to be fringe. That said, I am concerned with an opponent of theirs in a content dispute using ANI to remove them from the article (via an indefinite partial block). El_C 15:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I missed the last sentence before. I requested they receive an admonishment for their behavior (for which Cambial remains unapologetic), not a block from the article to "win" a dispute. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Cambial's relevance to the goat was that Cambial encouraged FrankBierFarmer that they had done nothing wrong, after FrankBierFarmer posted the goat. I should have phrased that better in my OP; I was not attempting to mislead. VQuakr (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• El C, I was looking at the edit summaries and aggressive tone, which are pure WP:RGW. Guy (help!) 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: that is not what you said, though — phrasing aside. As for encouragement and so on — that is not good enough. You need to attach diffs when you make claims like that, especially for a correction. I also would have expected a semblance of an apology to Cambial Yellowing for the misattribution, but oh well. El_C 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: an indefinite block from the article is possibly too harsh. I would be inclined to give them another chance to self-correct their behaviour. I'm just concerned that concluding the report in this way effectively is deciding a content dispute by administrative fiat. El_C 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: since it appears everyone parsed my OP statement in a way differently than I intended, yes I apologize for being unclear in such a critical situation. It was a good faith mistake, but in such a stressful situation I don't think Cambial's accusations of gaslighting should be held against them. Diffs were indeed included in my OP (and my notifications included FrankBierFarmer), including the diff of the posting of the goat, but I see that that specific diff included the admin's response. VQuakr (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

El C, my problem is with behaviour not content. I am happy to adjust the thing if people reckon that should be done. Guy (help!) 16:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Cambial's relevance to the goat was that Cambial encouraged FrankBierFarmer that they had done nothing wrong, after FrankBierFarmer posted the goat — again, diff? Please don't make me look for it. El_C 16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: gotcha. Goat. "Done nothing wrong". VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the diffs you provided were more than a week apart discredits the — false — assertion that this was in response to the addition of a goat image to the page. I don't actually know why adding a goat image to a talk page would be wrong - other than that it makes no sense - but that is beside the point. Perhaps my Englishness is showing. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Please indicate which edit summaries you felt justified a block. I myself linked to the last 6 of mine above and genuinely don't follow. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: yes, the warning on FrankBierFarmer's for his casting aspersions was more recent, and it was much more concerning to me that you appeared to be egging him on regarding that (regardless of any plausible deniability you tried to establish for yourself). I mentioned the goat mostly because it was the only other source of feedback to which you possibly could have been referring. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• I unblocked - the entire history of the article is a clusterfuck so unilateral sanction seems unjust. I will fully protect it instead, as those involved all meet the ECP limit. Guy (help!) 17:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr:It was — I thought quite plainly — a response to this extremely tenuous assertion that the editor had broken WP:NPA, when he did not name or refer to any specific editor in his comment. A personal attack has to — by definition — be personal, and thus directed at a specific editor(/s). You appear to be pursuing an attempt to intimidate through the use of the threat of sanction based on mischaracterisation — similar to precisely this ANI notice. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: I actually mentioned WP:ASPERSIONS not NPA, though that info page does in turn reference NPA. If you see nothing wrong with Frank musing on an article talk page about whether those that disagree with him are paid propagandists, then you have no business editing at all. Your advice to Frank was terrible. VQuakr (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Aspersions is not a policy, but "an information page. It describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks" policy. Thus your accusation was one of a breach of NPA.

As you have just admitted, FrankBierFarmer was "musing" about the existence of paid advocates, given the "fustercluck" of POV that the article has become. "Musing" about something is not a personal attack, and your false "warning" is not justified or excused. Cambial Yellowing❧ 18:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of the diffs relate to the Douma Chemical attack article, where I am one of the contributing editors (and have myself been the object of VQuakr's ire ... see, for instance, a message left on my user talkpage: [247]). I would recommend looking carefully at the talkpage and its archives to judge whose editing is the most problematic. Currently, right from the start, the article states as facts matters which are, increasingly, in dispute, such as that there was a chemical attack at Douma and that it was carried out by the Syrian government. In my opinion, double-standard tactics such as exagerrating the reliablility of some sources while deprecating others are being employed. Given VQuakr's own contributions, the accusations of tendentious editing are pretty risible, as are complaints about Cambial Yellowing's talkpage comments, given VQuakr's own rather aggressive and personal ones.     ←   ZScarpia   15:41, 9 February 2020‎.

Thanks for your input, ZScarpia. I get the sense that both sides could benefit from taking a step back and relying more on dispute resolution requests to resolve their disputes. El_C 15:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. With a bit of luck, the publicity here and at the NPOV Noticeboard may inspire some fresh, bold-spirited, editors to join the fray.     ←   ZScarpia   00:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat

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

Disrupting an RfC at Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#BLP RFC: include or exclude social media numbers.

• Restoring disputed info to a BLP [248] apparently unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information. [249] [250] [251]

• Dismissal of the policy, dismissal of all the discussion for exclusion, and obviously upset at me over my attempts to bring attention to policy on his talk page [252]

• Dislike of policies being brought up, assumption that the policies may not apply, ignoring discussion to date, and assuming burden is on those seeking removal [253]

• Moved a discussion [254], then assumes I'm making a bad faith accusation about him [255] after I restored my comment to the RfC. It took me a while to figure out what had happened, while he continued to assume I had commented about him. [256] [257]

• When faced with my clarifying that my comment wasn't about him: I will leave it here; you are being deliberately obtuse, as you have been continually on the talk page. Your approach is uncollegiate and obstructive [258]

• Dislike of sections of policies being linked in response to his requests for more detail about the policies, accusations of communication problems directed at me [259]

• More complaining about communication, while not understanding why multiple editors identified YouTube as a primary source [260]

• Accuses me of not liking the information in the primary sources [261]

• Moves the goalposts by coming up with potential sources [262]

• Escalation [263] [264]

• And back to wanting policies quoted [265]

• Accusing me of lying, misconstruing policies, and identifying policies in bad faith [266]

• Accusing me of offered nothing but tendentious obstruction and identifying policies in bad faith. [267]

I've done some quick refactoring of my comments [268], and am happy to do more.

I'd like dig through the potential refs offered by Isaidnoway and SchroCat without the constant harassment. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• "I've done some quick refactoring of my comments...". How about refactoring these comments to read: "I'm being a jerk, ignore me. I apologise for wasting everyone's time." Cassianto^Talk 19:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ronz has been disruptive and tendentious in the pre-RfC stage and since it has begun. He has thrown around plates of alphabetti spaghetti of policy/guideline names without actually seeming to understand what he is relying on. (The most obvious one is his first diff here "unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information": this is untrue, I am both aware of what the guidelines say, and they do not say to keep the information out of the article - all that I reverted is cited to reliable sources and acceptable within our policies). He has accused me of removing comments from an RfC (untrue, and I see he claims above he "restored" it to the RfC: also untrue - it was never in the RfC to begin with, which is why I moved it), edit warred on my talk page, accused me of "Projection and disruption" when I have asked him to quote the relevant part of the guidelines he is relying on, misconstrued my comments (more than once) and been dismissive and disingenuous when dealing with anyone who disagrees with him. His second point here ("Dismissal of the policy, dismissal of all the discussion for exclusion") is another untruth: I have not dismissed the policy at all - I have not dismissed any policy. The whole basis of these points are incredibly dubious. I have provided a stack of sources to counter his claims on the various talk page threads (dismissed by him as "is there even one good ref in that unlinked list? Guessing the answer is "no" otherwise it would be identified"). Stonewalling on talk pages is rarely helpful, and the !votes in the RfC do not support his position. If you want me to go through each of his points in order to refute the silliness, I'll happily do it, but it all seems such a waste of time. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. If anyone wants me for further comment/explanation, you'll have to ping me. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Reading the RfC it seems Ronz is primarily the one being stubborn and inflexible. SchroCat is giving as good as he gets, but that's the worst you can say of him. Reyk _YO! 19:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - As an onlooker, I've got a feeling that there's going to be a WP:BOOMERANG effect going on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Continuing:

• [269][270] - Apparently SchroCat doesn't realize that I'm arguing against undue weight, not against complete removal based upon the two of the seven sources that aren't irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  If you participate in a discussion it isn't harassment if somebody responds to your comments. What admin action do you want? Somebody to argue on your side? I don't recall "please help me win my argument" being one of the administrator functions. Yomangani^talk 16:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I want the harassment and disruption to stop. The battleground behavior, the incessant assumptions of bad faith, the flooding the discussion with misrepresentations and dismissals. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Anyone wondering whether Ronz's obsession with Grace VanderWaal is recent may like to examine a November 2016 discussion on my talk. A topic ban might be required to allow Ronz to focus elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  Who's obsession?! --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have notified both editors of discretionary sanctions for edits related to biographies of living people. If disruption occurs on the talk page in question, any administrator may unilaterally impose restrictions that they believe will prevent further disruption. Beyond that, I don't see much else to be done here and now except remind the two not to bludgeon the process or personalize disputes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • What a lazy resolution, akin to keeping the entire class behind when someone doesn't own up to setting fire to the classroom paper bin during a chemistry lesson. The admin corps would be proud of that one. Cassianto^Talk 08:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Ronz's constant wikilawyering is disruptive to Wikipedia. I've been editing here for almost 14 years, and of all the editors I have ever met here, I feel that Ronz is the one whose contributions have most harmed Wikipedia and wasted other editors' time the most, usually by citing sections of policies and guidelines without understanding the spirit or meaning of those policies and guidelines, and then insisting on his/her interpretation of those policies and guidelines despite numerous other editors trying to explain them to him/her. This has been going on for years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Re editor Ronz's statement "Restoring disputed info to a BLP [73] apparently unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information." True, but a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the policy previously cited as the rationale - WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE in my opinion. The very name of the policy link should make it clear. Section 8.3.3 is part of "Role of Administrators". If material has been deleted by an admin, and an editor requests an admin restore it, then 8.3.3 is triggered. There's no policy stating that non-admins have the power to delete the material then cite 8.3.3 in preventing its restoration. That said, I could be just as wrong as I think editor Ronz is on that matter. In my time here on WP, I've engaged in the formal lawyerly side of the process about as rarely as I find gold nuggets in my Cracker Jacks. Anastrophe (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat hasn't made any subsequent comments directed at me, so I consider this closed. The potential refs offered by SchroCat and Isaidnoway didn't pan out. I've made some alternative proposals. I'll give it a rest at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you consider it closed, but it should be noted that the refs offered by SchroCat certainly do pan out. You owe SchroCat and everyone who reads this notice board an apology for bringing this baseless ANI and continuing to waste everyone's time, when they could actually be working on the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We disagree on basic facts and policy. Your assertions are backed with nothing. Your harassment towards me is inappropriate. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad Ronz has backed down, but their passive-aggressive poor-ickle-bullied-me approach here sits ill with Ronz's battlefield approach on the page in question. Tim riley talk 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please drop it. We're here to work together to improve this encyclopedia. Harassment and disruption are enforceable by ArbCom. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, maybe Discuss Race and intelligence

Aticle is at DRV currently. Looks like editors may be trying to take a chainsaw to article again. Keep an eye on us please. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Uditanalin

User:Uditanalin is bludgeoning respondents to the MFD for a Wiki-space article he has created, resorting to personal attacks[271] and generally taking a recalcitrant and combative attitude towards established Wikipedia policy[272]. Suspect that this is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT issue, as it has been explained to him repeatedly what WP:OR is and yet he believes that Wikipedia should change its policy and structure to accommodate what he believes to be ground-breaking research.--WaltCip (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

He's claiming that he has no more to say there, and if that's true I don't think it requires any sanctions against him. Would be fine if someone wants to hat the tl;dr bludgeoning comments there, though, right now that MfD looks like a complete disaster. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The MfD will quite obviously end in deletion, or I'm a banana, and I don't think that this editor is interested in anything else other than this research, so why not just let that person bludgeon away without any reply? I don't see any need for administrative action here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with doing that, I'm just concerned and wondering if preventative steps need to be taken to ensure he doesn't attempt to recreate his work in other spaces. I may be reading too much into it, though.--WaltCip (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, they are very insistently putting the deletion notice at the bottom of the article, but other than that they appear to have stopped commenting at the MfD. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, but not adding it to the article in mainspace I see. I have issued a rather blunt warning. Please report iof this continues. Guy (help!) 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I think we're done here.--WaltCip (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WaltCip, Well, someone is done. I don't think it's one of us though...

Banninated. Guy (help!) 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

See also Katugampola fractional operators,

Propose a Formal Site-Ban

Actually, Guy only indefinitely blocked Uditanalin. In view of their threat to create multiple sock accounts, I propose that we formalize a community site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I will note that at MFD I originally proposed to move their paper on eigenvectors and eigenvalues to draft space to give them time to publish it. There may be various reasons for the fact that they didn't take up that offer, but those include that perhaps it wouldn't pass academic peer review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Assuming their threats are legitimate (they claim to be an admin in disguise!) then it seems like a community site ban would be the best way to go. But I have my doubts that they would be able to act upon those threats. Seems like an awful lot of hassle to go through just to get eyes on your thesis.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm tempted to ask Bbb23 if this Uditanalin has any other socks they operate under.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Today I've seen somebody get autoblocked because the IP was used by Uditanalin... Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 13:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... If that's true, we need a site-ban pronto.--WaltCip (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

For reference, it's Autoblock #9573566. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - between their threats of socking, unwillingness to play by the rules, and general IDHT attitude, they're NOTHERE. I look forward to seeing their secret admin account block me. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The obvious sockpuppet use that took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udita fractional operator is instructive. Note that it looks like Udita fractional operator has been recreated by a sock at Katugampola fractional operators, which seems to have flown under the radar. - MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - their threats of sockpuppetry, disruptive editing and unwillingness to listen to the rules means that they're not here to build the encyclopedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The user has a total of 75 edits and clearly does not understand Wikipedia's procedures or purpose. They should be allowed to leave without pointless you are banned! retribution. Leave them alone and there is a good chance they will leave us alone, and that is all that is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye Jack

See: User:Horse Eye Jack reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: no violation) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

User:Horse Eye Jack's focus is to purge several media sources from all articles, for not a WP:RS or even remotely close. (see here). According to Horse Eye Jack, an editor should not revert this purge, since [u]nless you can make an argument for them passing WP:VERIFY than stop using them. When you make a revert you are responsible for the content of that revery, please review WP:CHALLENGE. (see here). According to me, this is ridiculous. WP:CHALLENGE tells us, that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The content deleted by Jack was sourced. However, since this user doesn't believe in the reliability of the given sources, he deletes the sourced material again and again. Thus, in such a way, I cannot make edits, unless I make a case that AND the content is sourced, AND give conclusive evidence that the given source is flawless beyond any doubt in the eyes of EVERY individual editor of Wikipedia. This severely violates the "anyone can edit"-ideology of Wikipedia, and it drains the fun of editing it.

At the edit-warring-noticeboard, someone advised: "if there's a need for admin intervention, WP:ANI is the place to detail the issues." This I am doing now. And I want to ask the administrators: is User:Horse Eye Jack's way of editing an acceptable method? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Its worth noting that when i interacted with Horse Eye Jack he repeatedly re-added content, claiming the burden was on me to justify removal. He then reverted the last hand full of things in my history example. Its worth noting that he did respect the eventual consensus from an RFC i submitted about the disputed template page, so there is that. Bonewah (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah I remember that one, still can't believe that Who's Nailin' Paylin? gets almost 7,000 page views a month. Who the heck watches that sort of thing? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that the source Jeff5102 is going out on a limb for is Middle East Media Research Institute, and they wanted to use it on a WP:BLP page. The relevant talk page discussion (which Jeff5102 abandoned back in January) can be found at Talk:Gerald Fredrick Töben. I note that despite the talk page discussion being abandoned over a week ago I have not imposed my preferred edit on the page. Anyone can look at my editing history, the idea that my "focus is to purge several media sources from all articles” is simply untrue. My focus is on building an encyclopedia using high quality sources, my work speaks for itself [273][274]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A link to all your contributions is hardly convincing, you will have to do far better than that. You obfuscate when given the chance, not going unnoticed, opening the question to whether you ever discuss any political matter in good faith. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for the notification, Jeff. Before the AN/EW thread is archived, here is the perma-link to the thread that was opened. For now, the only thing I have to add beyond the thread contents is: when he had sided with a user whom I had reported on at AN/EW, and said user turned around to launch what is indisputably a sordid personal attack, HEJ had not only failed to condemn said user, but turned around to use WP:NPA as a battering ram against Zanhe's mildly worded criticism of HEJ's knowledge. Insidious double standards and WP:GAME to escape sanctions at AN/EW. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yny501’s comment and Zanhe’s comment (see User talk:Zanhe#Reliable sources for Chinese articles) were months apart, kind of far apart to say I turned around from one to the other. My leaving their comment on my talk page isn’t an endorsement of their language just as I’m sure you taking me to task on Zanhe’s talk page while ignoring their language wasn’t an endorsement of it. I don’t delete any comments on my talk page, can you say the same? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Failing to condemn" ≠ "Endorsement", as you know well, but choose to obfuscate yet again. Also, review WP:NOTTHEM. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That was my point, you were the one who argued that my failure to condemn the language and my request that Zanhe not continue to refer to me as "one of those naive youngsters who never read more balanced academic publications and are easily caught in sinophobic hysteria.” was grounds for administrative action against me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the only conclusion I drew there was to correctly describe you as a top-notch WikiLawyer, which is not itself sanction-able. But thanks no thanks for the usual blatant distortion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m talking about your argument here on ANI not on Zanhe’s talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about your horrid record, not what any sanctions should be; neither has anyone else, so far. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

So I'm not an admin, and I believe that I am uninvolved, but can't stand the sight of back and forth argumentation. Isn't the onus on Jeff5102 to achieve consensus for the inclusion of disputed content? I very well may have misread the situation, but it seems to me that HEJ challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed. (Although, perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the policy definition of "disputed," in which case, I'm wrong). Surely reinstating the content from the source being challenged is not enough refute the initial challenge? The idea that the only alternative is to give conclusive evidence that the given source is flawless beyond any doubt in the eyes of EVERY individual editor of Wikipedia strikes me as both a strawman and against the very principles of determining things through consensus building. Additionally, to quote WP:BLPRS, any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source - it sounds like there is no consensus about MEMRI as an RS, meaning that it's inclusion is indeed unacceptable. Lastly, a minor point, but I was under the impression that WP:NOTTHEM was solely for use in unblock requests? I sincerely apologize if writing this comment was inappropriate of me, but I felt compelled to do so by what I read as a misuse of policy. If it was indeed inappropriate, I gladly retract it. Darthkayak (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is my problem indeed. Any right-wing editor can make a case that CNN fails WP:RS while presenting some Fox News-, Project Veritas- or Russia Today-references to prove that. Then, CNN is disputed, and since "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed," that is a free pass to remove all CNN-references from Wikipedia. I am all for building consensus. However, if an editor plays the role of prosecutor, judge and jury simultaneously, and is not prepared to change his opinion towards the majority view, then things get very tiresome. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The user is indeed focused on removing the sources, even if it's accompanied with other RS. Such as at [275] and the numerous other edits (as brought up at the Administrators' noticeboard discussion). The users focus is purging sources and has less focus on material, as is seen in his/her rapid speed in which the user removes sources without regard to the article's content. --Cold Season (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, CGTN... Who recently published a report entitled By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang[276]. As for the text vs material question if the material is sourced to multiple sources and only some of them are unreliable or of disputed reliability why in the world would I ever remove the material? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff5102: Just to make my previous comment more clear, I'm agreeing with HEJ that removing solely MEMRI-sourced content is the appropriate course of action - as noted, there is no consensus as to its reliability, and I think it's on you, Jeff4102, to try and build such consensus before the content can be added. As for your CNN example, it is not comparable to MEMRI. Perennial sources indicates that there is consensus regarding the general reliability of CNN - it would take your hypothetical right-wing editor a lot more than some Fox News, Project Veritas, or Russia Today references to remove all CNN-references from Wikipedia. There is no such consensus on the reliability of MEMRI, and as such (if I'm understanding BLP correctly, which I might not be), editors have the duty to remove solely MEMRI-sourced content from BLPs, and likely from other contentious applications if they doubt its veracity. Darthkayak (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This contradicts your earlier point, that "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed." Anyway, my idea is that we shouldn't disqualify any "questionable" source at face value, or delete all text that is referenced by it. After all, even the works of a noted fraud as David Irving is used as a source when it comes to the Nazi viewpoint of WWII. Jeff5102 (talk)

Ah I see where the confusion lies; I worded it poorly. By, "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed" I only meant in the absence of consensus on a source's reliability, and for BLPs specifically, in which case, I think it's on you to establish that first, or it should be removed (though I may be wrong). Of course we shouldn't blindly remove questionable sources, but if their appropriateness in a BLP is disputed, we should. Darthkayak (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I've already expressed my opinion about Horse Eye Jack's behaviour at WP:AN3, and EvergreenFir suggested that it's more suitable for ANI than AN3. Since someone else has now started a complaint against him on a different issue, I'm just going to repeat here what I said before: I agree this is strictly speaking not a violation of 3RR as there were only three reverts on Fan Bingbing. However, this article is just part of Horse Eye Jack's larger campaign to mass remove Chinese sources from dozens of articles and edit war when reverted by others. This is despite the fact that he was just recently involved in a discussion on the reliability of Chinese media sources at WP:RSN (see archived thread), and did not get any support for his view that they should be considered unreliable in all contexts. And this is not an isolated incident: during his relatively short editing career, numerous experienced editors have issued warnings on his talk page for editing warring and personal attacks, but he has almost always responded by arguing incessantly until others give up (the Wikilawyering CaradhrasAiguo was talking about). -Zanhe (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

If anyone takes the time to read the RSN discussion Zanhe linked its a good one, my favorite part is this argument from Zanhe for why we should consider Chinese state media to have editorial independence and a reputation for fact checking "Governments are presumed to exercise editorial control and fact checking (censorship is an extreme form of editorial control).” Zanhe you’re mischaracterizing my argument (which was the uncontroversial "Chinese state media is general unreliable, especially when it comes to domestic reporting."), I note that we were the only two editors who participated in the end of that discussion so yes technically neither of us got any support for our positions. Per our conversation on my talk page User talk:Horse Eye Jack/Archives/2020/February#Please stop removing sources you already know I object to your characterization of my argument on the RSN, why would you repeat it? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:ROPE That is quite the deflection. This administrative thread is quite clearly not about the merits of sources involved (purported editorial independence and fact-checking), but rather your wantonness. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Darthkayak already pointed out to you that WP:NOTTHEM only applies to blocked users, the same goes for WP:ROPE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yet another gross example of wiki-lawyering. As guides are not policy, I only care for their spirit, not their parameters. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks,Caradhas. That is weird...when I discussed with Horse Eye Jack on Talk:Gerald_Fredrick_Töben#MEMRI, he literally told me, after my appeal to WP:PUS: Thats an essay not policy... WP:RS is a guideline and WP: Verifiability is policy. But now he is appealing to an explanatory supplement (WP:NOTTHEM) and an essay (WP:ROPE) himself. I do not understand why his postion on this has changed so quickly.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe HEJ is appealing to either NOTTHEM or ROPE; he's admonishing (perhaps wrongly), CaradhrasAiguo for invoking them in the comments above. Darthkayak (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

But he is counting them as rules that apply to the situation, and appealing to their content; something he did not do previously in my discussion with him. I do believe now that CaradhrasAiguo is right when he is talking about wiki-lawyering. Jeff5102 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I was specifically saying they don’t apply in any way to this situation and I made no appeal to their content. I wasn't ambiguous either. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You wrote: "Darthkayak already pointed out to you that WP:NOTTHEM only applies to blocked users, the same goes for WP:ROPE." That is an appeal to their content.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Darthkayak has pointed it out to you multiple times, including on your talk page User talk:Jeff5102#Regarding Horse-Eye Jack and MEMRI. Per their comment on your talk page (which you dismissed) "Lastly, and mostly unimportantly, regarding [277] I'm very sure that HEJ is not "counting them as rules that apply to the situation" - the opposite in fact - he is saying they are rules that do not apply to this situation at all. HEJ is responding to these two edits [278], [279] in which CaradhrasAiguo attempted to apply (incorrectly in my opinion), the two guidelines against him.” Please WP:AGF, if I’m telling you clearly that I did no such thing and other editors tell you the same then continuing to make the exact same assertions without acknowledging the sincerely held beliefs of the other editors is wrong.Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak:@Horse Eye Jack: DarthKayak, I agree that Perennial sources indicates that there is consensus regarding the reliability of CNN. However, my comment on CNN was more a criticism on your "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed,"-argument, which, when used by the wrong people, can have nasty consequences.

As for the other discussed sources: I did see MEMRI, as well as some Chinese media popping up at WP:CITEWATCH. However, it was on the same list as, among others, Holocaust studies (the complete scientific field, apparently), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America, although sources with a clear habit for distorting the truth are mentioned too.. And, as the page clearly states: this list is a starting point to detect unreliable sources which are cited by Wikipedia, but it does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them. It also rightly mentions the somewhat arbitrary nature of what exactly constitutes an unreliable source, and that the CiteWatch cannot determine the full context in which a source is used, therefore use common sense and judgement before removing a citation from an article. When in doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard (especially before a mass purge of a certain source).

Therefore, I do believe that blindly deleting sourced material, just for having an "unreliable source," is a road too simplistic to travel. As WP:CITEWATCH states, please discuss the discussed sources thoroughly before deciding to purge them. That would have saved everyone time and frustrations. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff5102: WP:CITEWATCH (formally Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1) is for academic journals only and was not the appropriate tool to use here (nor do its instructions apply more generally), go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and use the provided search box to "Search the noticeboard archives.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If you had read the article, you should have seen it discusses "publications", not just academic journals. But for the record: the only time there was a vote on the reliability of Memri, it was here, and a majority opposed the idea that Memri was unreliable. For the Chinese sources, please look for yourself if there was anything that resembles a vote. Jeff5102 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Its not an article its a bot generated list. What you presented from RSN is in no way a consensus that MEMRI is a reliable source, which we do need to have to use them as a BLP source. Not being deprecated is not the same as being ruled reliable. You have also mischaracterized the majority opinion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that WP:CITEWATCH is not for academic journals only. Anyway, that an article-page works with bots is not relevant at all for the rulings in the disclaimer, which I thoroughly and approvingly quoted. Here is it again: the CiteWatch cannot determine the full context in which a source is used, therefore use common sense and judgement before removing a citation from an article. When in doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard (especially before a mass purge of a certain source).

There is a big difference between those words and starting a mass purge, based on the logic of “on wikipedia sources are considered to be unreliable until proven to be reliable,” as you wrote here], erroneously suggesting that this is part of the WP:Verifiability-policy.

I prefer the first position for 3 reasons.

1. As we can see at RSN, a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard seldom ends with a peaceful consensus, the consequence would be that we should disqualify almost all sources.;

2. WP:RSP says: Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. That is common sense.

3. If sources need to be proven to be reliable to be used on WP, there should be a list of acceptable sources. There is a lis on WP:RSP, but it is very incomplete: only one Chinese outlet can be found on it.

Thus, mass purges of certain sources, because there is no consensus that such sources are reliable sources, is in general a very bad idea.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It is in fact consensus that for WP:BLP articles almost all sources are disqualified. Only WP:RS are allowed with minor exceptions. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It is in fact consensus that for discussions almost all of HEJ's replies are self-disqualifying as responding with over-the-top irrelevancies to frustrate "discussion". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Contrary to what Horse Eye Jack suggests, this is not only about WP:BLPs (or, Biographies on living persons). I became aware of this user after his edits on Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, the Turkish Armed Forces, and on Cinema of Saudi Arabia. Others pointed out his edits on the articles concerning World Heritage Sites by country, Qatar Airways, Lapis Lazuli corridor, Sheep Without a Shepherd, WeChat and the Death of Luo Changqing. Neither of these are about living persons. All I can do here is agree with Caradhras, when he talks about the "over-the-top irrelevancies" that pose as arguments here. But another thing: shouldn't an administrator read this, and come to a judgement? After all, at the Administrators' noticeboard one might expect an administrator to jump in. For the record: my original question was: is User:Horse Eye Jack's way of editing an acceptable method? Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request from G.-M._Cupertino for unblock/unbanning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am reposting the request made at User talk:G.-M._Cupertino here for a community discussion, as the editor is in effect sitebanned through WP:3X due to numerous block evasions through sock puppets (See the full list here).

"Since the decision belongs now to the Community and not to individual Administrators, I present the previous argumentation to the Community and add that, regardless of having assumed any edit attributed to me until November 2019, even the ones who had little importance in content and no personal attacks whatsoever, and, to make my word my credible, I promise, with the risk of being blamed for making one or another edit, there will not any more edits that can be attributed to me for a given period of time to be defined, even if I do not see any reason for the most recent edits to be attributed to me. Therefore, I ask for this request to be reposted to the appropriate discussion board. There will not be any more personal attacks issues and I will not create any other account. In fact, I also ask to be able to be able to use my user page, the one where I should be making any appeals rather than this one, the User talk page, and, at the same time, to merge all the accounts attributed to me with my main account. I wish to solve this problem for good. I submit an appeal to UTRS and ask an Administrator to post it to the appropriate discussion board. This is a voluntary act and, in order not to use it in excess, I ask for the guidance of the Administrator in order to present it the most proper and least excessive way possible if it is not accepted the first time. About my banning, I believe I should explain to the Arbitration Committee that blocked me that, despite being right in the initial blocking, I was unable to defend myself that time because I've made an edit and only after that I've read that I would be blocked if I did another edit and, since I was blocked, I wasn't able to reply to the Arbitration Commitee. It was not in bad faith that I didn't reply or defend myself, but because of that. I have no grounds to appeal for past mistakes, the only thing I can do is change in Present and Future. Afterwards, though, I have been blocked by an Administrator until today, despite already being unblocked by the sentence applied by the Arbitration Commitee, which makes it strange: how can I have been fred from an Arbitration Commitee blocking and then need the intervention of the Community because of a blocking made by one single Administrator. In any case, whatever I have to do to be accepted back by the Community, I have accepted: I will be peaceful and, again, will not create any new accounts. People who might have been blocked because an Administrator believed it was me without being me is something I can't avoid 100%, it's a risk of using Wikipedia, but that will not happen again from my part.

G.-M. Cupertino (talk|TB|) 12:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC) (reply)"

RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, and I suggest the user should be prohibited from making another unblock/unban request until at least one year has passed since their last edit. Favonian pointed out on the user's talk page that they've been evading their block as recently as November 14, 2019 and in my opinion, this alone is sufficient to reject the request. I personally suspect this comment from an anonymous user was an attempt to mislead us and was actually made by G.-M. Cupertino. This user has a history of abuse stretching back more than a decade and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive is a testament to their unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - this user has been socking for eleven years. Their unblock request is a jumbled mess of blaming others and avoiding responsibility for their own abuse; I suspect they have not even looked at WP:GAB. I also endorse Yamla's suggestion of a moratorium on unblock requests until one year has passed from their most recent sockpuppet edit. If they can respect that then maybe I'll trust that they can be a constructive editor, but nothing less is going to cut it for me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – the editor needs to face up to their past disruptive behavior and convince us that it will not reoccur. The present request fails completely in that respect. Concur with the one-year moratorium. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of G.-M. Cupertino - 27 pages.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive - 18 entries from March 2009 to June 2019.

Hmmmm.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. Jer.13:23. Narky Blert (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I did say I would post this discussion to the community and I did. That being said, there is no indication that unblocking the user would be a good thing for the encyclopedia. The one year AT MINIMUM moratorium or requesting unblocks is a good thing in my eyes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Sorry for being late to the party, but since I have been chasing their socks for years I want to comment on the request, and have my comment archived with the rest. They're indeffed/banned not only here on en-WP but also on other language versions of Wikipedia, have been socking 24/7 for eleven years (the SPI-page and the sock-category show only a very small part of their socks, since IPs are hardly ever tagged, and the ranges that have been blocked because of them are, AFAIK, never tagged), and were most probably socking even while this discussion took place. So hell no, no unblock now or ever. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Devi2003

Devi2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Devi2003 is a relatively new user whose edits seem to largely consist of linking major country names such as United States or Germany. These edits are contrary to the Manual of Style, and he has been subsequently warned and reverted several times. As he continues to make similar edits, even after receiving their latest (final) warning, I suggest that a short suspension of editing privileges may be required in order to stem additional clean-up requirements. Loopy30 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Welp, I've left them another message. Just between you and me, I hate MOS related disputes. I certainly don't want to bite the new user. I'll rely on our collective wisdom to see us through.-- Deepfriedokra 05:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been involved in Devi2003's edits, and while some of them are WP:MOS issues, not all of them are. For example, this edit (which I warned them about) introduced a significant factual error into the article and this edit is highly problematic. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

wow. cyrillic?-- Deepfriedokra 05:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Lovely. Final warned them on what looks like vandalism.-- Deepfriedokra 06:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Last edit 2020-02-10T15:22:17.-- Deepfriedokra 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not "just" an MOS dispute either, it's a total absence of communication from the user that is off-putting. In their five-month history, they have edited across 20 projects with an immediate understanding of Wikidata entries and Wiki-markup, but not once posted to a talk page on any of the projects. They have been warned a couple of times for copyright infringement on other wikis, but no other problems noted. Loopy30 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

More of same. Please block. WP:CIR is the most generous interpretation. JNW (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked As they have not responded here or on their talk, I must reluctantly block them from editing. To be unblocked they will need to address concerns about incorrect linking, puzzling edits, and an inability to communicate.-- Deepfriedokra 07:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kiwikiller41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just blocked this account because the user name choice popped up on my watch list. While I'm not that sensitive, the choice didn't seem to fall within the guideline. I could be wrong. Y'all let me know. The first few edits were in the medium disruption range and being executed in rapid succession. That's the reason for the disruptive editing note in the block notice. I've posted to their user talk regarding the disruptive nature of their initial edits and will copy here any response. Tiderolls 17:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would block such a username. And if there's vandalism/disruption . . . . Will check edits for sake of thorouhness.-- Deepfriedokra 17:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• We'll see how they respond about our messages. Even if those were "test edits", they need addressing.-- Deepfriedokra 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• If you use Twinkle, you can select "VAU block".-- Deepfriedokra 17:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

From the edits and the userpage, I suspect that this is a relatively young editor whose username reflects a focus on wargaming rather than anything more sinister. That being said, the username obviously isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Given that the account has made only a handful of edits, none of which are to brag about, I think suggesting that the user open a new account if he/she ready to edit constructively after the block expires would make more sense than putting everyone through the "paperwork" of a username change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gravedancing by User:Nishidani

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump peace plan, User:Nishidani took the opportunity to deride a now-banned editor, User:Icewhiz, with the comment Unfortunately I can't act on this patent violation, since Sandstein has banned me from appearing at AE (for calling the permabanned and off-wiki inciter of outing people, Icewhiz a POV warrior). Diff. Italicization added.

The action and comment Nishidani referenced is from last April, where he was banned from AE for the following remark about Icewhiz: Your remark underlined that, in your POV , mainstream scholars and thinkers in Israel who are critical of the occupation are representative of ‘fringes of the Israeli radical left’. This means that anyone with a liberal concern for human rights is a fanatic. That betrays an extremist ethnonational intolerance of dissent in the ranks. Link. Emphasis added.

I have requested that this user redact this comment, which has gone ignored. Nishidani's continuing to beat a dead horse and strike out at a user no longer on WP is a clear violation of WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED and reeks of WP:GRAVEDANCING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, this is obvious WP:BOOMERANG.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920 and SharabSalam: I've redacted it myself. ミラP 01:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's unfortunate that Nishidani could not be relied on redact their own comment or acknowledge the problem, despite having been warned and sanctioned for the same behavior in the past. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

And I've undone it. It is not your place to decide what's an NPA and this ANI is far from closed, so wait for consensus before you try and act like an admin. Valeince (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: (edit conflict) And Valeince has undone it. ミラP 01:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Miraclepine but I agree. I appreciate the gesture, but the purpose of this thread was to request admin review, not solicit another non-admin to do something I could've done myself. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, the reported user has been notified. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nishidani, I don't know what your current status is, whether you are under what restrictions and why and for how long, but sheesh, there is just no point in ... what's the word ... I really can't find the word. What you were doing there, please don't do it. Nothing good can come from it. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:NickOEG, paid editing, and violating copyright

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On January 20, this editor created Draft:Marc Oswald. It was a copy/paste dump from this source. I tagged the draft for speedy deletion under G12, and so notified this editor. I also placed a {{uw-paid}} notice on his talk page, as well as leaving him some custom written advice regarding copying and pasting content from the OEG website. About an hour later, the draft was deleted.

On February 2, this editor again created Draft:Marc Oswald, once again copying/pasting the material directly from the company's website. I have tagged the draft for deletion under G12 again, and have so notified the editor. If it is deleted again, this will be the third time it has been deleted as a copyright violation, and the fourth overall (the fourth as a stale draft, which EranBot marked as a potential copyright violation as well). The logs of the draft are here.

This editor appears to be in violation of our policy on paid editing despite being warned and is willfully violating our policies on copyrighted materials. I am requesting a block of User:NickOEG and deleting/salting of the draft as a repeated copyright violating attempt. I have notified the editor of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing an odd contribution history for the user. Are they creating a new account every time they add info? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's possible. But, any checkuser would be stale at this point. The issue is this particular account is willfully violating our copyright policies and editing in violation of WP:PAID. The draft has been deleted under G12 and salted, and the account blocked, so I'lll close this. Thanks everyone! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this linkspamming?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

74.195.105.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who just got off a one-year block, has been adding Template:TitanTV to a lot of pages. This looks a lot like linkspamming a commercial website, but the template has been around since 2007 and is on many pages. Before I list the template for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, I want advice: is adding this to hundreds of TV stations legitimate, or is it spamming? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It certainly looks like link spamming. Plus, at least some of the links are dead. It also looks like block evasion, based on that IP's block log, and their early edits to talk pages of sockpuppets of User:Dingbat2007. @Ponyo: seems most likely to know the story here. ST47 (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As a television articles editor (formerly WP:TVS, now merged into WP:TV as a task force), I wanted to revert this myself. These links can easily be changed at will by TitanTV and are 100% American-focused, are easily expirable (a common problem with drive-bys sourcing 'hey this station airs (inane show nobody cares about)' and they shouldn't be a part of any articles; most of all it may be WP:COPYVIO as these links are intended only to be used as custom URLs by stations who pay them money to subscribe to their services (which is why the WTOV link is 404ing; they use Tribune Publishing listings on their website like most of their Sinclair brethren, so the custom link won't work no matter what is tried). @Guy Macon:, I'd support a TfD nom, and I agree some kind of long block is needed, as a short CLUE block will not work. Nate • (chatter) 14:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously the same editor that has been blocked repeatedly for block evasion since 2017. That's one sticky IP! I've reblocked; revert whatever you need to. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Mrschimpf, that sounds like a great reason to delete that template. Guy (help!) 17:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 13#Template:TitanTV. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There are nearly a thousand links to that in this run by this IP alone. If the template gets deleted, is there an automated way to remove them or do I have to spend hours doing it manually? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

TFD employs some bots listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell to do cleanup jobs, so if the consensus is to delete they'll get rid of transclusions. Non-template links will need to be removed manually, I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Oknazevad. Again.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A little over a month ago, Oknazevad was reported by Locke Cole with regards to his personal attacks in The Mandalorian and Lightsaber articles(1). In addition to the clear edit-warring violation, the reporting user called out Oknazavad on their confrontational behavior and personal attacks on users. As the discussion was very likely going to result in him getting blocked, Oknazevad pledged to avoid the articles and discussions and specifically the behavior that had brought him the EW noticeboard:

• "I am willing to walk away. Frankly, I was getting too hot headed, and drifting into bad territory. I'll stay away from editing both articles for the next couple of monnths (SP). Not all Star Wars articles; the final season of The Clone Wars premiers next month and I'd like to contribute to our coverage of that, and as a life long fan I've had dozens of Star Wars articles on my watchlist for the better part of a decade, so it's ansignificant (sp) area of interest for me, but I can see how that is getting in the way of my editing clear-headedly. A block is unneeded, as they're suooosed (SP) to be preventative not punitive and I pledge not to edit the contentious articles. I remain unhappy with the pattern of edits I sought to undo, but I can also understand that my behavior i shutting collegiality needed for the project, so I just have to live with it. Of course, if I break my pledge a block will be warranted"(2)

Furthermore, Oknazevad posted on the Lightsaber talk page less than 5 hours after that, affirming his intent to not post on the page again.(3)
That pledge seemed to content admin Bbb23, who simply locked the page for 3 days, which led to a consensus and an end to edit-warring. However, less than 5 days later, the user again posted to The Mandalorian.(4).

I am guessing that Oknazevad felt emboldened, as his pledge to allow himself to be blocked wasn't acted upon by anyone. He just began posting in Lightsaber again (5), posting material that he was fully aware was of a contentious and contested nature. Further emboldened, he then made a ranting personal attack against me in The Mandalorian talk page:

• " I'm beginning to find your tendentiousness on this matter rather intellectually dishonest."(5)
• "...you pedantically mischaracterized the sources..."(5)
• "...your entire behavior has been wrongheaded..."(5)
  
  

I submit that User: Oknazevad offered his pledge to stop being contentious and edit-warring in order to avoid what would have likely been a block for edit-warring. I further submit that, he tested the waters to see if anyone would notice if he broke his pledge and block him. When nothing happened, he went back on the attack a little over a month later, possibly assuming that an old pledge made in a now-archived EW complaint was too stale to block him on.
I conclude that User: Oknazevad's participation in Star Wars-related articles has been corrosive in article discussion, and his willingness to edit-war his personal interpretations into articles indicates he has zero intention of stopping. I know blocks are not meant to be punitive, but a person's word is their bond. He has allowed us clear permission to block him should he edit in the articles or return to his attack-laden posts.
I say we follow his wishes. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC) :User:Oknazevad notified of the discussion (6) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I never said I would not post on talk pages. Isn't that what one is supposed to do? Please, the only corrosiveness is his WP:IDHT attitude and unwillingness to concede that continues to engage in WP:POINTy behavior with logical fallacies and misrepresentation of sources. Jack only posted this because I called him out on his intellectually dishonest position on Talk:The Mandalorian. For which I was thanked by other editors, by the way. Frankly I should have made such a post a month ago and not edit warred, but the facts of the issue have changed and the error of Jack's position is now plainly visible. That's why I made the edit at lightsaber today, because it has been a month and things have changed. One cannot continue to allow the article to misrepresent sources as it had. Jack needs to be told plainly to stop lying in article space to prove an erroneous point. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your previous statements are contradicting your current ones. Nothing has changed, either in the article or in your behavior. More's the pity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oknazevad blocked 31 hours for personal attacks and incivility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have made this block myself. They're meant to be preventative, not punitive. That there's an RfC in progress on Talk:The_Mandalorian#The_Darksaber_Confirmed suggests that the situation has changed. Mackensen (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As I previously noted Mackensen, the threat of a block was enough to make the user promise to make certain promises and abstain from corrosive behaviors. For most users, they try very hard to make those changes. Others make those promises disingenuously, and wait to run out the clock. Not even a week had passed before the user began editing the articles they said they would not. Not even a month after pledging to adjust their behavior, they were back to unprovoked attacka upon other users.

Blocks are meant to protect the articles, and that includes the collaborative spirit that makes far better articles than corrosive apprehension. Sometimes a user needs that blocking "wake-up call" when the threat of a block fails to promote change. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, a month ago he was edit-warring, which isn't the case here. If he's blocked based on that past promise, about which nature there's some dispute, then I'd say he should be unblocked immediately, but that wasn't the cited justification. I don't know that I would have characterized Oknazevad's posts as a "ranting personal attack"; accusing an editor of tendentious behavior may well be justified by the context. I think it would be useful for NinjaRobotPirate to fully explain why Oknazevad was blocked, if only so that it's clear to him (and everyone else) which comments crossed the line and justified immediate action. I wouldn't normally block an editor in these circumstances unless their participation was actively disrupting the talk page, and that's definitely not the case here, or if their behavior was so over the line that it was ipso facto out of bounds. I'm not seeing that here either, but perhaps I overlooked something. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes other admins will handle situations differently than you. In this case, I think that calling someone a liar and intellectually dishonest is a personal attack. If you disagree, it's not necessary to ping me just to complain that I don't share your opinions and act like you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for clarification in this case, especially given the comments by Jack Sebastian concerning Oknazevad's January declaration. Such feedback is useful for editors so that they know the standards by which they shall be judged going forward, and any administrator has to be ready to provide it. In any event, no, I wouldn't have blocked an editor of sixteen years' standing for characterizing someone's position "intellectually dishonest", nor for saying that they "pedantically mischaracterized" sources, which I guess is what's being equated to calling someone a "liar". I certainly wouldn't expect such a block to stick, given that far worse violations of WP:NPA (if they be that) go by with nary a shrug. I would note that Jack Sebastian has now accused a second editor in that discussion of "making personal attacks", with an implied threat to bring them to this noticeboard, apparently because that editor accused Sebastian of "misrepresenting policies." I have no stake in that discussion, but I would say that this broad interpretation of NPA has the potential to chill discussion and is not of benefit to the article nor the encyclopedia. I've no intention of reversing your block, though I think you should give some thought to unblocking for time served. The message was sent. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe its just me, but just because some NPA goes stale before it can get addressed is not the same as being accepting of it. Precisely no personal attacks should be allowed; its corrosive to collaborative editing, adds a boatload of dramahz to article discussion and makes arriving at a meaningful consensus even harder than it has to be. If I may be so bold as to speculate, the user in question made the pledge to avoid a block for edit-warring and personal attacks (not just on me but others); it worked, and the user was not blocked, but with the caveat from the admin was that if the nonsense continued, further action would be taken. The user either forgot their pledge, depended upon others to forget it or would argue about 'stale complaints' when they resumed editing the articles in contention less than a week later - considerably less than the two months they promised. They even argued here that they didn't say what they provably did say.

I think that Wikipedia is a Good Thing, and the best good is accomplished when people can disagree without poisoning the well of good faith. Accusing people of being dishonest accomplished nothing, except for making it more difficult for everyone to get the job done. Yes, a thick skin does go a long way here, but not turning a blind eye to bad behavior goes a lot further. I know admins have a full enough plate without having to deal with toxic folk, but I'd argue that they would have a lot less on their plates were people simply nicer to each other whilst editing, and a lower tolerance for attacking the editor (instead of the edits) be a guiding principle. I don't want people to be blocked; I really don't. But if some people make coming to spend their free time editing in Wikipedia simply dreadful, it chases good editors and new editors away. That leaves these toxic people in place - a net detriment to the Wiki. If someone is making personal attacks (to me or someone else), I'm going to first counsel them on being more polite. When that doesn't work, I then warn them that their behavior is unacceptable. If they disregard that then yes, I am going to report them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sirlanz and their editing of BLPs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sirlanz (talk · contribs)

On Sirlanz's talk page, I noted the following: After this edit was made to the Rose McGowan article, Sirlanz made this edit. I asked Sirlanz, "In what way do you think it is appropriate to add this pointy WP:Synthesis? And by 'pointy WP:Synthesis,' I mean you (not sources) essentially stating, "But look, everyone, she didn't give Harvey Weinstein the same pass. Hmmm." I told Sirlanz, "And, yes, I reverted both additions. I see that you were blocked by Nick-D just last year for a BLP violation. This latest edit by you further shows your lack of competence editing BLPs."

Sirlanz's response was the following: "First of all, there is no need to get all worked up about this, so relax for starters. Yes, it was pointy - no question about that. What was the point? Balance. If the heroism went in, (and I have no objection to your deleting it altogether), the factual material I provided gave readers the opportunity to make up their minds about its value for themselves. I'd like to see how you frame your suggestion that it was WP:BLP, though. What was not factual? And you are out of line questioning my competence. Don't make this personal."

They later started this section at Talk:Rose McGowan, arguing that McGowan's comments about Kobe Bryant are controversial regardless of if text in sources have called them controversial and that we should therefore retain the material in the "Controversies" section of the Rose McGowan article. I stated, "We do not decide what a controversy is ourselves. We go by whether or not WP:Reliable sources have called something a controversy. It's that simple."

And so I have to ask: Why should Sirlanz be allowed to continue to edit BLPs? Can we get some admin eyes on this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit, basically stating that McGowan had no response to a report from Weinstein, has no place on her bio. First, it's unnecessary to state that someone had no response (people don't respond to many things in life) and, plus, this was a recent comment and who knows if she may choose to comment on it in the future. This was a wise revert. I think this is an unusual focus for an editor, looking for controversial statements to make about a living person, and should be watched. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just blocked Sirlanz for a week for making stuff up about a living person. They may be eligible for a discretionary sanction given that they have been previously blocked for BLP violations, but I struggle to understand how the DS system works and will leave this for another admin. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have strong concerns about Sirlanz continioun to edit BLPs. The problems highlighted by Flyer22 Frozen were enough, yet their unblock requests raise even more doubts. That said, I don't see that any discretionary sanctions sanctions are possible at this time. I assume the alert given just before the block (with no other edits since the alert other than the unblock requests) was how Sirlanz became aware of the BLP DS regime. And while their unblock requests are concerning, I question if they are enough for a DS sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sirlanz' editing history and the current clueless unblock requests make it evident, to me, that they should not be touching BLPs once the block expires. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I obviously feel that Sirlanz shouldn't be editing BLPs, Ponyo. If editors feel that it's too early to propose a topic ban, though, I guess WP:ROPE applies. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

But then again, WP:ROPE states in its introduction, "If they are pleading to be unblocked and swearing up and down that they understand and won't repeat whatever it was that got them blocked, rather than arguing the finer points of the original block or demanding further explanation, it may be better to just unblock them and make it clear that this is their last chance." Sirlanz isn't stating anything about understanding or that they won't do something like this again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just extended Sirlanz's block to indefinte duration as comments they've made on their talk page since the block was imposed indicate that they will continue this kind of conduct after the block expires. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is resolved now with the indef. Silanz will either need to demonstrate commitment to respect BLP policy to convince an admin for an unblock, or maybe will be subject to a topic-ban as an unblock condition. I should clarify in case there was some confusion I had no objection to a topic-ban. I just felt it would need to come about via a community process rather than DS given the alert was only given very recently. In fact I was thinking of proposing one if nothing further happened. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Futhark1988 and User:Kruci are edit warriors with no regard for WP:V

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. Yesterday I reported them both for sockpuppetry (here), but who knows how long processing that report will take. Let me quote it for you:

"Diffs:

• Open-mid front unrounded vowel: [280], [281], [282], [283], [284] (this one breaks WP:3RR)
• Near-open front unrounded vowel: [285], [286]

"Kruci" seems to have been created specifically to avoid WP:3RR accusations towards Futhark1988. The latter account kept reinserting Hungarian to the table in open-mid front unrounded vowel. They kept sourcing that entry with Szende (1994) who shows the vowel as near-open on the vowel chart, all the while claiming that Szende is not a reputable source (!). They also said in one of the reverts that Anyone with an ear can hear that it is incorrect. Instead of hiding behind extremely out-dated sources one should simply listen to how people actually speak. Well, "nem" is pronounced with a near-open vowel on about half of the recordings on Forvo. Their response to that? "Most of the recordings are pronounced by machines." They also vandalized my user page."

Basically, both of them have been edit warring on open-mid front unrounded vowel. IMO, Kruci is obviously Futhark, per WP:DUCK. They have no regard for WP:V (WP:BURDEN included) and WP:OR and have not provided a single source that would challenge Szende (1994). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kerfuffle at Race and Intelligence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We're having a bit too much fun over there again. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Trying to limit myself to one revert a day, but the same editors are trying to take a chainsaw to the article again, and I've now reverted twice in two day, but less than 24 hours. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&action=history Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: stop canvassing on noticeboards for people to join you in your crusade to right great wrongs, stop edit warring, and stop making pointless noticeboard threads about this page. What is this, the third thread you've started at WP:AN and WP:ANI about this? You're getting close to being topic banned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user created a userpage which was deleted twice and now marked for speedy deletion again. He seems to be using the site as a web host for personal writings pertaining to extremely fringe beliefs. They seem to have an interest in astrology and conspiracy theories, claiming to be the reincarnation of an Egyptian pharaoh or something like that [287]. It does not appear this user is here to contrinute constructively. funplussmart (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And he posted this on his talk page, clearly indicating a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and his intent to promote a fringe POV on the site. funplussmart (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, blocking. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Might wanna revoke talk page. I'm not sure whether this guy is taking the piss or he genuinely believes this but in either case Wikipedia can't provide whatever services he seeks or needs. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI, per the ranting Jéské Couriano pointed out above, I've also revoked talkpage access. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nazi block needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

His only edits have been to argue that qualifying Hitler's actions as evil in the lead to Adolf Hitler is wrong, combined with some edits painting Stalin as just as anti-semitic as Hitler because, you know, the communists need are evil too. His most recent edit argues for the fringe view that Winston Churchill was really responsible for the Holocaust by not making peace with Hitler earlier.

I'd ordinarily block, but I just got involved in the discussion yesterday to argue that evil is a reliably sourced, accurate, and precise description of the consensus view of reliable sources on Hitler's actions, so I'm technically involved in this discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Drmies (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Koinaki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Possible legal threat in edit summary here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon, No this is not a legal threat. Not every phrase that has the word "legal" in it is a legal threat. This is one such example. They are trying to say that since they belong to the tribe in question and are their legal representatives they have the right to edit the article in the way they seem fit. Please feel free to template them about using WP:RS--DBigXrayᗙ 07:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I used the "article ownership" template to remind them that this is a wiki as well. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You did not tell them that you started this thread, however. Please do that – it's mandatory. --bonadea contributions talk 07:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yep, not a legal threat. I count at least three potential issues in their edit/summary (RS, COI, ownership) but those should be talked over, as opposed to the suitable action in the case of a legal threat. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. this does not constitute a violation of NLT. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rafe87 (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rafe87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Personal attacks:

• This is an absurd interpretation of the controversy. Make a greater effort to stay true to the spirit of WP NPOV, WMSR. [288]
• Are we going to keep pretending this user is objective, honest, and is not interested in the improvement of the entry (which he tried to destroy just two weeks ago)? [289]
• Also, a warning that WMSR is lying about The Intercept, the Nation, and perhaps other sources he listed. [290]
• Stop misrepresenting wikipedia policy for once. [291]
• User:MrX is now in the business of deciding, on his own, when a controversy discussed in reliable sources is simply "manufactured controversy" and is therefore not worth mentioning in this entry...None of this is based on Wikipedia policies; this is nothing but POV-pushing. [292]
• [Y]ou're cherry-picking which reliable sources are reliable enough for you, in violation of Wikipedia policy, and choosing to shrug off controversies amply discussed in reliable sources as mere "manufactured outrage", in what is an ad hominem attack either against said media sources or editors here. [293]

Several consecutive 1RR violations (at least 17 by my count): [294]

Previous ANI thread (in which several admins suggested that Rafe be indeffed for engaging in any PAs moving forward, and also suggested a page ban for the article in question): [295]

As a note, this user has previously been blocked twice for 3RR violations, and once for PAs. --WMSR (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside all the other allegations, Rafe87 has blatantly violated 1RR on the article and should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Even without 1RR and 24-hr BRD cycle, 16 reverts in four minutes of another editor's 80 minutes of work without any edit comments or discussion smacks of vandalism. O3000 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems that you have already arrived at a consensus, so defending myself is useless. I don't see how any of the sentences pulled out by the WMSR dude warrants warning, let alone blocking. Saying that another editor's contributions are arbitrary and violate policy is not "trolling", and if it is, then WMSR is guilty of it himself. Do as you please. I take consolation in the fact that I'm not the only one who's up to WMSR's bad faith editing and efforts to shut down discussion on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, which is illustrated not only by his dogmatic, combative, and sophistic writing, but also by his (overruled) attempt to have the article deleted — an effort which would have canceled out much more than 80 minutes of work. Bye, I'm done with this place. — Rafe87 (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add User talk:Objective3000 and MrX are clearly part of the same ideological effort in the entry under discussion, which consists entirely of sabotaging other editors and ban any discussion of media coverage of Sanders other than saying that maybe the media likes him too much. That User talk:Objective3000 is joining forces with WMSR is to be expected, and it wouldn't surprise me if this had been coordinated between the two outside of Wikipedia, as many Wikipedians are known for doing, especially those with neocon, pro-Israel views. As you can see, I don't care to convince anyone that I will be nicer to these trolls in the future. I won't. So do as you please. — Rafe87 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Am I allowed to {{rpa}} on this page? --WMSR (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No, and it's better to leave them anyhow. O3000 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a good example. Rafe87 just accused me of having “neocon, pro-Israel views”. A few months ago I was painfully accused of anti-Semitism and I have been accused of being anti conservative numerous times. Point is, that if you spend your time arguing for NPOV, you will be attacked from both sides of any argument. Let their rants expose their thinking here. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked Rafe87 for one week for personal attack. El_C 23:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2019 Novel Coronavirus Move Requests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Requested_move_11_February_2020

I like ask for multiple Wikipedia Administrators intervene on this "somewhat major" requested move issue about the virus. Giving users non disciplinary notices about the required waiting period making another RM. Thanks. Regice2020 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing "Tax avoidance" sections to many articles; WP:POINT/WP:SOAPBOX?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:OldandGood2876 has been canvassing "Tax avoidance" sections to numerous (at least 50) articles on US companies based on a CNBC article on companies that had effective tax rates of 0 in 2018. While the source itself is fine, this kind of canvassing seems soapboxy to me, but I'd rather bring the matter here before taking further action. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

When you raised these concerns on the user's talk page and discussed the matter with them, what was that user's response? --Jayron32 19:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Rather than answer a question that you already know the answer to, I'll note that user had already reverted someone's else's objections to them, so asking them to stop and/or reverting all of the changes seemed pointless without soliciting additional input from the community. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not the "solicit input from the community" page. This is the "block someone because they won't listen to the community after we already tried that" page. You're looking for WP:DR. The issue is that this should never be the first stop in a process of helping out a situation like this. It should be the absolute last. There are many other options, the first of which should always be "just talk to them". I note that they were hastily blocked, which is always bad, even if they were later unblocked. This didn't all have to happen. --Jayron32 13:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia. I can see how these edits can be viewed as canvassing. However, I viewed it as a simple fact that is important enough to bear inclusion in each company's wiki page. I used the 2008 Universal Studios fire as a template of sorts, as most affected music artists have a sentence on their associate pages that reads "On June 25, 2019, The New York Times Magazine listed Sheryl Crow among hundreds of artists whose material was reportedly destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire"; Sheryl Crow#2016–present: Be Myself and Threads, Buddy Holly#Legacy, Bobby Darin#Legacy, Supertramp#2015–present, et al.OldandGood2876 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Where is the canvassing? I see someone adding the same source to multiple pages, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Calidum 19:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• These edits are inappropriate for two reasons:

1. Their actual addition to these articles seems incorrect. They have been adding the sentence: In December 2019, CNBC listed Goodyear Tire and Rubber along with 378 additional Fortune 500 companies that "paid an effective federal tax rate of 0% or less" as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[47]. However, the actual fact is that they are one of 91 companies that were identified amongst 379 of the Fortune 500 companies (i.e they did not analyse all 500), who had an effective federal tax rate of 0% in 2018.

2. They are adding this sentence in a new section titled "Tax avoidance". However, this is not tax avoidance. This is simply applying the new tax rules of Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), and getting 0% as the answer. Tax avoidance is what Apple or Google do when they legally abuse the rules in ways that were not indented to reduce tax bills – E.g. the Double Irish system. (Note, tax evasion is where rules are illegally abused, which is very rare for a Fortune 500 company to be found doing). Simply applying the TCJA rules (which are very beneficial for some companies), and getting 0% as your effective tax rate, is neither tax evasion or tax avoidance.

Wikipedia is full of crazy notions on corporate taxation (I spend weeks cleaning up Tax haven and Tax inversion), and this is one of them. It is misleading as stated. If they want to add a section saying "Impact of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" and with a sentence saying that "as a result of the TCJA, their Federal Tax bill was 0% in 2018", then that is at least correct. However, I am not sure it will be that notable, as it could be back to 20% next year for many. Britishfinance (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• This needs a bulk rollback - the only source is a listicle at CNBC. Guy (help!) 19:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Blocked 31h to stop the disruption, please engage on the user's talk page. Guy (help!) 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. My gut was to rollback all of them and warn the user to stop, but I wanted to get second opinions as to whether or not the community agreed that the additions were inappropriate. ANI may not have been the best venue for soliciting that initial input. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikiproject Tax is largely dormant, so given the scale (and POVness) of what they were doing, ANI was a good way to get input. Britishfinance (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• What's with all the blocking with no prior warning or discussion? User:OldandGood2876 was blocked without ever having been told what they're doing is wrong (except via edit summary of a blocked IP user, which probably led them to believe the stuff they were adding was OK). The IP who originally reverted all the edits (User talk:24.30.32.182) was blocked (and is still blocked) for vandalism, again with no warning. I'm unblocking the IP because these were useful edits, not vandalism, and I'm unblocking OldandGood2876 because we warn/discuss first, not block first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• What's with all this unblocking with no prior warning and no discussion? The blocking admin explained in their post above why the block was administered. FFS Tiderolls 21:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I appreciate JzG's quick intervention, but also agree that the block was perhaps a bit hasty given that User:OldandGood2876 hadn't been given a final warning (or much of any warning), and that User:OldandGood2876 was likely emboldened in their actions by the also-hasty block of the first IP that reverted them. I suggest we close the matter for now and resolve not to do it again, whatever it was we did. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Ohnoitsjamie, it's a short "stop here" block. It can be lifted once the risk is gone, no need to ask, just do it. Guy (help!) 23:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am new to Wiki and I was not expecting the rather judgmental responses but such is our society today. I admit the CNBC source was more of a listicle but I believed sufficient given the controversy and backlash the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 created in the U.S. That being said, I would be more than happy to do additional research and list a wealth of sources, as well as reword the statement to remove any hint of WP:SOAPBOX or canvassing. Here are a few to consider:

• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-paying-zero-taxes-trump-law-155944124.html
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/60-biggest-companies-paid-no-taxes_n_5cb01f75e4b0ffefe3ae2626
• https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/these-91-companies-paid-no-federal-taxes-in-2018/ar-BBY3oL1
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html
• https://itep.org/corporate-tax-avoidance-in-the-first-year-of-the-trump-tax-law/
• https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-tax-billions-profits-no-tax-bill-822428/
• https://money.com/tax-day-2019-amazon-netflix-pay-no-taxes/

Thoughts?OldandGood2876 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Since we don't usually discuss content here, I suggested to OandG on their talk page that they ask at WT:BUSINESS. Does anyone have a better idea where to seek consensus on this? (I also told him I thought consensus was unlikely, FWIW) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You have used a reference above "https://fortune.com/2019/04/11/amazon-starbucks-corporate-tax-avoidance/" but the actual title of the article is "How These Fortune 500 Companies (Legally) Paid $0 In Taxes Last Year" – E.g. this is not "Tax Avoidance", but corporates paying 0% tax as a result of the 2018 TCJA (which they had no control over). Please don't use the term "Tax Avoidance" with this aspect of the TCJA, or create sections in US corporation articles titled "Tax Avoidance" from this. It would be better to go to the TCJA article, and add these refs as a follow-up to the actual effective tax rates that many large US corporations earned in 2018 as a result of the TCJA. However, it is not a "Tax Avoidance" issue. If Trump cut your personal federal taxes to 0%, nobody would be writing articles accusing you of "Tax Avoidance" (maybe of good luck). Britishfinance (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Tax avoidance is the legal practice of minimizing one's tax burden. Tax evasion is the illegal act. That said, the terms are similar enough to the lay reader that adding that header could be seen as intentional sensationalism—and that's a behavioral issue that we need to consider. I agree that WT:BUSINESS is the best forum to get more input on this. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

While this isn't the place for such a discussion I agree with C.Fred. From my experience, tax avoidance is generally used to refer to any legal practice of structuring affairs to minimise someone or something's tax burden. Britishfinance's claim that it only refers to "legally abuse the rules in ways that were not indented to reduce tax bills" is not the way the term is normally used, even if we put aside the obvious typo. For starters one person's abuse is another person's smart practice. And it gets into unnecessary complications of "intended by whom?" It's clear Ireland in part intended their laws to be used that way, even if other countries didn't. It may be true if the US simply changes the US federal personal income tax rate to 0%, people wouldn't be said to be avoiding tax simply because they had such a rate. But if the US kept a federal personal income tax of 35% (let's ignore progressive taxation) but allowed someone to set up a corporation and use this corporation for all personal expenses without a fringe benefits tax, and a person chose to set up a corporation and receive no personal income, this would likely be considered tax avoidance. I find it quite likely that the reason why these companies have a 0% ETR is not simply because of the TCJA but also because they're structure their affairs either now or in the past to ensure they benefit in this way. Note that I don't think the addition of that section is helpful, but if we are going to discuss it we also shouldn't do so in ways which goes against how terms like "tax avoidance" are normally used. Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We are almost saying the same thing - "tax avoidance" is legal (we both agree), tax evasion is illegal. However, most of the use of the term "tax avoidance" involves using the rules in ways they were not expected to be used (but legally). Nobody calls filling out your tax return correctly "tax avoidance", however, the term "tax avoidance" is commonly used in relation to say what US firms have been doing (legally) for decades. The TCJA is the reason why US corporate tax rates fell to 0% for some in 2018. The TCJA delivers effective federal tax rates in the high single digits for many large US multinationals going forward. Many got rates of 0% in 2018 (and will do in 2019, 2020), because additional reliefs are offered under TCJA for repatriating assets/intellectual property back to the US (which is why US productivity is spiking). The TCJA is profound legislation that has dramatically changed the US tax system. It effectively removes any tax-driven incentive for a US corporation to base themselves outside of the US (many will pay more tax if based in the Cayman Islands than the US under TCJA). Google's repatriation in December [296] was a historic moment (which I need to update many articles for). Britishfinance (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree that it would have been better to talk to the editor about concerns before opening and ANI thread. And the editor should have been given a clear warning 'you need to stop or you will be blocked' and gone against that warning before they were blocked. But whatever, I guess the main issue was resolved even if not in ideal circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on Tax avoidance#United States, I thought that was a proper term to use. Sorry. I am a little alarmed at how quickly WP:BITE took place, considering the topic.OldandGood2876 (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Tax avoidance#United States covers the tax schemes that have been legally used by corporates to avoid/lower their US corporate taxes, in a way that the US tax rules were not really meant to offer (e.g. Double Irish, which it mentions). The 0% federal tax rates you have been reporting on above is not "Tax Avoidance". The 91 US companies in question didn't have to do anything to achieve the 0%, they just had to fill out their US tax return under the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. That is their good fortune, and an effect of the TCJA, but not "Tax Avoidance". It seems taxation is not a subject of yours. In such situations, you should seek consensus/ask first, before making large amounts of changes. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

User:OldandGood2876, if you would like to come to my Talk Page, I would be happy to discuss with you how this information could be best used. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:POINTY behavior from User:Stricnina

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Started with my reversion of his deletions that incorrectly stated that the statements were unsourced (they were).
• Started discussion in talk page (Talk:Babaylan#Introduction: some statements and the relevance of given sources) saying that my use of primary sources are inappropriate because they didn't have the "keywords" and because they were primary sources. I replied and told him why I used them, and why they should be retained.
• Despite my appeal not to make it personal, and objecting specifically to it, they call me "Dear" in all their responses.
• Started tag-bombing the article for impossible/unrelated requests ("excessive citations"; ""specify", "request quotation", etc.) purportedly to "stimulate improvement".

I've had enough.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have properly explained the use of inline tags in the "reasons" provided in the talk page section of Babaylan. For example, regarding the particular specify tag I have added and then subsequently removed by Obsidian Soul, I have explained in the talk page that the purpose of adding such tag is to harmonize the article with the related Katalonan Wiki article and pave way to inclusion of more sources, including the Fluckiger source which makes distinctions between katalonan, babaylan, maganito, etc., which apparently the article Babaylan failed to address. Also, I have sufficiently explained my reasons regarding the unnecessary use of primary sources when secondary sources were already provided in the Wiki article itself, as I have explained in the talk page. About the use of "dear", well... it's not used maliciously, I have used dear many times, even in my own talk page, to several fellow Wiki editors. Stricnina (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, regarding the "excessive citations" tag I have added, I have added it in the spirit of Wikipedia policy regarding citation overkill, which clearly states that "two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations.". Also, citation overkill makes the verification a hard process to do, and as the policy itself states, two or three sources are enough. As to most of the inline tags I have added, I have provided reasons of adding them, which I believe are valid concerns and not just for the sake of being WP:POINTY. Stricnina (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Re-reading Obsidian Soul's replies like this, said editor appears to be taking my interventions in the Babaylan article as direct personal attacks against them. I repeat, the use of "dear" is not an insult. I have addressed many editors in that way, even in my own talk page. This non-assumption of good faith is ruining any attempt at collaboration with this particular editor and possibly reaching any kind of consensus. Stricnina (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you miss this part: "Babaylan (also balian or katalonan, among many other names) were shamans of the various ethnic groups of the pre-colonial Philippine islands"? Or this entire section: Babaylan#Terminology? The article is a general overview of the shamans in precolonial Philippines, not the shamans of a particular ethnic group (like in Katalonan). "Babaylan" is used as the title since it is the most widely used among most ethnic groups and the most recognizable term when referring to Philippine shamans.

I've linked WP:DRIVEBY in my very first response when you added a highly unnecessary large "more citations needed" tag at the top of the article after removing two sources out of 78. And you went ahead and did more of it anyway. None of them are constructive, and none are related to our discussion in the talk page. You seemed to be adding them just out of spite. If you think there's a problem, fix it. The statement you tagged with "excessive" for instance, has a lot of sources because that is a very controversial part of the article that kept getting removed. I'm not even sure if I was the one who added those references. You could have fixed that easily by bundling the single-use references. The statements you tagged with more citations needed are sourced to the next nearest reference or the end of the paragraph. And so on. These aren't "valid" tags. This is literally WP:OVERTAGGING.

Having you add more and more tags while we are still in the talk page is extremely infuriating. No I am not WP:OWNing the article. But I did write most of it two years ago, so it falls on me to answer your requests for verification since I was the one who added them (and some of the sources aren't even accessible anymore). It would have been fine if it was reasonable like your initial removal of the meaning of *balian per Blust & Trussel (since the url doesn't directly link to the *balian page). But when you start questioning every single reference you can find and expect me to run around providing you with direct quotations (or worse - list ALL the ethnic groups with shamans), that is not WP:AGF. Especially since as you yourself said, you aren't even disputing the actual statements, you just want exact "keywords" or "direct quotes" (at the same time contradicting yourself by saying "I should reword the statement quoted", which is exactly what I did in the first place). You are not helping. And you know damn well you aren't.

I admit I may be mistaken in your use of "Dear". I simply do not like being addressed that way, and made it clear I don't. I assumed you were being sarcastic by continuing to use it. Nevertheless, stop saying it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

By reading your replies, it appears you don't even know what I am even trying to say. I don't want to explain myself again, I believe my explanations above and in the talk page are sufficient. I have tried and I myself am continuing to try to resolve possible issues I am seeing there, however that is becoming impossible as any contributions that I have added there are interpreted as personal attacks by you, which is a sign that you are not assuming good faith anymore and that you are even owning the article itself. Even the few tags that I have added unrelated to the dispute that we had in the talk page, complete with reasons as to why I have added them, are just being interpreted as WP:OVERTAGGING and as being done "out of spite" (Obsidian Soul's own words), without directly addressing the main issues that needs to be addressed. It appears that at this point, no one else will be editing that article other than you since any attempt at collaboration is now being ruined by your personal whims and malicious interpretations that are completely unfounded. Stricnina (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Like your most recent change? Despite what I said above? Despite the fact that the entire article clearly talks about Philippine shamans as a whole, not merely the Visayan ones? And you're the one accusing me of not listening to your explanations?

You don't "resolve possible issues" with tags. Tags are for identifying issues that you can't fix. And yes, the fact that they were unrelated is precisely why I lost my temper. I literally just told you not to overtag, but you went ahead and did it anyway. What's more, as I've explained above, none of them are constructive. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That kind of edit is born out of the presence of sources that make distinctions between babaylans and katalonans made by people working in the academic field. You think I just did that to spite you? Wrong. Read the sources. Interpreting that kind of edit, complete with citations, as "born out of spite" is just you personalizing the issue and attributing it to malice and abandoning assumption of good faith. Your uncollaborative behaviour and malicious interpretations of every contribution that is not yours makes any attempt at improving the article very difficult. Stricnina (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

LOL. The source you are bandying around is McCoy 1982, which I have used ten times in the article. Including to specifically say that baylan and cognates are merely the most common terms, and are not the same terms used by other ethnic groups. For the last time, this is explained very clearly in the article itself. If you read past the first sentence, that is. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have read the article, and it clearly states that babaylan is a term mostly used in the central Philippines. And most examples of babaylan or baylan listed in that article were from the Visayas region. I don't see why you keep ignoring the point I am making. Have you read the source yourself? Stricnina (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you really not understand the concept of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES and how only a single name (the most common one) can be used in the title? Alipin is an overview of the Philippine precolonial serf class, even though the title is Tagalog. Aswang is an overview of the mythological demon-like creature throughout the Philippines, even though the title is Tagalog. Agimat is an overview of all Philippine talismans and charms, even though the title is Tagalog.

Babaylan is an overview of all Philippine shamans, even though the title is Visayan. Do you understand this? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The name I don't call into dispute, I dispute the definition. Or at least the wording of the heading (of course, any of my attempts at rewording this with sources to strengthen my contributions will just be undone by you). I don't propose changing the name of the article whatsoever. Maybe if you read the provided sources instead of maliciously interpreting all of my comments by calling them as "born out of spite" and abandoning all assumptions of good faith and professionality, then maybe you'll understand. This is also why I am calling the attention of other possible experts to give their input to this discussion by using the "RfC" function of Wikipedia. Stricnina (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me repeat that since you clearly still don't understand this is not about the name: do you dispute that the article Babaylan is an overview of all Philippine shamans, even though the title is Visayan?

Your wording refuses to acknowledge that babaylan is being used as a generic term for shamans. And makes it so that it seems like the Tagalog katalonan is special and different "in contrast" to all the other shamans of the dozens of other ethnic groups that by your wording, can just be lumped under "Visayan".

The original wording already makes it clear that babaylan are known by other names in other ethnic groups, including katalonan. The specifics of what those terms are has its own entire section (which also clearly identifies the origin of the term babaylan as Visayan). Do you want to move the list of names to the first sentence as well? After all, if you specifically identify the terms as Visayan and Tagalog, you have to mention the Itneg term, the Maranao term, the Sama term, the Yakan term, the Manobo term, and so on.

I resent your continued allusions that I do not read my sources or use them properly. Sure, just because I wrote most of the article certainly does not make me WP:OWN it. But it also means that I spent a lot of time researching this topic and know when what you are trying to do is simply mistaken. Your "improvements" have now ranged from:

1. Deleting a sourced statement;

2. Deleting sources for no reason other than they were primary sources;

3. Adding a ton of tags for all the things you can nitpick but can't be bothered to check or fix;

4. Disputing the actual lead sentence.

And you expect me not to assume malice? None of that is WP:AGF about my contributions. It's not my article, but the edits you are challenging are mine. Worst of all, you've managed to tick off two of the things that make me lose my temper here in Wikipedia: WP:Wikilawyering and WP:Overtagging. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Then I think I understand what the problem here is. No one here is forcing you to do anything. No one here is attacking you directly. Yet my contributions in the Babaylan Wiki page you have interpreted as personal attacks against you, calling my contributions as mere provocations to irritate you while getting worked up at non-malicious words such as "dear", interpreting whatever edits I commit as just committed out of spite. Stop taking things personally as I have never meant to demean your valuable contributions whatsoever. Stricnina (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I have sufficiently presented my reasons as to why those primary sources are redundant (and their use alone there to support the statements as I have quoted in the talk page constitutes original research) and I don't want to repeat myself. You already have the secondary sources at hand, yet this little innocent suggestion you interpreted as malicious personal attack against you? I did not mean to demean your work by challenging the inclusion of those two primary sources. Stricnina (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to give some context to your accusations of WP:OWNERSHIP. I've written 620 mainspace articles for Wikipedia in the past 10 years, not counting expansions like this one. You think I monitor every single one of them and revert all the changes when they happen because I WP:OWN them? I am reverting you because I genuinely think your edits either do not improve the article, actively make it worse, or are just so nonsensical they seem malicious to me. Acknowledge that first instead of just accusing me of WP:OWN.

The primary sources thing wasn't what made me angry (and I have answered that with actual quotes in the talk page on why I was using them and how they supported the statement they were attached to). What made me mad was the fact that you kept editing the article and adding the most infuriatingly inane tags even when I specifically told you not to do a WP:DRIVEBY. I could not continue assuming good faith after that. More than that, when I objected to your overtagging, you jumped to another issue and are now challenging the lead sentence based on a pedantic view that babaylan is a Visayan term and should not be applied to Tagalog katalonan. What's next? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are not constructive. I am tired of re-explaining myself why excessive tagging or wrongly using primary sources that do not support the statements aren't allowed under Wikipedia policy. And yes, maybe I'll perform more edits in the future when the necessity arises. The article requires improvement like addition of more citations, adding new content, making statements align to the given source, analyzing the source itself as part of the verification process, etc. (What, are those not allowed too?) You are just here getting worked up and picking negative vibes at whatever I do in that Wiki article, interpreting them as insults or provokations. And of course, the disruptive editing. Stricnina (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Again I literally gave you direct quotes from those primary references that explain why they were used. Literally their only purpose there is to verify the "witches" and "priests of the devil" part. But hey, explain the policies to me. It's not like I've been doing this for 10 years. Explain the "keywords" part especially, because I've never encountered that policy... ever. I have not forbidden you from editing at all, as your latest edits would attest, and I welcome improvements not just to articles I have contributed to, but on everything in Wikipedia. I expanded this article itself for exactly the same reason.

But believe it or not, adding tags to nitpick the tiniest of issues (arguably imaginary) is not a friendly thing to do when we are already discussing a different (also arguably imaginary) issue in the talk page. That is borderline edit-warring. I suggest you read WP:DRIVEBY and WP:OVERTAGGING in full to understand why it made me so angry. Especially this very important aspect of it (emphasis mine):

"Placing tags is, in itself, not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself."

I do not like disputes and I have a temper. I am an article creator and I generally avoid the social aspects of Wikipedia. This is why.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That specific portion of the paragraph is formatted in a way that seems like the primary sources are not being used in the proper way, which is to testify that the primary sources themselves "actually, directly say what the article says it does". See WP:PRIMARYCARE and WP:PRIMARY for more details. In other words, if you're going to use the primary sources, mention what the primary sources actually say. The two sources at hand didn't say anything about "how often" the babaylan "are being maligned" and "falsely accused" as a witch or about the second statement regarding whatever their role they have in modern society (those primary sources are from ages ago, how could they be used to fortify statements of the shamans' modern status?). Use secondary sources for these kind of claims, because the policy here is clear: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

How I placed the tags are constructive, as I have always mentioned the rationale in the templates themselves when placing the inline tags and never did I resort to repeated redundant tagging of statements. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're WP:DRIVEBY. I've explained my rationale for adding specific tags below so I'm not repeating myself. Stricnina (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

My POV: Obsidian Soul's disruptive edits

Hi, this is Stricnina and if it is allowed, may you allow me to present my POV, by showing a series of disruptive edits committed by the user Obsidian Soul such as the ff:

• Restoring an edit regarding potential misuse of primary sources that do not support the preceding statement. I have explained my argumentations in the talk page to justify the removal of the superfluous primary sources, proving that they are being used to support statements that are not specifically mentioned in the primary sources themselves, thus violating the policy regarding careful use of primary sources. Yet said disruptive user ignores many points and dismisses the importance of properly using primary sources;
• Unjustified removal of the "excessive citations" tag even when the Wikipedia policy is very clear regarding the citation overkill policy and the recommendation that "more than three" sources "should generally be avoided. Obsidian Soul's justification for undoing this edit is basically that "those aren't valid tags" and just constitutes WP:Overtagging. Also, that citation overkill of over seven sources complicates the process of verifying the content that those sources are supposed to support;
• Unjustified removal of the "Specify" tag even when a valid reason has been stated. The only reason he can muster as to why the tag is unnecessary is because "those aren't valid tags" and that particular tag is just there "out of spite". When actually resorting to fixing the disputed statement with relevant sources instead of just leaving a tag deemed not "valid", said user resorted to just undoing it again. Basically, any kind of intervention is being prevented here, even when said contribution is actually sourced;
• Just generally consider any edits in the Babaylan page as personal attacks, calling my contributions as mere provocations while getting worked up at non-malicious words such as "dear", interpreting whatever edits I commit as just committed out of spite. All of this creates an atmosphere that prevents either collaboration or even reaching consensus. It's as if said user is owning the article itself while interpreting the abovementioned edits as personal attacks;

Stricnina (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's actually amusing to me how you are now adding quotes to the sources I've used. As if it was my fault all along that you couldn't be bothered to read them beforehand. I hope you keep in mind the reason why I didn't use quotes for references that are used multiple times for different statements (you could consider using {{RP}} not full quotes to avoid WP:INLINECLUTTER). But here's the crazy thing: I'm not reverting them, because unlike your earlier edits, these are actually constructive.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The addition of quotes is part of the verification process to ensure the Wiki article Babaylan is following Wikipedia standards. It means another contributor (which is me) is trying to understand whether the sources are being used properly and not being used for original research. Just normal procedure that everyone should do, and that is what I am doing. Stricnina (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Must be nice being a "verifier". Did I pass? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul and Stricnina, you both ought to be ashamed about engaging in this lengthy back-and-forth argument about the intricate details of your trivial content dispute here on a very high visibility page. Don't you both know that ANI does not adjudicate content disputes? I feel like I have wasted my time reading all of this crap but I will give you both some advice. Stop all your passive-aggressive give and take, and return to the article's talk page with a renewed dedication to building consensus, which requires compromise. But I need to speak directly to you, Stricnina, about your inappropriate use of the term of endearment "dear". Stop using that word to fellow editors. Throughout much of the English speaking world, that word is reserved for intimate friends or lovers or spouses, and is condescending, insulting and patronizing when used outside the context of such a relationship. As for you, Obsidian Soul, you have told us repeatedly what you find "extremely infuriating" and what makes you "lose my temper". This reflects very poorly on you. Do not edit Wikipedia when you are enraged. Walk away from the keyboard and wash some dishes or do the laundry or read a book or take a long walk when you are in that state of mind, and return to editing only when you have calmed down. Enraged editors get blocked. Be careful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for this shameful arguing and I am sorry for using "dear" as I am not a native English speaker, and I was always writing messages here to other Wiki editors as though I am writing a formal mail or email, with "Dear" as introductory greeting and with a signature in the end. Sorry for not figuring when not to use "dear" and when to use it. Stricnina (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll take a break. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this of concern?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Special:Permalink/940481835 —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Some people use their sandboxes for what seems to be fanfiction or live action roleplaying. (For example, administrators recently deleted a series of pages about fictional countries, wars, etc. that were stored on sandboxes. I am hoping that that is what this is, since the date given is 30 years in the future. In any case, though, this is misuse of the sandbox system and should be deleted. Michepman (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the time travelers are getting bold...Well its not constructive, and the IP should have been warned. But the edit was made two days ago, and they haven't followed it up, so not much to be done. I don't see any reason to email it to the emergencies list either, as it just looks like someone writing alternate history for fun. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That IP geolocates SUMMIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Probably a kid trolling. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 04:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am in content dispute with highly disruptive page where employees edited the page in past. User:KartikeyaS343 is accusing me for bad faith and calling me POV pusher repeatedly. [297], [298], [299] and here is on the complete another page. I have warned him not to use this type of comments but he did these repeatedly. I am not going to argue with the editor who had called my good faith edits as POV pushing but this is blatant violation of WP:NPA policy. If he had problem then he could have put rationale first rather than accusing me as POV pusher on multiple pages. I have corrected myself and my edits as per his explanation in last. But he deserves strong warning for these accusations!-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

My first edit on the article was this[300] where I clearly mentioned my rationale in the edit summary. I didn't call him a POV pusher. Then my talk page message was this[301] where I explained the reason again without calling him a POV pusher. This[302] was my last message to him on the talk page. It is good that he corrected himself based on my last explanation and this should prove how frustrating it was to explain a simple LEAD to an experienced editor like him.

I only mentioned "POV pushing" in this edit summary[303] due to my frustration when he accused me with other editors to Yamla[304] without even commenting anything on the content. I would not even call his edits as POV pushing but his contribution and talk page discussions show such patterns in different communal pages.KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

A strong warning is not due in this case, but here's my advise: it probably isn't the most civil thing to describe someone's edits as "pov pushing" (though it is not a personal attack). Still, let's try to aim at more moderate language when it comes to editing that one feels stray from neutrality. Anyway, there ought to have been an attempt at resolution at the user's talk page first — not every slight belongs at ANI. Please aim at an amicable, or at the very least, collegial interaction that is devoid of unnecessary innuendo, but also please try to resolve minor disputes yourself before bringing it to this noticeboard, which is meant for truly intractable disputes. Thanks and good luck. El_C 16:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.