Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028

AfD discussion

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 a creator of an article who has also voted to Keep that article, SNOW close its AfD discussion? See here. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd call that a bad non-admin closure as they're involved (per the first criterion in the linked page, [t]he non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved). I'm not saying that a SNOW closure is wrong, per se, only that it's inappropriate for the article's creator and a !voter to do the close. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I left a message on their talk page to ask them to reverse it. That's the thing to do, rather than posting here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Vegan Gypsy, In case you are not aware, you are supposed to discuss the concern with Störm first, before bringing it here at ANI. Also you are supposed to post a notification on his talk page using the template {{subst:ANI-notice}} DBigXrayᗙ 20:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Typically it's the wrong thing to do, in this case a good case for IAR and NOTBURO could be argued here. Everyone wants to keep it, it was opened long enough. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see this post at ANI, but reverted Störm's close as being way inappropriate to do at AfD; left a note on their talk page as well. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I also didn't see the ANI posting, but Britishfinance (in my view correctly) undid the close right in time for WP:AFDO to update, so I closed it anyway as the obvious keep it ultimately was. Agree entirely that it was a very poor choice to close it as it was, but the outcome was ultimately not in doubt here. I've mentioned this on Störm's talk page, providing it doesn't happen again I think all is well here. ~ mazca ^talk 21:16, 15 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.

Crusader316 POV/Agenda oriented editing

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.

---

Moved from WP:AIV

-Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Crusader316 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) His own comments suggest he's a block-evader, and his username is obviously connected with religious POV-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It IS obvious, in both name and comments. And I don't do ANI, for the last 20 months or so, and I intend to keep it that way. So you're going to allow Crusader316 to impose his religious fanaticism on the Wikipedia main page??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I'll move it to ANI for you ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
(Ad Orientem was faster, thanks) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment Based on their comments and editing history I am inclined to believe that this is a banned or blocked user whose block has likely not expired or been lifted. Further their editing history strongly suggests that their sole purpose here is to advance a specific agenda related to their religious beliefs. So even setting aside their likely block evasion, I think they are basically WP:NOTHERE. That said I don't think their conduct falls within the narrow remit of AIV and have accordingly migrated the report to here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 15 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.

Losmurfs adding defamatory content

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 15 January 2020 Losmurfs added defamatory content to two separate articles: first at 13:33 to Republican Party (United States); and again at 14:14 to Ronna McDaniel (BLP). At 18:05 Alansohn warned Losmurfs about defaming Ronna McDaniel, but at 22:30 this situation jumped beyond Wikipedia into social media, as someone on Twitter crowed that for 5½ hours today the Republican Party was categorized as Organized Crime in the United States, and began off-wiki canvassing to urge Wikipedia to restore that defamatory categorization. NedFausa (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the analysis by NedFausa. While I reverted both edits in question and left a final warning, I would not object to a block. Alansohn (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Slapping some discretionary sanctions warnings too. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked. Their first response to the warning was to double down on their bullshit. I have given them an indef block. If they respond in the proper manner, which includes a full understanding of what they did wrong and assurances to not do it again, any admin could unblock. --Jayron32 01:04, 16 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.

Masquerading user pages as 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.

---

• User:Karama_Kingdom
• User:Battle_of_London
• User:Battle_of_Barnala
• User:Battle_of_Kunjpura
• User:Maharaja_Karam_Singh
• User:Lal_Bai

Basically as the title says, multiple user accounts are being created regarding fictitious events and disguised as articles. Links to these pages are then inserted into genuine articles so as to confuse readers.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

It is evident that these are created by the same person given the short time-span within which they are all generated. Additionally, the majority of these faux-articles are regarding similar topics, e.g fantastical victories of Indians over other world powers like the Ming, British and Russian empires, or the existence of a pan-America Hindu state. It is also worth noting that the accounts rarely insert their own links into articles, but rather do those of others listed above, suggesting that they are associated with each other.

This is all in addition to general disruptive editing, i.e unexplained and unsourced changes of content: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

While I've listed above all the faux-articles that I could find, I don't believe I've managed to identify all of them.
Alivardi (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've U5'd the userpages. El_C 15:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

​ Is it also worth blocking account creation for the IPs?
Alivardi (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 16:02, 16 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.

Antisemitic disruption - "Truth1230"

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.

---

• Truth1230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an admin please block the above user, given this vile edit summary? I would ordinarily do it myself, but I am about to go offline for a while and I have edited the article in question.

Note I also have a pending SPI request for this user and the associated fairly obvious sock network. Neutrality^talk 16:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've yanked that edit summary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Now blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there ever a user with the word Truth in their name that isn't here to push extreme philosophies and right great wrongs and who doesn't get blocked within a couple of weeks? Canterbury Tail talk 20:32, 16 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.

User talk:12.5.185.2

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.

---

Can we get another talk page revocation for User talk:12.5.185.2? Their talk page access was revoked in November for ranting repeatedly about their block, and it appears that they are back to ranting again after the page protection ran out. Thanks. — Chevvin 20:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Instated talk page revocation.--Jayron32 20:52, 16 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.

Hunan201p (talk · contribs) personal attacks and preventing me to edit.

Hunan201p (talk · contribs) avoiding to use the talk and says I am doing "blatant censorship" although the older version is wrong and misleading, I explained it on Ashina tribe's talk page.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=934641402 "Removed Beshogur's POV penmanship"
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=934641237 "Restoring blatant censorship of longstanding and reviewed content by Beshogur. You are not allowed to re-write articles to fit your POV. Doing so may already have guaranteed that you will be blocked.", long standing does not mean it is always correct.

I have put my time and rewritten the article, and explained in talk section what I changed. Hunan201p says I am not allowed to edit. That is censorship. Here, Talk:Ashina_tribe#Beshogur's_opinions, Hunan201p is removing sourced content by giving his own opinion without any source, saying that those sources are not correct. here is the rewritten version of Ashina tribe, can administrators check if I did any mis thing? All are well sourced, and I checked all sources at origin section here, which they are valid but the text is completely misleading. Beshogur (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the fourth time in 1 week that Beshogur has abused the noticeboard after someone reverted his independent re-write of an entire article. Is that something that is going to be taken in to consideration this time? Hunan201p (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I am abusing nothing. What is wrong of my rewrite, can you please explain? I am not going to wait for other users to wait their rewrite. And you can not prevent me by doing it. Are you an admin? If you have problems do it on talk page of Ashina tribe. The revert you did contains misleading informations as I have explained, this, what you did are violating the rules by putting non real info. Also to show admins what he did, four times

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=932878319 "Undid revision 932818291 by Beshogur (talk) Reverted falsified edit by Beshogur, left bluelink and explanation at talk page. Please post your references at the talk page with detailed explanations in the future, will be reporting you to an admin if you pull this again"
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=932955130 "Undid revision 932884442 by Beshogur (talk) You have done it again! I left a bluelinked reference to your most recent falsified attempt to label Ashina as Turkic, using a reference that does not explicitly state such. Because you continue to use non-bluelinked references that don't support your claims, I will be reporting you. Strongly advise leaving this page alone and discussing on the talk page."
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=934263011 "Undid revision 934238782 by Beshogur (talk) Undid revision by Beshogur, did not find new source material to replace disputed references"
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashina_tribe&diff=prev&oldid=934269858 "Undid revision 934266674 by Beshogur (talk)"

although he did not revert it this time. I want to show what he was doing. Now doing the same with me rewrite of the article. Beshogur (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, you seem to be confused. Wikipedia is not a race, and you're not competing against it. This article as it stands has multiple well-referenced academic citations arguing a similar viewpoint, which you are, by your own admission, in a race against time to censor. This should be enough to warrant a block from your editing Ashina tribe and Gokturks. Hunan201p (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you answer? Have you checked the sources itself. The text written is misleading and sorely wrong. Seems like you did not read them. I have controlled them one by one. Plus I did not remove them on the rewrited version, I corrected them. Beshogur (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Not only did you not correct them, it is not your duty to do that in sweeping unilateral edits. The references were reviewed by multiple users, including Wario-Man, and all supported the original statements, which you originally deleted (along with the references themselves). This is the fourth time you have abused the Administrator's noticeboard with frivolous content disputes. I vote for a block. Hunan201p (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no more words. You confess that you did not check them saying others did. You still do not understand, nothing is wrong with the references, the text written is misleading and wrong, I did not remove them. Some texts were written two times as well. How many times am I going to say that? I have put all of them before, did you even read them one time? Beshogur (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a solid consensus for or against Beshogur's edits on the talk page. Beshogur, please stop reintroducing content against opposition; one day passing without editors responding to a talk page discussion is not a green light for you to reintroduce contested content. Give the talk page discussion more time; there's several other editors who may weigh in even if Hunan201p refuses to (although I would encourage Hunan201p to engage on the talk page as well). If more than a week has passed without progress on the talk page, take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard or convene an RfC. Don't start a new ANI discussion until these steps have been taken. Hunan201p, please try to be a bit more civil on the talk page and in edit summaries. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

So nothing said about his former 4 edits I listed above which were clearly

POV pushing? The main problem is this user's behavior in general. Also thanks, I will take it to resolution noticeboard. Beshogur (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear about the above diffs is that you and Hunan201p have a disagreement about the article's content. The correct way to resolve this is to get other editors to share their opinions and work toward a consensus on the talk page. It would be incredibly premature to impose sanctions for POV pushing at this time, since there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus for either of your positions, nor evidence that this is a behavioral pattern persisting across multiple articles. However, both of you are pretty close to getting slapped with sanctions for edit warring. Since it seems extremely unlikely that you two will be able to convince each other directly, I would suggest stating your proposed content changes briefly and clearly on the talk page, and then going to work on something else while you wait for additional editors to comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I've been looking at Hunan201p (talk · contribs)'s editing history and talk page, and he seems to have a history of making contentious bold edits. Often he deletes information that is in his opinion "not well-sourced", before reaching a consensus with other users. He also seems to have an agenda of editing articles in order to favor Indo-European/Iranian origins for something, instead of Turkic or Mongolic. I would hope that Hunan201p (talk · contribs) adds tags like or before he wholesale deletes entire sentences and paragraphs for having "unreliable sources". I would agree that Hunan201p (talk · contribs)'s editing history is problematic. Instead of deleting, it would be more helpful and less contentious to add more tags, like , , or before deleting info. --Leppaberry-123 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious how you figured I was biased, when in fact if you look at Wikipedia pages that I've edited, there appears to be a persistent "East Asian" bias, in spite the fact that in most cases, these edits are original research based on extremely low quality references and minimize or ignore comoeting hypotheses, which often have better references. The policy adopted via multiple consensus has been to delete controversial information where it appears with low quality references.-Hunan201p (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: You be amazed that Hunan201p is engaged in like over 10 edit warring in just 2 weeks. He always deletes information and replaces with his bias manipulated edit, in the edit summary he would try to convince people by saying "not well-sourced", "not reliable", he is in edit war with piratically everyone. One only needs to look at his history. I'm using only few examples here. Non-sop edit warring he is properly going to do this for years. Either a troll or have clear strong agenda.

[14]

In Ashina tribe page, edit war for 2 weeks with user Beshogur |Leppaberry-123 [15]

In Mal'ta–Buret culture-123 page, edit war for 1-2 week with user [User:Leppaberry-123 [16]

In Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of the Caucasus edit war for 1-2 weeks with User:Calthinus [17]

In Ancient North Eurasian edit war with Krakkos, Chris Capocci, Bathtub Barracuda for 1-2 weeks [18] DerekHistorian (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Those links do demonstrate an editing style that is more confrontational than it needs to be, but I'm not sure I see anything that's clearly sanctionable, particularly given that editors involved in those disputes do not appear to have attempted to resolve the discussion on those articles' talk pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: In regards to the Mal'ta–Buret' culture article, Hunan201p has persistently kept making bold edits by deleting information that has been present on the articles for years. I have told Hunan201p for him to first use the talk page to form consensus before making bold/contentious edits, which is in accordance to Wikipedia policy/guidelines.

When reminded of this, he cites (WP:SCIRS) to justify his recurring behavior of making contentious/bold edits before coming to consensus on an article's talk page. Despite the fact that (WP:SCIRS) explicitly states:

"This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

There are many instances where other users did reach out to Hunan201p in talk pages, such as here: Talk:Haplogroup_NO, but in spite of this Hunan201p still went ahead and stealthily reverted back to his edits several months later, see: Haplogroup NO: Revision history

With Hunan201p himself admitting that in his view Wikipedia has "a persistent 'East Asian' bias" that he needs to correct, it's hard to see his editing behavior as acting in good faith.

--Leppaberry-123 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok yeah, on review there are issues here. While there are times when it is acceptable for editors to be stern and "lay down the law", in the absence of a clear talk page discussion or a clear violation of a guideline or policy an edit summary like this is not ok and comes off as bullying. This edit also appears to be a clear attempt to reinstate an edit despite having tried and failed to get a consensus for it on the talk page.

I honestly don't know enough about the subject matter to have an opinion about the relative merits of the edits that Hunan201p is making. Because of this, and the general lack of talk page discussion on the pages where this has been happening, I would feel uncomfortable implementing sanctions unilaterally. If this behavior continues, however, a TBAN from race-related articles may be necessary, given the clear WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill and Leppaberry-123: Yes, actually, there have been in the past some unestablished users and persistent IPs who have pushed things that are opposite of what Hunan seems to believe -- these include Chinese nationalist sorts (and/or Han ethnonationalists), certain flavours of pan-Turkists, and others from the same sleeve, and they can be a problem. But even if Wikipedia did have a persistent East Asian bias, that would not excuse some of the behaviours involved, including imposing Wikipedia essays as rules, stealthily contravening consensus later as documented above, and firing off aspersions, all on a topic as delicate as human genetics. A point of curiosity -- can we find a time he strongly disagreed with someone about content on this topic, and did not edit war? Because sometimes he edit wars even with people who have similar beliefs to him overall on content (me) but disagree with him on policy.

Yes, his outrage is selective -- on Ashina tribe he did not touch an enormous block of totally uncited text that would have been synth even if it was sourced (and dubious -- i.e. identity of dead language x can be deciphered from which characters are used in an unrelated language over 1k yrs later)[19] -- but this OR was OR that suggested a "West Eurasian" and Indo-European origin for the people in question. Did he notice this? Of course, he had been editing the page for months [[20]], all the while levelling threats in edit summaries [[21]], accusing his opponent of falsification [[22]]. You'd think surely that enormous section would be more problematic, but... no. If he would cut out the selective outrage and the incivility/baseless accusations associated with it, as well as the stealth, he could be a useful editor. But this is far from the first time he has been approached about his behaviour.--Calthinus (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This topic is rife with sockpuppets in the past (see WP:Tirgil34), and there's a lot of activity from new accounts. Bbb23 and Berean Hunter have dealt with the sockmaster who disrupts this topic in the past, so pinging them to see if they have any input. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Specifically, which users are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: at the moment, Leppaberry-123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has edited on at least 5 pages listed in Tirgil's LTA page and is brand new. But also just commenting that this area is constantly a source of dispute and targeted by a few prolific sockmasters like Tigril, WorldCreateFighter, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Leppaberry-123 is  Unrelated to Tirgil34.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: While we are on the subject of sockpuppets, I was wondering if User:Irantointerna is a sockpuppet of Hunan201p, they made similar edits in the article Turkic peoples: diff and diff Both seem to have an agenda of trying to downplay the Eastern Eurasian origins of the Turkic languages/peoples.

Thanks Bbb23. Also pinging because of Leppa's comment above. Leppaberry-123, fair question but seems a bit unlikely ([23]). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Hunan201p had been having edit wars since September. I've already made a discussion on talk page long time ago, he just simply doesn't want to since the beginning.:DerekHistorian (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Lotus throne

Today, a DYK for the article Lotus throne made the front page, the archive of the hook is here. I did the initial DYK review of the article back on December 18. As I was reviewing it, I noticed what I thought were inconsistencies in the citation style and there were some duplicative citations. Knowing, Wikipedia:CITEVAR, and the standards of DYK, I tried to clean-up the citations to get the article ready for the front page. You can see the four edits I made on December 18 here. I didn't change the content, just tried to clean up the referencing.

This morning, several edits were made that I find concerning. The first two were on my talk page, made by User:Johnbod. I find the anger and the use of profanity in the post and the edit summary uncivil. The third is the edit summary here:

"rvt back beforew [sic] appalling deceptive cite-banditry, to 18 Dec"

Cite banditry? Is that even a thing? Anyway, I made the edits in good faith three weeks ago while trying to prepare the article for DYK. Would some please delete the three edits from the official record? --evrik ^(talk) 04:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This was an outrageous breach of WP:CITEVAR, which I had not noticed (just before Christmas) until checking the article over after it came off the main page - especially because the worst edits had no edit summaries, which was very annoying. There was nothing wrong with the referencing. It is not true that he didn't change the content - at various points his imposing of the sfn format removed extra information in the notes. User:evrik's comments above show he is blithely unaware he has done anything wrong. I think I have encountered similar bad behaviour from him before, but I can't remember when or where. He has been around for a long time, and clearly thinks he knows it all, but he doesn't. He can of course remove the section from his talk page himself, which is what he normally does (without archiving) with criticism of his edits, of which there is a fair volume. Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

PS His DYK review was rubbish also! Johnbod (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• I do not want to engage in any kind of back-and-forth about content, style, or any past interactions. I simply want the profanity and insults administratively removed from my page and the edit summaries. Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 15:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ...and then you intend to go on ignoring policy with supreme self-satisfaction! Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have put it quite as Johnbod did, but your edit clearly does violate WP:CITEVAR, in particular the instruction to avoid "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates". And I can't see how his edits qualify either for revision deletion or suppression. Just remove the comment from your talkpage. (And for Johnbod – the comment on Evrik's talkpage does strike me as a bit of an overreaction. One violation of citevar is not a blockable offence, and "WHAT THE FUCK!!!" in allcaps with three exclamation marks is excessively shouty.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Again, I'm not going to argue over the article or the edits. I'm not engaging in personal attacks. The profanity used in the edit summary is now permanently on the history of my talk page. I would like it removed. --evrik ^(talk) 15:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Evrik and Johnbod, you are both in the wrong. Evrik, you should not have changed an existing citation style, if only because this brings exactly no benefit to readers. Please don't do it again. And there is no point in revdeleting Johnbod's silly shouting, just delete it from your talk page. Johnbod, you should have not shouted at Evrik. There is never a reason to be impolite, much less profane, towards fellow editors. Because your conduct was substantially more disruptive than Evrik's, I'm blocking you for 24 hours or until you commit not to conduct yourself uncivilly towards others (in which case any admin will unblock you on request). That should be all, I think. Sandstein 20:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sandstein, I would like to unblock Johnbod; do you mind? Evrik's edits didn't only violate CITEVAR. He also didn't make the conversion to sfn correctly (see this version). He left out ref=harv, which meant the short cites weren't linked to the long cites, making the conversion pointless, and as a result the Notes section contained 24 red error messages (e.g. "Harv error: link from CITEREFPal1986 doesn't point to any citation") for editors with the relevant script installed. He also wrote p= instead of pp= for multiple pages, and used hyphens instead of en dash. The errors left the article in poor shape for its day on the main page. I can see why Johnbod would have been annoyed. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  SlimVirgin, I absolutely can see why Johnbod would have been annoyed. I would have been too. But that is no reason, in my view, to unblock Johnbod. It does not excuse or mitigate his misconduct. Two wrongs do not make a right. Users must be civil to one another, especially experiencenced users, and even - or especially - when they are annoyed at one another. Sandstein 21:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Sandstein, it was one comment. Remove WTF and it isn't that bad. It's unusual for someone to be blocked for one instance of profanity. Johnbod is rarely uncivil, which should be taken into account, as should the context. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Totally ridiculous block. I’m surprised there’s anyone still left here writing this project.Had he said “WTF” rather that “What the Fuck” would anyone have even raised an eyebrow? We are living in 2020, at least some of us are. Giano (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  SlimVirgin, in my view, the totality of the circumstances requires a block. That means not only the wording used, but the aggressive and entitled attitude on display, on Evrik's talk page and above - an attitude I read as "because I am right on the merits in this editing dispute, I get to scream at whoever I want as much as much as I want". This is extremely disruptive, particularly from a very experienced editor, who should know that this is a collaborative project and it absolutely does not work - it drives good people away - if we go around screaming at each other at the drop of a hat. And while a newbie might have warranted a warning, there's no excuse for an editor with 200,000 edits to behave like that. Sandstein 21:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Sandstein, the other thing that drives good people away is to go around blocking them at the drop of a hat. Evrik's edit was a violation of CITEVAR and very poor for other reasons, unfortunately in time for a main-page appearance. The original author should be allowed some leeway. To block an editor with no history of trouble and a clean block log, over 24 hours after the post and 16 hours after the complaint, seems heavy-handed. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  SlimVirgin, I've never seen you talk to anyone the way Johnbod talked to Evrik. It's not just one word ("fuck") or even one comment (look at the talk page, the edit summaries, and this ANI thread). Do you approve of the way Johnbod interacted with Evrik? Has Johnbod apologized or otherwise given assurances that it won't happen again? If the answer to both is "no", then there doesn't seem to be any reason to unblock. It shouldn't matter how many citevar errors and editor creates–that's no reason to be this uncivil. And this was really uncivil–a string of personal attacks, even in the ANI thread he kept it up. – Levivich 22:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  First, it doesn't matter if a person has one edit or 200,000 a warning should proceed a block. In fact it can be argued that an experienced editor should be given a chance to deescalate a situation like this rather than leaping to a block. Next, based on the statements so far, this block is clearly WP:PUNITIVE making it not only ridiculous but against policy. Lastly, I've lost count of the number of threads about the word fuck and the WP:CONSENSUS is that using it is not an automatic personal attack. An unblock should come sooner rather than later - time served for goodness sake. MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• FGS, is there no one here capable of applying some common sense. This response by Sandstein is plainly wrong. Giano (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  That post is clearly out of line since it is an attempt to color the response of uninvolved admins to the unblock request. It also raises the question of whether Sandstein is suggesting that the block be changed to indef. I don't know if this is reaching the levels of a move to AN but it sure feels like it. MarnetteD|Talk 22:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ugh, I had hoped that my comment here would defuse things and someone would close the thread with no action taken. Yes, Johnbod's comments were hardly civil, but I am surprised to see that they are considered a blocking offense. I can't see how they can be read as personal attacks, though. And given that it had been five hours since his last post on the matter, in which time Johnbod had made close to 100 unrelated edits, mostly in mainspace, I agree with MarnetteD that this looks close to a punitive block. So I'm adding my voice to those asking Sandstein to reconsider turning down Johnbod's block appeal. (And @Johnbod: just do what Sandstein asks and promise not to do it again.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've accepted Johnbod's request for an unblock. As he is one of the most respected editors on the wiki, I trust that any offence was a momentary lapse, and I have faith that he will not to repeat his actions. John, can I advise you to step away from that particular dispute altogether. Let another editor clean up any CITEVAR issues – I'm sure that the article in question is under huge scrutiny now. --RexxS (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you RexxS. I think that just about everyone here is right and many are also a bit wrong (except for you, Rexx)--yes if we've been here longer and are admins, the bar is higher, but no, I don't think the bar should be that high that this was blockable. BTW whoever said "editors leave because they get blocked for nothing" (or words to that effect) is correct, IMO. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Drmies: I’m still here :) Johnbod, take heart! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  User:SandyGeorgia, you got blocked just once. Rookie. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies and it wasn't even fun; I was out and about, and by the time I got home, everyone had had their say about how unfair it was, and I was unblocked before I even knew I was blocked! But to your point, it is frequently held against me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• RexxS, thanks for unblocking. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Kudos RexxS - thank you. It's always nice when we see some common sense sneak into WP. — Ched (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, many thanks RexxS, and others for their kind and sensible comments. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS for unblocking. I am concerned about this incident, and the conflict with The Rambling Man on AE. I would ask Sandstein to review the blocking policy carefully - a single flare-up reacting to a disruptive edit is not covered at WP:WHYBLOCK, especially when it is followed by demonstrated remorse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Rafe87

• Rafe87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I watch and frequently edit Media coverage of Bernie Sanders as it currently looks like more of a WP:POVFORK than an encyclopedia article. I reverted one of Rafe's edits and gave justification in the edit summary. This was my second revert of Rafe's edits on that page, so I left a POV template on their user page. Rafe did the right thing and took it to the talk page and I assumed the issue had been resolved. After a brief discussion on Rafe's talk page in which Rafe questioned my judgement of a source, and I replied, Rafe wrote, You have a corrupted, perhaps intentionally mendacious, understanding of what Wikipedia's NPOV policy entails...You don't care about notability, you care about pushing a pro-corporate media POV. They copied this message to my talk page. I replied there and asked Rafe to discuss civilly and do away with the personal attacks. Rafe responded with more PAs, saying You're a POV warrior with an agenda is to suppress evidence of media bias against Bernie from Wikipedia. This is nor a personal attack, it's an accurate description of your behavior and agenda. Both I and Bbb23 responded by warning Rafe about the continuing personal attacks, and I left a PA template on Rafe's talk page. Rafe responded to the template on his talk page with yet another attack, so here we are.

Unrelated to me, there's also this. Rafe's block log will show previous blocks for personal attacks. --WMSR (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment editor should be officially warned about WP:PA officially. Also (Personal attack removed) the bad pa like this one. Lightburst (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned, this editor has been blocked before for personal attacks, and one of the PAs I referenced above came in direct response to an official PA warning. I will {{rpa}} offending comments, but I also can't see how there has been insufficient warning here. --WMSR (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to leave a final warning on Rafe87's user talk page. Looking at the user's edits (here, here, and here) clearly show that Rafe87 has an inaccurate understanding of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ("opinion articles" are definitely not allowed on Wikipedia) and what personal attacks are and are not. Directly telling someone that they are a "POV warrior disguised as someone with merely "procedural" objections" and "a POV warrior with an agenda is (sic) to suppress evidence of media bias against Bernie from Wikipedia" are personal attacks. Sure, we've had to have many discussions regarding users who were pushing opinions and their own points of view on Wikipedia, but those discussions come with evidence, and they're not worded directly at the intended user with finger-pointing and in a talk page discussion that's supposed to be resolving a content dispute. The edit made on January 5 by this user is absolutely unacceptable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Strange that the January 5 PA was replying to a comment from 2006. – Levivich 05:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WMSR - I've just finished writing a warning message to Rafe87 here. I hope that it's what begins to turn things around; I guess we'll find out... ;-) I just wanted to follow up with you and give you some informal and helpful advice for future events like this that may happen. I see that you warned Rafe87 multiple times on his/her user talk page regarding the personal attacks and uncivil comments that he/she left toward you earlier. While leaving someone templated warning messages in response to a personal attack they aimed specifically toward you is certainly not against policy nor a wrong or bad thing to do, I definitely do not advise doing so. This is for many reasons: In many similar cases or scenarios I frequently see on Wikipedia, the recipient will interpret the warnings as a retaliatory and emotionally-charged response in reaction, or an attempt to "resort to using official means" because you're angry, and they'll go with that thought or believe and in a negative manner. In cases where the user is a troll or blatantly "not here", they'll see this as a vulnerability and as "troll food", and your warnings will only motivate and encourage them to continue doing it, since (at least to them) it's obviously working, and you're responding and giving them what they want - "food". ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, thanks for your advice, it's certainly welcome and appreciated. My concern was, as another editor pointed out earlier, that I would be admonished for not sufficiently warning the user about relevant policy before coming here. I understand that template messages can be seen as hostile, but I also did not want to continue putting up with personal attacks and did not want to come to AN/I as a first resort. Regardless, thank you for your messages both to me and to Rafe87. You're a skilled wiki-de-escalator :-) --WMSR (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment, WMSR! Thank you very much. :-) No worries at all; I completely understand your position and exactly why you felt the need to leave those warnings on Rafe87's user talk page. Yes, absolutely; in general, warning the involved user sufficiently and attempting to peacefully discuss the issues at-hand with the user is preferred before filing an ANI report here, and other users will frown upon this if the situation warrants these prerequisites beforehand (it's not urgent or a severe policy violation) and the filing party has not done so. Again, what you did was certainly not wrong, incorrect, or bad in any way. In general and when I've found or run into these kinds of warnings, I always make a note to informally advise that editor that he/she should avoid leaving them in that situation if it can be avoided. Sometimes it just can't be... it's a situation that occurs for reasons that are beyond your control, and that's completely fine and certainly not your fault. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There are definitely problems with Rafe87's approach to Wikipedia. Just to add to the above, you can see here how he was trying to add OR and poorly sourced material to an article, and that he had attempted to do so years before as well. When he added it, I reverted him and explained why, and he just readded it in another spot and added more. He only stopped edit warring because Flyer22 Reborn stepped in and he was outnumbered. What if he does this sort of thing again somewhere where only one or zero editors are vigilant? His response to the problems that were explained on the talk page was a flippant (and wrong) Nothing that I added constitutes Original Research. But alright, have the articles for yourselves. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if this incident can be a suitable test candidate for the new partial blocks feature. In this instance, I would propose that Rafe87 is indefinitely blocked from editing Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (but not its talk page) because we can't trust him to edit there responsibly. If he shows he can persuade people to make changes by proposing them on the talk page, that's a solution. If he throws out personal attacks on there, the block would be extended to sitewide. What are people's thoughts on that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I think that's a great idea, and I for one would love to try the new buttons.-- Deepfriedokra 13:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Great Ghu! You just select "partial" and then type the name of the page/namespace. -- Deepfriedokra 13:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 - Not a bad thought at all. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just wait a bit longer for consensus. I'm sure we all want to try the feature out, but I do not want to use it for anything other than a solid agreement here, or for something where any reasonable administrator would have indef blocked before this feature existed (which doesn't apply here - at least not yet). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, Oshwah, and Ritchie333: I would support this action in addition to a shorter-term block for PAs. Rafe has continued introducing controversial content on the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page, and has not responded here, on my talk page, or on their own. --WMSR (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, Oshwah, Ritchie333, Bbb23, and MSGJ: I know I have strong personal opinions on this topic and generally avoid ARBAP2 admin stuff (per my RfA), but I am "on Rafe's side" politically so I'm not sure if I can be seen as bias against "my own people". This behavior is unacceptable and MSGJ made a good block. I agree with the page ban and indef for future PAs or violation of the page ban. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Rafe87 and WMSR have violated 1RR at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Rafe87 was previously notified of the AP2 sanctions, and I notified WMSR I believe yesterday of them (they had already violated 1RR but had not been notified). I cannot block Rafe87 because I believe myself to be WP:INVOLVED. I would prefer that another administrator block (not a partial block) both for the violation, particularly one who is more familiar with the paperwork required for an AE block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I have not broken 1RR. I have reverted more than one edit, but not the same edit. I'm glad to self-revert if I did, but I am not sure that's the case. Edit: I just went through my edit history and confirmed that I did not revert the same edit more than once. WMSR (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article history says otherwise. You have three reverts in the last 24 hours. The rule applies to any revert to an article not specific reversions. 109.152.208.48 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. I did not read the policy closely enough, and have self-reverted. Thank you for pointing this out to me. WMSR (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, I would appreciate if you would withdraw the request for an admin to block me. My mistake was pointed out to me and I fixed it. I am editing in good faith. --WMSR (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you need worry. You've highlighted your self-revert, and any administrator will see that anyway. Thanks for doing so, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23 Glad to see I'm in good company where AE is concerned. FWIW, I see no need for blocks at this juncture. Rafe87 needs to warned concerning this disccsuion amd the necessary AE paperwork filled out. (Don't look at me.) The consequence of further AE violations being the partial block.-- Deepfriedokra 19:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Changed my mind. Rafe87 's behavior, his personal attacks, are so far beyond the Pale. AE aside, I would block until they affirm this behavior will not be tolerated -- Deepfriedokra 19:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked Rafe87 for 48 hours for violating the 1RR restriction — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Obvious 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.

---

Poopy82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See their username, this edit summary, and this reply on their talk page. Need I say more? -Crossroads- (talk) 03:38, 17 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.

Harassment/Personal attacks belligerent and disruptive continued conduct by user:NormanGear

• NormanGear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Melroross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has been engaging on harassment and continued disruptive conduct to my edits, namely on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards and previously also on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people. Has invoked “repetition” to justify their systematic reversals of my verifiable, relevant inputs. Previous “talk” pages resulted in confrontation. Currently this user simply attacks my edits. This is highly invasive and frustrating. See history on both pages and resolve. In several years of editing on Wikipedia and over 3,000 edits done, I have never encountered such antagonistic conduct. Melroross (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Melroross, you are going to have to provide WP:DIFFs for whatever it is you are complaining about, and you are required (by the big red notice in the edit window) to notify the editor you are complaining about. Removing something you added is not a violation of any policy or guideline. John from Idegon (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Melroross:, I'll be blunt here. Reading Talk:Portuguese people#Edit war, you seem to have personalised the dispute far more than NormanGear. Frankly, you're luck that those threads where you made offensive comments about other editors because they were from Brazil or Spain or whatever have been removed, otherwise that talk page would look far worse for you. And I see zero comments from you on the talk page Talk:Spaniards#Repeated content, only comments from NormanGear which is never a good sign if you're the one complaining about the other editor. Neither of you have been perfect, hence why both of you have been blocked, but from where I stand, your behaviour has been far more of a problem than NormanGear.

I don't know who is right on the content issue since that's not something we deal with here anyway. It's easily possible that you're both right and wrong in different parts.

Whatever the case, you need to engage in calm discussion with other editors to resolve the disputes. If you can't resolve the problem only by engaging in discussion on the talk page, try using some form of WP:Dispute resolution to resolve the problems. ANI should never be a part of dispute resolution. You also really not need to stop worrying about where a user comes from let alone their 'mental health' and instead focus only on the content and sources.

BTW, it's a bit concerning after so many recent threads on ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#Edits by Spanish user sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’) that you still don't know the basics of opening a thread here, as highlighted by John from Idegon.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Whops corrected a major error in my comment Nil Einne (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Melroross: Thank you for caring so much about Wikipedia. However, I would like to point out that talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:CONDUCTDISPUTE, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, and Wikipedia talk:Harassment are for discussing the operation of those pages. They are not the correct venue for posting one's concerns about other users. I'm afraid that posting to these pages, and in such profusion, raises concerns about your editing.-- Deepfriedokra 06:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• I don't know why content on Talk:Portuguese people#Edit war as been oversighted, but I do find this comment by OP disturbing-- As I wrote here before, the regular Vandals on this page are almost invariably Brazilians or Hispanics (Spanish & Hispanic-Americans) who hold historical grudges and resentment against the Portuguese. You are just another one. Whilst I regret witnessing this sad conduct here, I will absolutely not tolerate it on Wikipedia and should I see any more of your vandalism, I will ensure you are permanently blocked. This far, your sole contribution to Wikipedia has been systematically reverting valuable work by other users and ranting about Jews and Arabs which you desperately try to push onto Portuguese people. Why not use the time and research on constructive contributions to ie. Spanish and Hispanic topics, your natural habitat? I wonder that anyone on the receiving end of this could remain calm and collegial.-- Deepfriedokra 07:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't mention this, but I believe the suppression was in part because the OP posted WHOIS info including the typical contact email for an IP address. AFAIK, it was a fairly generic ISP IP so I'm not sure if it was necessary. But technically it did I guess violate our OUTING policy. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Two comments: 1. NormanGear's complete editing history is solely directed at countering Melroross at Portuguese people and Spaniards, and Melroross being perturbed by this may be understandable. 2. The content dispute, on both pages, is probably best resolved by WP:RFC. Eostrix (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Eostrix: I find quite unacceptable that you justify Melroross's personal attacks. He has been using these constant personal attacks full of xenophobic arguments since the beginning, the message they posted above is an example, and he was blocked precisely because of those personal attacks. [24] No personal attack is understandable or justifiable.

• In addition, it is not true that I only dedicated myself to reversing Melroross changes, I have also added content, and I have opened a multitude of Talks when I have changed something of Melroross, and he has refused to answer without insulting, and often he doesnt directly discuss on Talk. Do not justify unjustifiable actions.

• Regards.

  NormanGear (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  I have not justified Melroross' actions. I have stated that your editing is solely focused on those two articles (Portuguese people and Spaniards) in which you are in dispute with Melroross (removing "his" content, adding "your" content). I came across this on recent changes patrol, and understanding the underlying content issue is difficult. I repeat my suggestion of a WP:RFC presenting both versions as options. Eostrix (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

My account is quite young, I have been very little on Wikipedia and for now I have only edited in 2 or 3 articles and I had the recent problem with this user. It is not correct, I repeat again, that my purpose is to reverse everything of Melroross, but if I see content that is not correct or ambiguous I am entitled to change it, and I have opened several Talk for it. I have also added content and sources without removing content.

I support your solution though. Regards. NormanGear (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Problematic edits, using at least two accounts

• Lewys G (talk · contribs)
• Lewys Gil (talk · contribs)
• 79.79.1.65 (talk · contribs)
• 2A02:C7F:8AC9:3100:7808:6E2F:D64F:5155 (talk · contribs)

Two issues here: the competency/disruptiveness factor of an editor (adding unsourced, editorial comments and just really badly written content), and the appearance of their using two (and more) accounts simultaneously. I was going to open a report based on Lewys G's history--it's never a good sign when so many edits are reverted, and the user's comments invariably begin with "I need to" or "I just need to." Then the second account came to my notice. There may or may not be more, but both were used at Cool for Cats (song). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the right venue. Matthew hk (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Since it's not merely a matter of block evasion, this is an appropriate noticeboard, given that the registered account(s) haven't been blocked yet, and the mass of disruptive edits amount to a WP:LTA issue. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Matthew hk, for opening an SPI. Much appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

...which is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lewys G. DMacks (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The SPI was found inconclusive. Full circle, I'm requesting indefinite blocks on both registered accounts for disruptive behavior. And a lookout for IPs returning to related articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment I agree. Their editing seems disruptive in effect and they seem to be using the encyclopaedia more like a blog or something. They have a bee in their bonnet about songs that got to #2 and the need to document the songs that were then #1, often expressed in horrendous journalese language that just doesn't work here. They do not seem to respond to Talk page comments – several of us have tried. There is a lot of energy there and it would be great if it was productively used to the benefit of the project, but at the moment, sadly, it is not. DBaK (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Re 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, The admin seldom warrant an indef block to ip. Matthew hk (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I know. I was thinking of Lewys G, to whom Oshwah gave a one week block. 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:89 (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

IP editor re-adding removed comments

• 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:2D78:E737:EFD4:AD2B (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

It looks like this IP editor has been repeatedly re-adding removed comments on User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones along with accusations of sockpuppetry. I warned them of harassment however they continued with their disruptive behavior. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

They're a plain old vandal, and if you'd filed at WP:AIV they'd probably be blocked by now  :) ——SN54129 18:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

They've already been reported there ABH95 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP under 3RR. It's the easy, brightline way to block. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please advise, as I received these disconcerting threats and comments over the past hour or so, leaving the impression of collusion...

Cc'd Praxidicae

The AFD discussion is a forum of civilized, evidence based debate, and if a new entry gets deleted at the end, fair enough...

However, I'm getting the same threats and comments, slightly different wording, at roughly the same time, leaving the impression of collusion, i.e. the editors are coordinating...

I made this frank, but purely observational comment based on profiles: "AI now shapes virtually all aspects of our lives, e.g. Wikipedia bots to Netflix recommendations and the machines that assemble our cars. The fact this is the only fund covering a 1/4 of human civilisation should in of itself warrant an exception WP:IAR, even before what has now become a subjective debate on whether non-western sources have no cachet... I’ve more than a passing interest in making Wikipedia live up to its egalitarian ideals, e.g. the fact those advocating for deletion appear to be Caucasian American should give us pause for thought..."

Please advise, as I received these disconcerting threats and comments over the past hour or so, leaving the impression of collusion: On my talk page: " Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xecced. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Additionally please read WP:BADGER and stop doing it. Praxidicae (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I merely pointed out an observational fact... If it isn't true, disprove it. After all, this is meant to be a civilized forum of debate, and Wikipedia's goal is to be egalitarian...

However, I'm getting the same comment, slightly different wording, at nearly the same time, giving the impression of suckpuppeting or collusion...

No, you're commenting on editors and not content and you're making personal attacks, stop or this will wind up at WP:ANI. Also your insistence that someone prove their ethnicity is tantamount to requesting someone out themselves to satisfy you. Stop or the next step will be a block. Praxidicae (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Consider this an absolutely final warning baseless accusations such as this are nothing more than egregious personal attacks and I highly suggest you redact it. Praxidicae (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Please retract your allegations of racism or I'll be taking this to WP:ANI. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

On the AFD: Delete Fails WP:CORP. Promotional article whose sources are either press releases or articles about fundraising. Neither establish notability. Article creator is strictly promoting this company (spam added to List of venture capital firms has been reverted) and resorting to personal attacks (i.e., blind accusations of racism in response to GPL93) on anyone who disagrees with her is certainly not advised. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nneka Francis (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Nneka Francis: Just as a heads up if you take an editor to ANI you have to leave a message on every involved editor's talk page, such as myself, @Beemer69: and @Cameron11598: for starters. Also to refer to warnings about attacking other editors as threats is a bit odd. Thirdly, if you want to put us all through a sockpuppet investigation the instructions can be found HERE, be my guest. GPL93 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• I don't know what you're asking for here but I suggest a boomerang and a block for this editor as they've repeatedly made egregious personal attacks, even after a final warning, accusing myself and others of sock puppetry because they can't seem to grasp that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and I would encourage anyone reading to take a look at this user's behavior surrounding the two AFDs and this absurd request. Praxidicae (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Would you be able to provide links to the specific pages where these interactions took place? It is difficult for us to evaluate the claims being made by you being excerpted without seeing the full context. Michepman (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Michepman: Nneka Francis is referring to warnings left on User talk:Nneka Francis and delete votes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xecced. Possibly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhtari Adanan as well but that was mostly just badgering other editors' delete votes. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  GPL93 - This seems like a classic WP:boomerang. Nneka Francis's conduct in those threads was completely unacceptable and bringing it to the attention of the broader community showed poor judgment at best. He is lucky that the users he was berating did not report HIM. Michepman (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Actually let me formalize my response and this request. I propose that the filer be blocked for several weeks in response to their repeated disruption, badgering/hounding AFD voters, repeated personal attacks, accusations and now frivolous filing. It appears that they are only here to right great wrongs and not build an encyclopedia. And since the filer failed to provide any diffs here are some: here, immediately following a warning about personal attacks, they make baseless accusations, here in that same AFD they take their original personal attack accusing editors of being bias/racist into a call to "prove" that they aren't "caucasian American", and there's about a dozen more.Praxidicae (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  Praxidicae -- It looks like User:Bishonen below has already blocked the user. Once they are unblocked, if they continue to behave this way then I would support a ban. Michepman (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this for real? Well here is my two cents; they implied that an editor is discriminating against a topic because they are Caucasian. Sounds like accusing someone of being racist to me. I ask them to remove the allegations of racism and instead they open an ANI thread. There are also WP:CIR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues at play. Respectfully I think this should be a boomerang, as I've noticed they still haven't removed their allegations of racism. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked. "If it isn't true [that you're all Caucasian], disprove it"?? That's not how it works. I have blocked Nneka Francis for 72 hours for her outrageous accusations of racism,[25] sock puppetry[26] and collusion.[27]. Bishonen | talk 20:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC).
• To label replies to User:Nneka Francis's repeated incivility as "threats" is nothing short of ludicrous. S/he has gone off on hostile tangents toward editors who voted delete from the moment the AfD discussion for Xecced began, including false accusations of racism and asking editors to out themselves, and calling me a sockpuppet. I am in complete support of a block for their infantile behavior that has continued despite repeated warnings, as this topic indicates. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good block We shall see. I saw no constructive edits! This user impresses me as not here. Their focus seems purely to pick fights. Hoepfully when they return, they'll leave their shoulder chip at home. I wonder if a checkuser would like to take a look.-- Deepfriedokra 09:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  Had a thought-- left a message about COI and PAID, given the vehemence shown.-- Deepfriedokra 16:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  It's clear Nneka Francis is a paid SPA, but we'll see what happens when the three-day ban is lifted (and the article up for deletion gone) and hopefully she will realize she won't have much rope to hang herself with thereafter. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I also concur with the block and would have suggested it myself on WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:BATTLEGROUND bases. We need to strongly discourage attempts to abuse ANI as a dispute perpetuation and escalation mechanism through such histrionic claims that any criticism, challenge, objection, or process-related warning is a "threat" or "attack". See also, in this regard, this other ongoing ANI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Myalperen WP:NOTHERE

User Myalperen, whose entire activity on Wikipedia consists of denying the Armenian genocide, is clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute. Every article edit the user has made over the years consists of vandalism and edit warring to delete references to the Armenian genocide [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] without any discussion. The user masks the vandalism by the blatantly false claim that there is an ECHR ruling that forbids saying there was a genocide. Needless to say, no such ruling exist (there was a ruling protecting the right to deny the genocide as free speech, but that is very far from a ruling making denial mandatory). In addition, Myalperen harasses users who uphold consensus version both on their talk pages [33] and by filing bogus reports [34]. This user is obviously here with the only purpose of vandalising and edit warring to push a nationalist agenda, not to construct an encyclopaedia. Jeppiz (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Even more likely the user is a troll. Going to report edit warring on their third edit, and always duplicating the wording of the users who revert their vandalism is typical troll behavior. In any case, the user is not here for the right purposes. Jeppiz (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. 4RR now, no other edits, been here for a few months (and doing much the same at the start). This is not an editor who's here for any good reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• I've indefinitely blocked the user for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Fiddling 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.

---

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

I brought this here rather than the vandalism board as this IP editor is doing what I would characterise as wikifiddling. At a first glance their contributions appear to be constructive but they're adding incorrect information or changing articles to mislead. Example [35] at British Indian Ocean Territory changing the national anthem from God save the Queen to I vow to thee my country. As noted on their talk page, all of their edits are of this nature. WCM_email 08:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist. :) --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 17 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.

Bizarre accusation of socking

I was pinged in a 3RR complaint (where I was not a participant) and Esuka accused me of being an anonIP 46.226.190.219. As anyone here can attest, such an accusation can forever taint a user's edits, and when I asked the user to retract the accusation both in the complaint and on their usertalk page, they said:

"I believe there's enough there to cast reasonable doubt on your story. If that causes you upset or offense that's really not my problem. Also, I don't believe checkuser would clear you either way. Feel free to try and get me hit with a proverbial "slap on the wrist" if it you makes you feel better.".

As you can probably guess, I am angered by not just the accusation, but the cavalier nature of Esuka, who throws out these damaging accusations without a shred of proof and clearly expects to walk away without any repercussions. This user, who has been here less than two years is gaming the system, making accusations they don't have to back up, isn't going to believe the results of the checkuser (if done), and feels there isn't any real penalty for doing so (ie. a "slap on the wrist").
I would like to seek their lengthy, lengthy block from Wikipedia. No one should get to drop in corrosive accusations like that and go to bed happy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Esuka blocked for 36 hours for continuing to cast aspersions, after just having been warned against doing so. El_C 05:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Albeit a NPA-block, if blocks for casting aspersions were commonplace, a quarter of the community would be blocked. No view as to whether it was a good block or not, but imo this would have more sense if the editor had continued after their warning from EdJohnston, the squabble on the noticeboard doesn't really count. Just my opinion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor committed a blockable offense and got blocked. So what? Do people really not realize how weird it is to say stuff like this? @QEDK: "...if blocks for casting aspersions were commonplace, a quarter of the community would be blocked." So what? Because the flip side of that is, "a quarter of the community would find themselves, either because they're blocked or because they fear getting blocked, unable to cast aspersion anymore." If we block people for committing blockable offenses, lots of people will stop committing blockable offenses. Do you know how weird it is to have a problem with that? 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:647C:F1F1:4EBD:BBA4 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Calm down, my man. Blocking to instill fear is a no-no. I'd rather you kept your Orwellian ideas out of this. In case you aren't aware, making accusations is basically how noticeboards work, when you don't back them up with evidence, they are aspersions. No one is denying that aspersions were cast but that the aspersions being made once or twice do not equate to being blocked (on the English Wikipedia), if making aspersions had real consequences, most of the politicians in your country would be doing time. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Having a user accuse another of socking without evidence (outside of and without an SPI report) is... not good. But what is worse, is that when confronted about that, they literally start taunting the targeted user by basically saying: try to get me to stop casting that aspersion on you, it's just not something that is enforced. Well, guess what? Sometimes it is enforced. I would probably would have gone with only a warning if it wasn't for that there's-nothing-you-can-do-about-it, "slap on the wrist" taunt. Note that, even after being blocked, the user continued implying that the targeted user is socking, writing: "Just because I couldn't straight up prove he's socked doesn't mean he isn't guilty either."[36] (No, I did not extend their block for that, but I take a dim view of it, too.) El_C 08:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clear it up, I am in no way saying it was a bad block, in fact, the ensuing discussion that happened leads me to believe you were right to take the step. It is the precedent of blocking without discussion that I want to avoid, if the editor had not heeded to Ed's warning, I would be more amenable to it, but they weren't given that opportunity (whether they should be is also a gray area). If you're interested, you might want to take a look at a SPI filed against Pppery, but that situation ended with no blocks taking place, even though multiple experienced editors cast aspersions on slim-to-none evidence. I'm just saying some conflict is normal, having some thick skin is important and that the block should have been waited out, even if it now appears to be the correct outcome. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm grateful that you cared enough to express concern about this block, but I would like to also point out that I was within my right to be irritated at the situation I found myself in as it was wholy unfair and things were said. I have no history of any warnings or blocks on Wikipedia and have worked in good faith with other editors for years. I have not been such a disruptive user here that I deserve an insta block for a few stray comments. I have not behaved in such a way that I deserve to be blocked without the chance to explain myself. His view that my block was deserved because of things said after the fact is wholy inappropriate. Esuka (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I was blocked within 13 minutes of this discussion being created and was denied the chance to explain myself prior to the admin taking such action. I don't view this block as legitimate as I was warned by Edjohnston prior to such action taking place. There was no reason to hit me with two sanctions and deny me the chance to explain myself and perhaps apologize prior to these sanctions being made. I admit that I overstepped and I was expecting a warning for my trouble and was happy to move on. The admin claims he blocked me to "prevent further disruption" but I have no history of doing this and had not posted on the topic for hours prior to the block taking place. So as far as I was concerned the discussion was done and I had moved on.

You can try and use my irritation about being denied a chance to discuss here as a means to justify the block but to me thats flawed reasoning. The flow of discussion would have been wholy different if I wasn't hit with an absurd and illegitimate block prior to it taking place. Thanks. Esuka (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The topic creators incivility

The blocking admin also refused to warn or block Jack Sebastian after he made abusive statements about me on Edjohnstons page, see [37]. Instead he argued that because I had accused him of something, he was upset and things were said. And because he was apparently "sorry" for his actions no such action was needed. Why such selective reasoning? He was allowed ample time to "repent" for his disgusting remarks about me and escaped sanctions. But as someone who has no history of blocks or warnings unlike the topic creator I get hit with two sanctions and denied the chance to explain myself like Jack Sebastian was? Heck he had many maaaaaany hours. Me? 13 minutes. Well if I wasn't asleep maybe I could have posted here. Is this normal admin behavior? Esuka (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

1. There was no two sanctions. There was one block, which I explain in detail here. Once the (single) block was issued, it was not altered further.
2. Esuka was also upset and said things, like writing: blocking me does nothing more than stroke your own ego[38] Their block was not extended for that remark, nor for them repeating the accusation against the OP even after they were blocked, writing: Just because I couldn't straight up prove he's socked doesn't mean he isn't guilty either.[39]
3. Unlike Esuka, the OP struckthrough their offending comments that he made while he was upset.[40] I also removed the personal attack from EdJohnston's talk page.[41] The OP also apologized [42], an apology which Esuka did not seem to have accepted.[43]
4. Finally, Esuka could have challenged the block, which I encouraged them to do. But they refused on the basis that an unblock request would achieve nothing as I'm sure in your time here you have made many friends among the admin who would back up even the most poorest judgements you have made. I would never have a fair hearing.[44] A view which I repeatedly tried to inform them was without basis.[45] El_C 02:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Esuka should drop the stick. Let me put it clearly, maybe the block itself was controverisial, but your behaviour after the block was placed is exactly why nothing more will come of this. If you had filed an unblock request stating that you made a mistake and recanted your statements, I'm 100% sure you would be unblocked. I'm not even a believer in "ends justify the means", but your ensuing discussion proves that you would not back down your aspersions, although being irritated by the block is fairly understandable. I don't see what more is to be done here. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 14:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

G5 nominations of Biografer's articles

Can a few people check a bunch of {{db-g5}} nominations by ThatMontrealIP? I have declined Harry Shamoon and Moni Simeonov because multiple people (IPs count) have edited the article, and Angela Slavova because I'm sure somebody in WP:WikiProject Women in Red will take care of it. I'm concerned about throwing the baby out with the bathwater; my understanding of WP:G5 was to get rid of blatantly rubbish articles started by banned editors that didn't quite fit any other CSD criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I had a look through them, and, with the possible exception of Emily Pogorelc, they all look valid to me. Adam9007 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Richie333: I first asked Mer-C about nominating these and they said nominate them all if they are without significant contribs, as there were copyright issues with Biografer's contribs. I check the history first and nominate if the contribs are not something substantial that would stick. In the case of Harry Shamoun, the IP's contribs are all unsourced. For Angela Slavova there are no siginificant contribs beyond Biografer's. Emily Pogorelc has some IP contribs that Biografer reverted, and some category work. I also find it a bit sad that these have to go, but understand the reasoning I received from MER-C. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging David Eppstein who has been involved in (attempting to prevent) such G5s. @ThatMontrealIP: Whatever anyone else says, the only things that have to go is copyvios, attack pages and anything else we are not. If these articles improve the encyclopedia, then we should keep them. ——SN54129 17:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

OK well different admins have told me different things now, so I will stop altogether and let you folks have a discussion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should have an AfD for them? If we're to discuss the deletion of these pages, AfD is the proper venue. Adam9007 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, ha, that literally never happens every time. Sorry about that. Guy (help!) 19:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, "multiple people" is one IP per article, though. In the case of Moni Simeonov it's an IP from the school where he teaches. And the IP on Harry Shamoom geolocates to his area as well. It's not an outrageous G5. Guy (help!) 19:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I made substantive edits yesterday to articles Nancy Combs, Angela Slavova, Caroline Forell, Lucija Čok, Amy Schmitz, Sonia Aissa, Sandra Irving, Kathryn Albers, Tanja Schultz, Emily Agree, and (earlier) Barbara Aldave, most of which have now been deleted (and in one case only partially restored). I am dismayed to see MER-C, JJMC89, and now ThatMontrealIP so blatantly ignore the requirement of G5 that it only apply to articles to which no substantive edits have been made by others. The articles should be restored and the admins admonished for making out-of-policy speedy deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein:, I G5'd a few very low notability articles, and I did not delete any of them as I do not have that ability. I then wondered if I was going to far and sought an admin's advice on criteria for G5, and them simply followed that advice. Trying to do the right thing here... if I made any mistakes, my apologies. From what I am seeing here, the admin opinion on what is a good G5 varies.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Some editors think that all of a banned/blocked editors' page creations should be G5'd, so as to deter people from creating pages in violation of their bans/blocks. After all, if I can create a sock account, create a bunch of pages, and have the sock account blocked but the pages stay... why wouldn't I just keep creating sock accounts and making pages? I mean, what's the point of a page creator using just one account at all? On the other hand, other editors think we shouldn't delete pages just because they were created by a banned/blocked user. What does it matter who created the content? We're here to build an encyclopedia; it makes little sense to delete perfectly good pages, regardless of who wrote them or why. This ought to be resolved with an RfC. With regard to this particular editor, I've gone through many of their creations and have CSD'd a bunch. There are so many errors, including straight factual errors, not per source, copyvios, and totally non-notable people, that I loathe the notion of going through all 600 just in case some might be worth saving. I'm of the "nuke it all" camp–if it's good content, someone will come along and recreate it–someone whose work we can trust. And, I want to de-incentivize the editor from making more pages with other sock accounts. The editor should know that all of their work will be tossed if they create pages in violation of their bans. Simply put: I don't trust Biografer's work, and I think in this case we should G5 it all. – Levivich 18:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Our primary goal at Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. ALL OTHER THINGS WE DO, including discouraging blocked/banned editors from returning, is secondary to that. Insofar as either 1) the work has been checked and verified by other editors or 2) substantially edited by further editors with significant verifiable and free content or 3) both, then we don't need to delete anything via G5. Insofar as we catch someone, and delete their work before it becomes entrenched at the encyclopedia, then G5 is appropriate. Insofar as other editors have substantially done work on those articles, including verifying existing content and adding additional, substantive, verifiable content, then no, we should NOT be deleting it. Discouraging banned users, as noble a cause at that is, is ALWAYS secondary towards creating an encyclopedia. --Jayron32 18:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, that's one view. Another is that "banned means banned" and allowing people to get away with ban evasion as long as it goes undetected for long enough is unwise, especially when the ban was in part due to copyright violation. Guy (help!) 19:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, it depends on whether enforcing a punishment is or is not more important than building an encyclopedia. WE MUST PUNISH AT ALL COSTS is a bit of a "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" reaction. --Jayron32 19:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Building an encyclopedia" is just a catchphrase, though. It's like saying "good for the Earth". The whole question is what, exactly, "building an encyclopedia" means. (1) If someone creates 100 copyvio articles, and we go through and rewrite them all to fix the copyvio, are we "building an encyclopedia"? (2) If we delete them all, are we "building an encyclopedia"? (3) If we ignore it and do nothing, are we "building an encyclopedia"? Sure, everyone will agree #1 is "building an encyclopedia" and #3 is not. But while we go do #1, #3 is actually what's going on. Mishae's newest created 600+ articles. Are you or I going to go through them to rewrite any copyvio that may exist? To fix factual errors? How long will that take? In the meantime, #3 is what's actually going on, right now, today. Every undeleted, unchecked article is just sitting there, with an unknown number of factual errors, copyvio, or other problems. So I say, that's not building an encyclopedia. We should do #2–to stop harm–and then proceed with #1, rather than doing #3 while we do #1. That's how I see this G5 divide... it's about whether you do #2 or #3 while you work on #1. – Levivich 19:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, it's not that frigging complicated. If someone has already done #1, don't delete the article. If someone hasn't, delete the article. Why is that so hard for you to understand? --Jayron32 15:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If someone has already done #1 ... meaning, if someone creates 100 copyvio articles, don't delete them all? Yes, that's hard for me to understand. – Levivich 19:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

But blocks are also part of writing an encyclopedia - when we block people, we do it (ideally, every single time it happens) because their activities were making it hard for us to make an encyclopedia. Therefore, enforcing a block is also a vital part of Wikipedia's mission. That said, WP:BLOCKEVADE has a reasonable suggestion for this - that a blocked-evading user's edits can be removed by anyone with no further explanation, but can also be restored by anyone who chooses to endorse them, at which point the usual conflict-resolution stuff applies and an actual explanation has to be given to delete them again. Obviously a deletion cannot be trivially reversed by a non-admin, so the closest thing we have for this is probably WP:PRODding; this would suggest that what we ought to do is have a rule that a block-evading user's created articles can be prodded with no further reason (even en mass or via an automated tool), but they're not automatically CSDed. That gives other users a chance to endorse the edit, serving both our purpose of making sure blocks actually function and preventing noteworthy, worthwhile content from being deleted. I would even extend this to edits that have edits from other users (provided the overall content and structure of the article still comes from the blocked user), on the grounds that prodding is a lightweight action that doesn't require much justification anyway and those other contributors can object if they want. --Aquillion (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "G5 PROD". – Levivich 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the content is untrustworthy, but G5 is for content that is solely by the banned/blocked editor, with only gnomery by others. If you want to delete it, it's the wrong process. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue here was that Biografer has some borderline copyvio issues (close paraphrasing), as mentioned at the COIN discussion. Also, a lot of their articles were of very, very thin notability. Anyway. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Those are both reasons for deletion, but not reasons for G5 deletion. As for Lev's "other editors think we shouldn't delete pages": this is a strawman. I have seen nobody arguing that all of Mishae's articles should be kept. In this case, there are good reasons for deleting the pages that other editors have not vetted, by G5. But the shoot-first-ask-questions-later side of this debate wants to delete them all, disregarding and disrespecting the work of other editors who have done some vetting of some of these articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Most of them have now been deleted under G5. Are you saying they should be restored and sent to AfD? Adam9007 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Certainly the ones I explicitly listed above, to which I had made substantive contributions, should be restored. I have no idea what fraction of the others have similar issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein, if you've done work on them, and are satisfied that they are free of copyvio then I'd support their restoration. If people want to argue the toss about notability then they can trot over to afd GirthSummit _(blether) 19:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Just a thought - it seems pretty obvious that TMIP was acting in good faith here, trying to do the right thing by cleaning out these articles, discussing it with an admin first, and voluntarily stopping now that doubts have been raised. I'm sure it wasn't your intention to suggest otherwise, but nobody wants to be the subject of a thread at ANI - perhaps it would be a nice gesture if you were to acknowledge that there is no suggestion of a conduct issue here, and that we are simply discussing how best to handle these articles going forward? (Perhaps this thread should be renamed 'Dealing with Biografer' articles', for the same reason?) GirthSummit _(blether) 18:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries here. I like and respect the work the admins do, and also have a reasonably thick skin.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to say, Ritchie333, is that it's always sad to see an ANI notice on someone's talk page with no prior thread discussing the issue. Maybe I don't have the whole picture but the contribs suggest you declined 3 CSDs placed by TMIP and then two minutes later posted this ANI thread. I think if you had asked TMIP about it on their talk page, you would have learned of the conversation on MER-C's talk page, and your view of this issue would have been different–along with the way you titled and drafted this report. If the only issue is, "remember not to G5 when an IP or other editor has made substantive edits", I'd think a talk page reminder would have been all that was required. If the issue is a broader issue about when and how G5 is used, then maybe this report should be re-titled and re-phrased, as GS suggests above, to make clear it's a policy issue and not a problem with a particular editor's conduct.

FWIW, my opinion is that Moni Simeonov had substantive edits by an IP and thus was not a G5 candidate (doesn't matter where the IP geolocates to, as there's no COI exception to the "substantive edits" prohibition for a G5). Harry Shamoon also not a G5 candidate because of IP edits, and reverting the IP's edits for being unsourced doesn't change the fact that it had substantive edits by another editor. For Angela Slavova, I think this is a substantive edit by David; not a G5. Caroline Forell and Lucija Čok weren't tagged G5 by TMIP or anyone else AFAICS; and I can't see the history of the rest. But in terms of TMIP and G5ing, other than "counting" those edits as "substantive" and not G5ing articles like Simeonov, Shamoon, and Slavova, I don't really see any ANI-level problem, and I think TMIP can continue tagging articles if they want to (with thanks). – Levivich 19:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this thread is mistitled (it's really about what to do with the Mishae/Biografer articles, not ThatMontrealIP's behavior), but that because it involves the behavior of multiple administrators this is the right place to hold the discussion rather than some individual talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have renamed the thread as requested, and David has the right idea of what I intended. I was not planning to tar and feather ThatMontrealIP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I nominated about 70 for g5, and the vast majority (66, 67?) have now been deleted by five different admins. I thought I was just doing some gnomish cleanup. But I have stopped and will leave this until the concensus is clearer on G5.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's all right, ThatMontrealIP, it's really just a difference in operating philosophies. I think it was Iridescent (pinging in case I miscite them) who noted that the whole "banned means banned" mantra became policy after a discussion-and-therefore-consensus between about two or three editors. ——SN54129 12:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think at this point the discussion can be closed. I still think a few of the G5s were beyond the scope of what CSD allows, but the vast majority of them were ok, a small number that were not have been undeleted and cleaned up, and the content issues were so severe that for any remaining borderline cases it's probably better to leave deleted and if desired rewrite from scratch than to leave in place any unexamined text from Mishae. If any systematic effort to examine all of Mishae/Biografer's article creations has been interrupted by this discussion, it should resume. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Zen page

• Zen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nosebagbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a02:a210:2901:c300:15c6:16b3:691c:b8e7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Moved from AN)

The current editor of the zen page is biased in his writing. He does not keep an objective point of view. I've been wanting to add some material to the wiki, but the editor in question is not open to views that conflict with his own opinion, so I refrained from posting anything.

You can view the conversation about it on the zen talk page, here, where I try to address some of the issues with the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zen#Do_the_moderators_of_this_page_even_study_zen%3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, assuming that you're talking about Joshua Jonathan, then you should let them know you want AN (or AN-incidents) to consider something involving them. I've done so for you. @Girth Summit: tried to offer some advice at the beginning, so pinging for awareness Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I put a notifications on his talk page as the instructions above said. Is it not enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• New notifications go at the bottom of the page, not the top. That's why Nosebagbear didn't see it. Reyk _YO! 12:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Thanks for clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Mm. I did some initial tidying up, and left a couple of general comments, but I haven't been following that discussion. IP editor, this noticeboard is for conduct issues, rather than content disputes. Reading through that discussion, (JJ's comments about 'wild fox slobber' and 'flat earther' notwithstanding), the closest thing to a conduct issue I see is you repeatedly making assertions to the effect that another editor is biased, incompetent to edit the page, ought to be banned from the page, etc. I might add that you are filling that page with huge walls of text, with quotes from various books, making it very difficult for anyone to follow. I'd advise you to be polite, be explicit about what you want to add/change, and (where possible) provide URL links to your sources (if it's a book, provide a link to Google books). Also, please consider creating an account - you seem to be hopping about on various different IPs, which makes communication and collaboration more difficult. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The editor in question however is not engaging with the provided material. The six zen patriarchs who shaped the tradition and their teachings are being left out. If a editor is biased in his works, isn't that misconduct? He's also pushing me for tertiary source, calling the primary ones unusable. I have provided tertiary sources though and the editor in question is using primary sources in the article that is already up. Seems very hypocritical to me. The supposed insults are all based on this. I don't find someone who omits the founding teachings of a tradition capable of being an objective editor. I don't think it's insulting to say that. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(IP, I refactored your statement slightly.) There you go again - biased, hypocritical, incapable of being objective - you're on thin ice, tread carefully. We all have our own perspectives and biases, and sometimes it's difficult for us to see through that - you think JJ is biased, perhaps he thinks you're biased - that's why you should focus on the content, and try to avoid mentioning what you think about your interlocutor. Any try to do it concisely, being very clear about what you want to change - as I said, that discussion is very difficult to wade through. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you find someone to be capable of writing about christianity if he leaves out all accounts and teachings of jesus? The page is called zen, but does not include the six patriarchs of zen's teachings. That seems biased to me. I can hardly imagine an objective observer overlooking the founders of a tradition they are writing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't accuse them of being incapable of writing. If they were leaving out any mention of Jesus, I'd argue on the talk page that we should include some background information about Jesus and his teachings in the article, since it's obviously relevant, and I'd suggest a few good sources (not the Bible obviously, some scholarly works about the religion). If I did that, I expect I'd gain consensus pretty quickly. Now knock this off and go and make your case politely. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Facts should not have to rely on politeness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. WP:5P4 O3000 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Facts do not rely on politeness. YOUR ability to be the one who gets to add those facts to Wikipedia articles does however. If you think it is important to add a fact to an article, you are required to be polite, or else you won't get to add that fact. If you are concerned that, without your unique contributions, such facts may never get added to an article, then you have a strong responsibility to abide by Wikipedia's civility rules. --Jayron32 19:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

So you're enforcing politeness but not neutrality?

Does this also mean that if I'm polite, I can basically add as much misinformation as I want? Because that's what it sounds like.

2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No, wrong again. It is quite possible to do TWO things wrong, and each of them will be assessed independently. If you violate Wikipedia's policy on civil behavior you can be blocked. If you violate Wikipedia's policy on adding only verifiably correct information you can also be blocked. The fact that you haven't violated one policy doesn't mean that you can't violate others. --Jayron32 13:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If you intentionally add misinformation, we call that vandalism and you will be quickly blocked. If, on the other hand, you add information that you genuienly believe to be correct, but which other people think is wrong, you will not be reprimanded - but other editors will likely remove it. At that point, you are then expected to have a civil discussion about it on the article's talk page, and if you can't come to an agreement, you ask for other opinions. That's how it works. What we don't do is say 'I disagree with this person, so they must be biased, they should be blocked from editing the page' - that approach is what will likely get you blocked if you persist with it. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about a dispute in the facts; this is about a dispute about conduct. Unless the conduct issue gets fixed, that dispute about the facts cannot get fixed. Teishin (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

So is neutrality.

"No, I wouldn't accuse them of being incapable of writing. If they were leaving out any mention of Jesus, I'd argue on the talk page that we should include some background information about Jesus and his teachings in the article, since it's obviously relevant, and I'd suggest a few good sources (not the Bible obviously, some scholarly works about the religion)."

The editor in question claims to have studied zen for 30 years though. I don't think anyone who has been a christian for over 30 years would forget about Jesus.

2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's entirely beside the point - this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, whether they have been studying a subject for 30 years, or just picked up a book about it today. You have presented no evidence of any conduct issues by other editors that are actionable here, but if you persist in casting aspersions and making accusations your IP address be very well end up being blocked from editing. Again - knock this off and go make your case politely, clearly and concisely on the article talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Stuff from Joshua Jonathan about why he feels the article is currently correct

The Zen-article gives a concise, balanced overview of Zen-practices and teachings. See Zen#Practice and Zen#Doctrine. I have the impression that the IP is promoting an obsolete, romantic view on Zen, namely Tang Dynasty Chan as the "golden age" of Zen, with iconoclastic Zen masters, and shock techniques to provoke sudden awakeking. See Zen#Zen narratives: The Chán of the Tang Dynasty, especially that of Mazu and Linji with its emphasis on "shock techniques", in retrospect was seen as a golden age of Chán. This picture has gained great popularity in the West in the 20th century, especially due to the influence of D.T. Suzuki, and further popularized by Hakuun Yasutani and the Sanbo Kyodan. This picture has been challenged, and complemented, since the 1970s by modern scientific research on Zen. References The IP is merely referring to primary sources, mostly from the socalled yulu genre, the 'recorded sayings' of ancient masters, which he seems to interpret in a specfic way. These texts cannot be taken on face-value, as they are doing; they were religious and institutional texts, created (long) after the lifes of their antagonists, and far from 'objective' representations of their lifes or teachings. See John McRae, Seeing Through Zen; or Mario Poceski, Mazu yulu and the Creation of the Chan Records of Sayings, in Steven Heine, Dale S. Wright, The Zen Canon: Understanding the Classic Texts. Poceski, p.62 & 67-68: [p.62] ...the popular image of Mazu conveyed in numerous Zen books is that of an iconoclast, a radical figure who embodies a classical Chan tradition that to a large extent was created by him. [p.67-68] The iconoclastic image that we find in his dialogues, on the other hand, reflects later semi-mythologized portrayals of Mazu The IP seems to be lured by this popular image of the iconoclastic Zen-master, yet lacking in acquaintance with the relevant scholarly literature. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Ouch, User:Joshua Jonathan - that ref ordering hurts my eyes! Mind if I go over and move them around? GirthSummit (blether) 19:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Not anyone, which is kind of my issue to begin with.

I'm sure that that was the idea, but I don't think the zen page would allow for edits without the editors reverting them. Esp. if done by an IP.

I'm saying this because it happened on the dutch zen page too. A friend of mine has tried to add content to the english zen page before, which also got immediately reverted. (Can't say for sure when this was). So no, not anyone can just add content.

"I disagree with this person, so they must be biased, they should be blocked from editing the page"

This is not how I see it. There are zen masters that dispute what is being called zen on the wiki page. This has nothing to do with me.

Quotes by Zen masters from the IP editor

If carl bielefeldt say that: "Dogen explicitly links his zazen with the tradition that every act of the Ch'an masterwhether holding up a finger or beating a studentrepresents the enlightened behavior of a Buddha, free from discrimination and beyond understanding. The irony, of course, is that, while the basic shift from inward quest to outward expression may have remained constant, what was in the classical style intended precisely to celebrate Ch'an's freedom from traditional forms (especially contemplative forms) of Buddhist cultivation has here become frozen in the ritual reappropriation of the tradition of cross-legged sitting. In any case we have here gone well beyond the classical theoretical discourse on Buddha nature and sudden practice to a treatment of meditation that is less concerned with cognitive stales than with religious action, less concerned with the Buddha as symbol of pure consciousness than as example of liberated agent. If the model for Zen practice here is still the enactment of enlightenment, it is no longer simply the psychological accord of the practitioner's consciousness with the eternally enlightened mind; it is now the physical reenactment by the practitioner of the deeds of the historical exemplars of enlightened behavior." Also: "Yet there remains a sense in which we have not fully come to grips with the historical character and the religious problematic of the meditation tradition in which they occur. We are often told, for example, that Zen Buddhism takes its name from the Sanskrit dhyana... and that the school has specialised in the practice[of meditation], but we are rarely told just how this specialization is related to the many striking disclaimers, found throughout the writings of Chan and Zen... to the effect that the religion has nothing to do with [meditation] Then that has nothing to do with my personal opinion. Also, why zen does not equal dhyana, contrary to what the wiki article says: R.H. Blyth; "For the practical study of Zen, you must pass the barriers set up by the masters of Zen." In the phrase, "the practical study of Zen", sanszen, the word san is said to have three meanings: 1. to distinguish (truth from error.) 2. to have an audience with a Zen Master. 3. to reach the ground of one's being. There is no explaining, philosophizing, idealizing, eccentricity. The character [zen], used to transliterate[1] Dhyana, originally meant "to sacrifice to hills and fountains." p.32, *Zen and Zen Classics, Vol. 4) These are just some of the points.

2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That is the sort of stuff you should be discussing on the talk page - we do not adjudicate on content disputes here. Anyone can edit, anyone can revert - then you discuss. Then, if you can't agree, you get other opinions. That's how it works. If you don't like that, you have lots of options available - edit a different online encyclopedia, start a blog, write a book. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Ouch - go ahead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I am discussing it there. Why does my content get flagged unrelated? They are a direct response to joshua's included material, which apparantly is not unrelated to this page?

2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss it. This is a forum for conduct issues. Your point about JJ's material is probably fair though - I've hatted that too, because we're not talking about content, we're talking about conduct. Go back to the article talk page if you want to talk about the page's content. By the way, as I said before, you should think about including some links to the books you are suggesting we mention - you put a lot on there, other editors are unlikely to want to search for them each individually. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I could add the ISBN but actually refrained from it on purpose. There are sometimes multiple translations for each work and some of the material is available free online.

Do you think I should add the ISBN's anyway?

2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

For Pete's sake! ANI is not the place to be asking for editing advice. See WP:TEAHOUSE. If you are citing specific information on a specific page, yes you should add the ISBN, as page numbers sometimes change between printings, and each edition has a unique ISBN. John from Idegon (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing articles where the ISBN gets completely skipped over, the material is still used though. Why am I being held to stricter standards than others?

2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The editor refuses repeated requests to engage in the basic tasks of being an Wikipedia editor. I've requested several times for the user to set up an account and adopt a username. The user refuses. I recommend that the IP address be blocked. Teishin (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Whereas this fella appears be be new and confused, no-one is ever required to register an account and there is nothing disruptive about that. If you indicated to them that they for any reason needed to register an account, then it is you, Teishin, that is being disruptive. That's just plain wrong. John from Idegon (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That an editor might be in error on a point of fact is not grounds for accusing them of being disruptive.Teishin (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The promotion of irredentism on very sensible lists

Dear administrators!

I am talking about the list: List of active separatist movements in Europe. The topic itself is very sensible, this was always the case. But now out of sudden some users started to abuse this list for promoting irredentism and their own point of view. (WP:NPOV) Even the talk page, which was always used many months ago - is no longer in use. I even worry that we are even having troubles with some sockpuppets, as soon someone questions an user, that really messes around on this list, to be a sockpuppet - the user instantly becomes inactive and out of sudden and a new once comes up - doing the same. Good examples are Users "Yobeemolt" and "Tyronqe7". It is finally the time to intervene. Some individuals are trying to make it look like, entire countries are about to collapse. Most of the time their edits do not even habe summaries or sources - and if they add sources, they are mostly not reliable. (WP:RS) This list had many problematic sections, I know, but it was still under control - until now. At the begin it was also only the List of active separatist movements in Europe, but now the same is also going on the pages: Dissolution of Russia, List of active separatist movements in Asia (...) Over the last months, I have spent so much time looking up those sources... and wonder what I found: [46], [47], [48] - mostly forum posts, blogspot.com-pages, fake news... etc. etc. etc.

I kindly ask the administrators to intervene. Maybe a protection of this page would work for the begin, so we let this cool down a bit, look up the sources and finally fix this very problematic list. Also something needs to be done about unconstructive and propagandist edits. --Koreanovsky (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koreanovsky: You are required to notify any users you mention here. At this point, you do not have to notify Yobeemolt (talk · contribs · count) as I have blocked them as a LTA. At a minimum, you must notify Tyronqe7 on their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Need help with constant reverts of article, over 3RR

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sm8900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Moxy is continually reverting a Wikipedia article, and removing the current version, which includes edits made by multiple editors, which includes both myself and other editors. here is the latest one; link to recent article revert. I am trying to restore the article to its current version, but he keeps reverting it to past versions. there has been abundant discussion of these edits, with acceptance in some form of most of them. no one else is requesting a revert to past versions. can you please assist. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

So you've both violated 3RR and you are now reporting yourself...? El_C 17:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:Boomerang...Sm8900...Pls adhere to the advice-giving to you by multiple editors on the talk page multiple times.--Moxy 🍁 17:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR. I simply was trying to restore the current version, of the article, which included edits made by other editors as well as myself.

as you know there is a highly quick and easy way for any such edit war to be averted; all that is needed for just one more additional editor, just one, to come in and make the revert as well. IF they did that, I would have no further recourse. However, since no other editor stepped in to uphold these highly-visible reverts, even though anyone could have done so at any time, that is what gave me the basis for persisting. that is how this process has always worked, in situations of this type, in my experience. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you're both past 3RR. Can either of you point to one of the exceptions at WP:3RRNO that would apply here? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If we are both past 3RR, then I will gladly accept your guidance and will discontinue doing so at once, as long as the other party discontinues as well.

with that said, let me also say that the other party does have some valid views on this article; any comments that the other party makes on the talk page are highly welcome. I have benefited from this editor's valid points, and have gone out of my way to respond fully and positively, on the talk page.

I think this editor brings a lot of valid ideas to the table. however, going over 3RR is not the way to pursue any such ideas for this article. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900 3RR violation: one, two, three, four.

Moxy 3RR violation: one, two, three, four.

My guidance is for you to self-revert and subscribe to the bold, revert, discuss cycle. El_C 17:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) this response came before I saw the above Just to clarify, just so there is no confusion, 3RR does NOT express a preference for any version of an article. You are bound to not edit war even if the version of the article you keep restoring is older. Unless the text violates Wikipedia policies such as WP:VANDALISM or WP:BLP, you don't get to claim the right to keep edit warring even if the version you are restoring was older than the other version. That's not how this works. You don't get to edit war. Full stop. This is true even if someone else is edit warring. If you edit war as well, you can be blocked as well. Post-edit-conflict response to above Thank you for desisting. I have a slight pause where you say "as long as the other party discontinues as well." Please be aware that there are no conditions on this. To stop edit warring, you stop edit warring. If the other party continues, we'll deal with that later. There is no tit-for-tat allowed here. We can't solve the content issue until after we solve the behavior issue; if you both agree to use the article talk page and seek to reach consensus, no one has to be blocked. If you return to revert again, and I can't stress this enough even if they do too, you can be blocked. --Jayron32 17:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have no reason for my three reverts except frustration (I do acknowledge I've been in the wrong with 3 reverts in actions did not notice it was so many). Sm8900 review the edits by others...that simply removed your edits again. I simply restored the decade-old stable version before your 150 plus edits to a project page that you have never been involved with before.--Moxy 🍁 17:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

please don't move my comment... I'm concerned that Sm8900 is a coordinator of a Wiki project at this point... as Sm8900 seems to not be paying attention to people suggestions... edit warning... didn't notify me of this discussion...etc.--Moxy 🍁 18:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Who made the bold change? That person should respect WP:BRD, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: This is why I am concerned....as they are not hearing others... to quote @WhatamIdoing: "There have been about 150 edits made to this group's page in about 26 hours. That is more edits to that page than were made in the entire previous decade. There is absolutely nothing "stable" about the undiscussed and mostly unwanted edits you've been making. An editor with even your experience level should be embarrassed to make such a claim."--Moxy 🍁 18:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The WikiProject should be restored to its version, before sudden changes. A consensus should be gained for said changes on that WikiProject's talkpage. No ifs ands or buts about it. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Section break 1

As I clearly outline above, you made four, not three, reverts. El_C 18:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Moxy (talk · contribs), I appreciate your helpful and forthright comment above. for my part, I absolutely will be glad to utilize the talk page to discuss your valid and thoughtful points on this article. I apologize if I gave any impression other than that. I do appreciate your input and insights that you have expressed in discussions regarding this article; I mean that in all seriousness. I appreciate your help and insights. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Section break 2

Jayron32, thanks for your valuable points above. I absolutely agree to use the talk page to address this henceforth. I will be glad to discontinue further reverts to that article,, and will absolutely discontinue now. this is totally acceptable, as long as the other party discontinues. as you rightly note, we are both over 3RR. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, please self-revert while you still can. El_C 17:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

more reverts? I can't. the current version now includes edits by several other editors, not just myself. so any reverts that I make would be a violation of 3RR, as I wouldn't be just reverting myself, but other active editors as well, no matter which version I reverted to. I do appreciate your note on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900 blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. They were given the opportunity to self-revert, but refused to do so. Their reasons do not make sense. El_C 18:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that may have been excessive. It is clear they did not intend to edit the article further, it is also clear they were confused about the concept of a "self revert" as they thought that would place them more in violation rather than less. I would have preferred to leave them unblocked, as they expressed both a clear understanding of the problem and a desire to abide by the rules going forward. It seems a bit petty to block them at this point. --Jayron32 18:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to grant their unblock appeal, then. I have no immediate objection. Maybe they were confused, but it seemed to me that they'd rather retain their preferred version even after being given the opportunity to undo it. El_C 18:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course they did not intend to edit the article further — their preferred version is currently up. El_C 18:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, somebody's version gets left up. We're not supposed to decide whose. Demanding that one or the other (rather than just the current) could feel like favoritism. Doing nothing should always be the preferred way for an admin to handle content when responding to an ongoing edit war. --Jayron32 18:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Moxy also volunteered to self-revert, but I informed them it was no longer possible. The version that gets self-reverted is, ultimately, random. But then we have at least one editor that can avoid being in violation of 3RR. El_C 18:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, it's not that I am in any sort of a rush to block —a user who, incidentally, I awarded a barnstar only a few weeks ago— I really felt I had little choice once the request to self-revert was declined by them. El_C 18:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We could also have avoided blocking both if both editors agree to desist and use the talk page which is what we had here. --Jayron32 19:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Moxy could not self-revert, so they were given a warning. Sm8900 could self-revert, was asked to so, but declined. That is why they were blocked. El_C 19:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, we're going back and forth here restating the same things. Let's get input from other editors. I've made my case for not blocking, you've made your case for blocking. Lets see what other think. Continuing to repeat ourselves is not a useful thing to do. --Jayron32 19:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, I declined the unblock appeal because the user didn't seem to understand why going over 3RR was wrong. They seem to have accepted that they were out of line too now - EL C, I'd support an unblock at this point, it seems unlikely they'll carry on with the edit warring. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I am close to granting it. El_C 19:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Unblocked. El_C 19:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. Jayron32, Girth_Summit, El_C, thanks so much. Just adding another comment, to thank you all for your thoughtful and patient help on this. I am glad we were able to have a constructive and positive dialogue, and come to some mutual understanding on this. rest assured, I have printed out the guidelines that you helpfully pointed me to. I an finding them very informative. thanks for your help in providing those. I appreciate all your help here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Anthonyg3281

I have had a persistent issue with Anthonyg3281 where they have added unsourced or unreliably-sourced material to List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons. I am bringing it here because of their most recent edit to the page, which cites Twitter as a source, which is discouraged by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Twitter.

As this does not seem to be an isolated incident ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53]), I am concerned about whether or not WP:CIR may apply here. User has been warned multiple times not to add unsourced material, yet has continued to make edits with no inline citations to support his edits (he cites sources in the edit summary, but that is not what we are looking for). Thoughts? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been following the Nicktoons schedule for a while now and I always check Zap2It frequently. They only have the option to view the previous day's schedule and there is no option to view a previous schedule from a previous day. The only places I can find the previous schedules is the Nicktoons discussion fourm on Anime Superhero, in which that community has been keeping track of the Nicktoons schedule since 2014, and they use sources such as Zap2It and Futon Critic as sources for the schedules they post in the forum. If that forum is using sources for the schedules that they post, then it should be a reliable source. (Send a message) (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC))

@The Grand Delusion: I checked the talk page of the article in question. You're going to have to help me out, because I can't find 1) where you have expressed your concerns on the article talk page 2) engaged in conversation with Anthonyg3281 back and forth to each try to understand each other 3) Where if the discussion did not reach a reasonable conclusion, you attempted to use WP:DR-dispute resolution processes. Can you point me to where you did those three things? --Jayron32 12:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Regrettably, I have not done any of those things. But the user has been warned multiple times in the past about adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.
Also, Anthonyg3281, Anime Superhero is NOT a reliable source. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32:I don't know how else to do it because it's hard to find official sources for the last air dates for some shows because there is no official possible way to see a previous TV schedule on Zap2It or any TV listings website like I said, and I've kept trying to tell him that it's not easy because of that. There used to be a website called TV Schedule Archive that had every Nicktoons schedule, but the website no longer exists. (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)) (Send a message)

Since we're all here discussing anyway: Here's the deal, Anthonyg3281: If something cannot be found in a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, we just don't include the information. If, for example, there are not reliable sources for listing the specific airdates of a show, then we need to leave that information out. Just don't put it in. Wikipedia has higher standards of evidence than your standard blog or forum, and if we can't get good sources, we just can't put that information in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 16:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion: @Jayron32: I'm sorry, I was just trying to keep the page up to date because the schedule changes frequently and sometimes it was hard for me to keep up with the frequent schedule changes due to being busy in real life and because it's hard to find official sources for previous TV schedules besides Internet Archive. I hope someday in the future that there will be an official website that has previous TV schedules from over the years. (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)) (Send a message)

Wikipedia does not list everything, only stuff that reliable sources have found to be important, or WP:notable, to put it in Wikipedia jargon. Thus, perhaps these schedules are simply not fit for use in Wikipedia. Thanks for considering this. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(←) WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Miniapolis 23:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Philip Cross BLP issue

I have no choice but to post here as I have some serious concerns here. I don’t know where else to go but Philip Cross has recently been making some questionable POV pushing and borderline slander (in my opinion) on the Rania Khalek article. I would include diffs, but there are too many. Some admins should have a deep look at this. IWI (chat) 01:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A lot of edits have happened in recent weeks and it's not easy for uninvolved people to judge if there is a problem. The first step would be to post a new section at Talk:Rania Khalek with, say, two examples of text which you think are a problem, and why. The last edit at the talk page was on 31 October 2019. If unsatisfied, repeat at WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes a lot of edits have took place. This user has had a pattern of issues in this manner. Just read some messages left at User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 27. This user is cherry picking articles with defaming comments about this woman. I would revert all of his edits but I think an admin needs to assess this. This user clearly has a POV, as he is removing anything positive in place of something negative. IWI (chat) 03:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, this user is already topic banned from Post-1978 British politics, for a similar reason. IWI (chat) 03:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Can you provide a diff or point to the archived discussion for the topic ban? --David Tornheim (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the link you gave and cannot find "Khalek" on that page. This is a busy noticeboard so please get to the point: what text in the article is a problem and why? Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed the citation to an apology for a (deleted) SPLC article which mentions Rania Khalek because the piece, and the responses to it more heavily concentrated on Max Blumenthal. I moved the passage to the SPLC article last year as it more directly concerns that organisation's reputation and activities. (I have only just switched the emphasis on the other article to Max Blumenthal. The media responses to the SPLC's removal of its article in 2018 mainly concerned MB.) I removed a positive comment by Mark Hand on Rania Khalek's coverage of the I/P issue, cited to Counterpunch, because that website has a poor reputation on issues concerning Jews and has published articles by Alison Weir and Israel Shamir among others who have been accused of antisemitism. So on this point at least it is not likely to be considered a mainstream source. Philip Cross (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I should add, in case it seems disingenuous, that I did not wholly remove the Counterpunch article. Despite that websites reputation (I believed the other citations added in the last week would not be considered non-RS) It seemed highly unlikely that it would falsify a quote by Rania Khalek, so I substituted a brief passage from the Mark Hand article which related to her issues with The Nation and Israel, an issue to which articles about Ms Khalek regularly return. Philip Cross (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Her page is now under ARBPIA sanctions and ECP protected. This includes 1RR. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If there are a lot of diffs, then it should be easy. Pick your best 3-5 and show them. As it stands, it's very difficult to assess whether your complaint has merit since you've provided us nothing to judge. I also see no discussion on the talk page about actual problems, instead just another complain of the editor. If you have concerns over an editor's edits, you really should be able to articulate why somewhere. Also admins don't just go around randomly assessing editors. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My point is that the user has had a history of this kind of POV editing. I am aware that her name isn’t there. IWI (chat) 13:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• On this diff, Cross states that Khalek "denied the Syrian government had carried out the Douma chamical attack". In fact, she said that there was no evidence for it. This is not the same as denying it.
• here, cross removes a passage that shows Khalek in a good light altogether, with little explanation other than it is "elsewhere" (where then?).
• here, the material from the source is switched from a third party assessment to a direct quote of Khalek. This clearly aims to discredit.
• here and here, an unnecessary third party accusation is added.

They are some of the issues that I noticed. IWI (chat) 13:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The user appears to have discredited multiple journalists in a similar subtle way. IWI (chat) 13:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"I removed a positive comment by Mark Hand on Rania Khalek's coverage of the I/P issue, cited to Counterpunch, because that website has a poor reputation on issues concerning Jews and has published articles by Alison Weir and Israel Shamir among others who have been accused of antisemitism. So on this point at least it is not likely to be considered a mainstream source." - if you thought the source was unreliable, why would you switch its usage to a quote that discredits the BLP? Wouldn't this make it even worse in terms of the BLP policy than it was before? IWI (chat) 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

On the Douma attack (the first diff), I later modified the passage to quote Khalek. It suggests she did not believe the attack had occurred at all. The Haaretz article I drew the quote from is concerned with the rejection of certain individuals rejection of early information about the attack which is clearly interpreted as denial. The "elsewhere" comment from the edit summary refers to the SPLC article which I mentioned above. The "aim to discredit" assertion I think refers to the Counterpunch issue I mention above, though the diff seems to be wrong. The penultimate diff refers to a LARB article where the issue of Nation staff members is covered in more detail. I explained in the edit summary that the Eric Alterman Nation blog comment on the issue is rather brief and thus less than ideal. The last addition is not a real addition at all, but the Alterman blog entry restored and fully cited. It includes The Nation's official response to the issue before the main article. Philip Cross (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There were at least 15 direct quotes on that article and you chose the one negative one. IWI (chat) 15:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

IWW, sources and websites can be partially reliable for certain things. As the Counterpunch article is a positive article about Khalek, I believed it could at least quote her accurately. (Assuming IWI, you mean the Counterpunch article in your addition above, I have already explained why the opinions expressed on a questionable website are probably not admissible to cite within Wikipedia rules.) Philip Cross (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC) (Parenthetical addition: Philip Cross (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) )

• Concerned I too have have concerns about Philip Crosses's editing on a different BLP: Max Blumenthal. I will provide diffs later and look at this particular complaint. The main thing I noticed at Blumenthal's article is that Cross tended to improperly summarize the WP:RS he found. He cherry-picked what I found to be quotes which would portray Blumenthal in the worst possible light. He tended to choose critics who had vociferously negative criticism calling Blumenthal an anti-semite, when Blumenthal has a Jewish background. It's the self-hating Jew argument that is applied by Zionists to people who do not support Zionism and point out war-crimes of Israel. I mentioned it here (might be easier to read here at bottom), but will expand on the particular edits by Cross that emphasized this criticism. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I just read the complaint and see Cross is doing the same thing here with cherry-picking of quotes, emphasizing negative and removing positive, and that Cross has allegedly been topic banned from certain British articles for the similar behavior. Do we have a diff of that topic ban? Although I am not an admin, I will look over Rania Khalek to see what is happening and provide diffs if I see the same problem there as with Max Blumenthal. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:David Tornheim removed a citation to an RS, Commentary, because he found the author Bruce Bawer objectionable. Bawer has opinions I do not agree with myself, but that is no reason to not use to his article. As is clear from the RS I cited, Blumenthal is now considered way outside the mainstream and only non-RS are likely to consider his work as being reputable. (I am aware a query on RS/N found otherwise.) As with Rania Khalek, WP editors go with what reliable sources say about an individual. Philip Cross (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: The topic ban is here. IWI (chat) 14:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Concerned, too. We could add Cross' extensive fiddling on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP to this list. One diff in particular refers to an op-ed making exceptional claims as an RS. Another pushes the TG is a Russian assset line [54]. Really, have a look at just about any Cross modification of that BLP and you will be able to see his POV loud & clear. Suggest topic ban from anything related to the Syrian war.

NB: the original topic ban sidestepped the main issue which was the Syrian war.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I cited The Washington Post for the first diff in which it is Kamala Harris who called Tulsi Gabbard an apologist for Assad. The reference (although it is an op-ed) is clearly factual, and the passage which might be thought the journalists opinion does not differ from multiple claims made about Gabbard when she was a presidential candidate. The other, a brief addition, is factual also ("[The] three major Moscow-based English-language websites [are] affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government.") I did not consider these additions to be tendentious. Philip Cross (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The citation you added: Only Gabbard asserts that the United States (not Assad) is responsible for the death and destruction in Syria, that the Russian airstrikes on civilians are to be praised, that efforts to protect Syrian civilians are wrongheaded and that the United States must side with Assad., sourced to an op-ed by someone with a strong POV. I believe you cannot be counted upon to contribute neutrally on the Syrian Civil War, though I don't always think you are wrong. (I remember backing you up on the Douma page itself recently, for example) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support full BLP ban on Philip. This is the same modus operandi as he operated on british political articles that eared him a well deserved ban from them, he is editing in a similar manner on this topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. Philip is a very experienced editor it is a shame he seems unable to edit and improve articles without what is apparently a personal slant. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I would also support this. His aim appears to be to discredit anyone he doesn’t agree with. IWI (chat) 19:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose full BLP ban. @Govindaharihari: That is unjustified by the evidence at hand. Please bear in mind that Philip Cross has contributed to many nonpolitical bios. He is, for example, the top editor of Duke Ellington and literally hundreds of other Wikipedia bios of musicians, more than a few of them still living. A full BLP ban would deprive us of his unparalleled expertise in this field. Let's not toss out the baby with the bathwater. NedFausa (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

At the very least we need a topic ban on the Syrian Civil war/Israel-Palestine conflict as well as journalist BLPs. That would be the minimum. IWI (chat) 20:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa picked up on something on the Abby Martin article. It seems strange to me, as the user stated, that Cross makes this change after Martin herself makes this tweet referring to Cross himself with criticism. Seems like too much of a coincidence and would show blatant bad faith. IWI (chat) 00:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Totally bizarre, evidence-free filing. BLP does not require us to portray individuals in a favourable light. The diffs produced by IWI are utterly mundane. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

My concerns are only one part of this. There are at least three other BLPs that this user has clearly used subtle synthesis to POV push their views about someone the user clearly disagrees with. Cherry picking particular negative quotes and using synthesis to make them look even worse to make outrageous claims of antisemitism is more that just portraying negatively. The user has used falsehoods or misquotes, which is a big deal on a BLP. IWI (chat) 07:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't get the feeling you understand what the BLP policy actually says. If RSs are generally critical of Khalek, or Blumenthal, or whoever, then the article will be generally critical of them. We don't scrub criticism because the article subject doesn't like it; the Donald Trump page would be a one line long if that was the case. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Philip Cross: Re the first diff, above you say "I later modified the passage to quote Khalek. It suggests she did not believe the attack had occurred at all". How does the source justify that claim? How does it justify how it appears you left the article at permalink: "Haaretz quoted her denial in April 2018 that the Syrian government was responsible..."? To my simple mind, it looks like the source said Khalek had posted that there was no evidence and that means the above are very bad WP:SYNTH violations. Normally, SYNTH violations are a dime a dozen but they are very big deal when present in a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The internal link is to "Douma chemical attack", not "Alleged Douma chemical attack." Philip Cross (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions, the source did not say what you said. IWI (chat) 07:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

ImprovedWikiImprovment, Being attacked by a subject of an article you've already edited doesn't constitute a COI. That would implement an effective heckler's veto. Also calling this as discrediting journalists is tendentious as most of them are provocateurs, not rapporteurs, often working for disinformation outlets sponsored by think tanks or hostile governments. Guy (help!) 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

JzG So you’ve not mentioned the most major point directly above, that the user inserted his own synthesis of a source on a BLP to suggest something controversial. It doesn’t matter who she works for or whatever, because this goes against policy directly. Now I shouldn’t need to explain this to such an experienced editor. What Cross is doing goes is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I have no conflict of interest whatsoever here, with only the interests of the project. IWI (chat) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering arbitration warned you "to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest. Further, he is warned that his off-wiki behavior may lead to further sanctions to the extent it adversely impacts the English Wikipedia", how do you explain, following this tweet by Tim Anderson (political economist), making many edits such as this to his article? Wouldn’t this be a blatant violation of that warning, along with the Abby Martin issue mentioned above? IWI (chat) 07:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I recommend administrators search Twitter using my name as there is evidence suggesting WP:PROXYING, especially concerning the Rania Khalek article. My edits to the Tim Anderson article do not "adversely impact" Wikipedia as they are derived from RS and develop the article. Philip Cross (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No proxying occurred. I made these edits at my own direction after people highlighted your edits to me on Twitter. Even if it did, they are not banned editors. Your claim is absurd. IWI (chat) 07:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Correction, they were highlighted, but not directly to me. IWI (chat) 08:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Philip Cross is the victim of an off-wiki smear campaign who should never have been topic banned from British politics in the first place; as all that led to was the smear campaign scrutinising every single one of his edits for something they don't like, and then abusing BLP to try to get him punished in any way they can. If this was a genuine complaint, why is Philip Cross the only editor they complain about? Iffy★Chat -- 09:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Because, very simply, the complaint is about Philip Cross i.e. this is a genuine complaint about Philip Cross. I admit this so called campaign brought my attention to it, but on inspection I became concerned. The editor is simply discrediting the project, and I can’t let that happen. (I answered because it appeared this was a question to me directly). People are saying they won’t trust Wikipedia again, and that is a big problem. IWI (chat) 10:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@RaiderAspect: but sources are not generally critical. In fact even the sources used are mostly not critical. The user took a direct quote. There are about 20 of these direct quotes from the person, he chooses the one that would be most defaming. It should also be noted that the person in question actually expressed concerns about her Wikipedia page. Cross has gone through a process of removing positive sources and replacing them with negative ones, or emphasising negative ones more, even to the point of synthesis in one case (the Douma chemical attack one) and literally saying something that wasn’t exactly in the source. Believe me, I understand the policy well and I would not post here lightly. IWI (chat) 13:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• OK, so the RT fanclub is out for Philip Cross' blood again. Cool, cool. Guy (help!) 19:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ah its those pesky Russians again! Bla bla bla same old bullshit I see. PackMecEng (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The RT fanclub is mainly not Russians. Russians are not the target audience. Guy (help!) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG and PackMecEng: What a load of crap. Can we keep this serious here. RT is an unreliable source and it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You haven’t even took the time to look at my query. Not a response I would expect from admins and I am genuinely shocked. IWI (chat) 20:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Your logical fallacy is: begging the question. I looked at your query. I find your case unpersuasive, per my comments above. Guy (help!) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure but that’s doesn’t mean you can make comments like that, not really productive. I don’t see how it begs the question, considering none of my argument included RT, neither did anyone else’s. IWI (chat) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with IWI. JzG first comment is disruptive just like most of his comments in American politics related area. Like for example, in here, he has made dozens of comments mocking Trump because he couldn't pronounce the word "origins". And there are a lot of examples that show how disruptive this editor JzG is. This provocative comment might be the latest but probably not the last. This would probably not change unless that Admin tag that is next to his username got removed because it is obviously providing some impunity to his disruptive and provocative comments and he probably senses that impunity and continues with this type comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support full BLP ban I found this in his talk page after he crossed the line and suggested in the talk page of Max Blumenthal that Max Blumenthal is anti-semite saying: [55]

I am not necessarily referring to Blumenthal, but being Jewish does not mean people cannot be antisemites

This was absolutely unnecessary, unrelated comment and should, in my opinion, be removed. It turns out the editor has a history of BLP violations.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at the current state of the talk page reveals that there have been several discussions in the past about whether to include language discussing accusations of anti-semitism. If criticism of the subject is discussed in reliable sources (and many different reliable sources call Blumenthal anti-semitic; just look at the article), then it's not a BLP violation to discuss that criticism on the talk page. Nothing in that dif you linked violates BLP. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing suggests he is anti-Semetic, so I’m not sure why Philip Cross even mentions it, especially considering the man is Jewish himself. My conclusion is that Cross can find a way to call anyone anti-Semitic if he wants. Any good admin who sees the issue on that page would probably agree. IWI (chat) 09:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you respond without looking at the point? The discussion was clearly referring to the last paragraph of this section, where Blumenthal is accused of anti-semitism quite publicly. WilyD 09:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing suggests he is anti-Semetic. Apart from appearing on the Simon Wiesenthal Center List of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Israel Slurs. And numerous reliable sources that describe anti-Semitic remarks. Your obvious animus towards Philip Cross is leading you to make indefensible statements. Perhaps step back and don't argue every single point here? Guy (help!) 09:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you even read the article in question? There are a several sources that explicitly call Blumenthal anti-semitic or tie him to anti-semitic groups [56] [57], and another where Blumenthal himself discusses a time he was called anti-semitic [58]. WP:BLPTALK forbids "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices". But these accusations are well-sourced, and the discussion surrounding them is a notable part of Blumenthal's career and public life. On top of that, the specific comment that Shar'abSalam quoted didn't call Blumenthal anti-semitic. Shar'abSalam demands that an editor be blocked from editing BLPs, but his evidence is an edit that doesn't violate BLP policy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair points, my apologies. IWI (chat) 10:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The leaders of the Wiesenthal Center are avid Donald Trump supporters. Does that seem centrist and unbiased to you? There's no evidence that the Wiesenthal Center speaks for most Jews, and according to Peter Beinart and The Forward, quite a bit against it.[59] GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wiesenthal Centre is a storied organisation, they have a certain agenda and POV (so we attribute their statements) but they predate the Trump regime and any support will be solely due to Trump's support for Israel's agenda in Palestine and Jerusalem. Guy (help!) 22:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnic group. Israel is a nation-state. To directly conflate the interests of the two is itself a |hard Right ideological position. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to push that ideological position, although it does appear to be the purpose of Philip Cross.

Peter Beinart and The Forward are also broadly pro-Israel, but even they consider the Wiesenthal Center extremist, however "storied" it may be. Inflammatory accusations from extreme ideological opponents are not appropriate for a BLP at all.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Philip Cross is adding material with citations from relevant media. Eostrix (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support full BLP ban for the reasons stated above. The Wiesenthal Center's hard right POV--that Jews first loyalty must always be to Israel[60]--should not be used to defame people on Wikipedia.GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• No one in this thread has posted a single dif demonstrating a violation of BLP or made any policy-based case supporting a topic ban. Some editors disagree with Philip Cross's edits. Those disagreements should be discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. please explain how this previously cited "diff" works with our BLP protections. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Easy. BLP does not forbid properly attributed criticism of public figures, even when the people making the criticism have strong views on the subject. The Boris Johnson article quotes left wingers describing him as "a nasty right-wing elitist, with odious views and criminal friends", and a "jester, toff, self-absorbed sociopath and serial liar". You could debate whether Rogin's comments are due in the context of the article, but they're not a BLP violation. --2001:8003:5818:6400:208E:F392:5526:5A1A (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's really a moot point, because the content didn't stay in the article long, but I would have thought giving further media amplification to demonstrably false claims about what the BLP subject said would be crossing the line. I guess not. Vive le western... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Block review for Alichauhanrajput

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've indefinitely blocked Alichauhanrajput (talk · contribs) for NOTHERE behavior and vandalism past a level 4 warning, submitting it here for peer review. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Obvious blocks like this don't need peer review. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Resubmit after major revisions, (and don't forget publication fee). Peer review complete. Natureium (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block and I concur with NinjaRobotPirate. This is not a close call and no review is required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Reviewer 3 found no issues witht he block or its conclusions. Guy (help!) 01:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Self-disclosing contentious blocks is always good, but this is more of like a procedural rubber stamp block that nobody could ever possibly criticize. I don't know why you would think it needed to be reviewed. Don't doubt yourself so much. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Rosguill, don't let any of the above remarks bother you, since you are a new administrator. Thank you for serving. You deserve feedback on your early blocks, and you are doing fine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Rosguiull, sorry, I didn't realize you were a new admin. But I stand behind my advice. Don't doubt yourself. The community gave your blocking judgment a mandate. Don't waste our time with this sort of thing. Your judgment is enough when it comes to something like this. Yes, if you block an established editor with a reasonably clean block log, request oversight if you're unsure. But don't fuck around wasting your time with users like this. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I brought one of my first blocks here as well.-- Deepfriedokra 10:52, 18 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'm reporting myself ....

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.

---

for a nominal WP:3RR nomination. All the reverts are of things that have no relevance to the article 21st century in fiction. But I can't say they are vandalism, because it seems possible that the person or persons have so little idea what Wikipedia is about that they believe their edits are accurate (as to facts) or helpful (in the fiction article). The reverts this year (all times PST = UTC-0800):

1. 18:59, January 17, 2020‎
2. 10:17, January 17, 2020
3. 01:20, January 17, 2020
4. 19:07, January 16, 2020‎
5. 20:41, January 15, 2020
6. 10:36, January 15, 2020
7. 17:52, January 14, 2020‎, by UserDude
8. 00:54, January 13, 2020, by Eostrix
9. 22:11, January 12, 2020
10. 18:08, January 9, 2020‎, by Serendipodous
11. 23:51, January 8, 2020‎
12. 23:32, January 8, 2020‎, by A-NEUN
13. 19:34, January 8, 2020
14. 01:10, January 8, 2020

Possible administrative actions:

• A declaration that nonsense, like vandalism, is an exception to WP:3RR.
• Semi-protecting the article. (But this is the fourth or fifth article which has been targeted.)
• Blocking IPs from the entire country of Egypt....

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• These edits are so incompetent that they should be considered exempt. I would suggest, though, adding warning templates on the IP talk pages. Also, if your dates here are correct, you broke 3R only once, maybe? on January 8? I'll be happy to retroactively warn you for edit warring, which you are guiltier of than 3R, if you're guilty of anything. Ah who cares; Ima semi this. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Page has been protected (some confusion there). IMO the editing was so obviously disruptive that AR's reversions are exempt from 3RR. Even if the strict letter of 3RR might be against them this would fall under IAR in that their actions were clearly in the best interest of the project. Moving on... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• I concur with Drmies and Ad Orientem. It's pretty clear to me that you were acting in the best interest of the project, so WP:IAR, even though clearly disruptive editing is an exception to 3RR. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:56, 18 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.

2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:1D

Done by zzuuzz. (non-admin closure) --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Please remove tpa and revdel. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Inappropriate claims

I try to edit article "Statuta Valachorum" to be as accurate as possible and editor Sadko (talk · contribs) makes unacceptable claims. I quote: "because this is some new sort of revisionism" "This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles" {I am just reading what is in front of me. I do not need help of any sort, I do my own work. The current text is a Frankenstein-like creation and I plan to alert various Wiki projects of any problems, bad use of sources and lack of consensus, because this is some new sort of revisionism - and we already have enough of it in the Balkans. The idea is pretty much simple (and this is not addressed to you Ktrimi); one should add Vlach where there is a mention of Serbs in modern-day Croatia. It will furthter prove that Serbs of Croatia are only some poor Vlachs, and that they were brainwashed to become Serbs by the Serbian Orthodox Church, which can be later used for daily politics. Vlah holds the same meaning for Serbs as Šiptar does for Albanians... I hope that you will have this in mind. This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles. I claim that this is only a more sophisticated form of bias driven POV, which can be seen from the whole body of work. And no, I am not attacking anyone, just analysing what I can see here and telling you what you are taking a part of, because I guess that your knowledge of Serbo-Croatian circles and various data is limited. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ktrimi991#Statuta_Valachorum"}. It would mean that my involvement in editing Wikipedia is revisionism and close to Nazism and Ustasha regime. I want that this clames be harshly punished and not to be repeated again. I am here in good faith and please respect me as a person. If this needs to be reported elsewhere please direct me to the right place, thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, which I think is the case here. Everything which I said is correct, I stand by all of it and every Balkan editor is aware of those facts. I did not say that it has anything to do with Nazism, please do not play the victim when you do not have to. You made a logical mistake right there. I said that it is used in those circles, and it is, which is rather alarming. I have a duty to my ancestors who were fighting various dictatorial regimes to point to any possibility of such ideological moments dominating editing of a noble project such as Wikipedia. Revisionism and creative entepretation of history should have no place on Wikipedia. These are great articles covering some of these issues, you can use Google translate and I can help you with translation of some parts, if the Google's tool fails.(Бранимир Марковић: Хрвати сви и свуда, EPOHALNO OTKRIĆE Bošnjački akademik: "Vučić i Srbi iz BiH poreklom su Vlasi") Thank you very much for reporting this as in incident; this is the way Mikola thinks he can edit controversial articles, just take a look at this creative editing, so to say - I am deleting this part "(mainly Serbs)" because this requires consensus, the other sources(books etc) do not mention mainly Serbs as Orthodox refugees in that part of Croatia ie Varaždin Generalat and evidence for this is provided in the sources I cite below throughout the page. The direct source mentions Serbs. 2) Here I add Vlachs because there are no historical documents that mention Serbs in Vienna otherwise this Serbian source(book) Serbs were also mentioned in the source... More of it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ktrimi991#Statuta_Valachorum Thank you for your patience regarding these messy Balkan issues. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to prove that I was not overreacting and that I am not paranoid, here are some of the diffs in which the same user, Mikola22, cites wartime fascist officials as if they were RS - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_Orthodox_Church&diff=925377120&oldid=925375409&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bjelopavlići&diff=925371428&oldid=924037952&diffmode=source and more on Sremska Mitrovica and other articles. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's previous blocks I'm wondering if this should be seen as an WP:AE issue - if blocks don't work, a topic ban may be the solution. I don't know much about this issues but I'll ping the Admins involved before with the blockes. @TomStar81, Yamla, and Bbb23: any opinions? Doug Weller talk 15:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug, I don't know which editor you're referring to. All I know is that both editors have been disruptive lately, and that needs to stop. I don't know enough about the topic area to comment about AE, one of my least favorite forums on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: fair enough, you blocked both this week. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in the beginning I used data of that historian and I did not know that this historian is forbidden in Wikipedia(otherwise, to this day I have never heard that he is forbidden here), that historian lived and died in Yugoslavia without any sanctions, how could I assume that he has something to do with fascism? I didn't know until then that it had something to do with fascism (this book has doctoral dissertation defense and I thought it was RS). The book is from 1937 and Croatian edition 1991, and today is in all libraries in Croatia especially in Catholic institutions and is used as a source in books or scientific works by Croatian historians or in school system. Otherwise I only put information from the Vatican archives(original archival material) that he has in the book. Therefore from the first day I started editing Wikipedia he saw fascists and Nazis in me. Here I give my energy and knowledge to improve the articles as much as possible while he uses hate speech instead of working in good faith. Therefore, I demand a harsh punishment and that such things no longer happening. I'm not a fascist and a nacist. I am from Croatia and I respect everyone, but this hate speech must be sanctioned. I spend my days here making articles better he offends me in the worst possible way. Mikola22 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I refute the notion that I was (deliberately) disruptive, it is just that admins are sometimes rather busy and have too much on their plate and so they just count reverts (going by the book) and do not have the time to look at the content and the nature of reverts more deeply, which is often the case with issues which are not in their original sphere of interest (Balkan history and what not). I was a collateral damage of one Wiki rules while trying to defend an article from addition of dubious sources, bold edits without consensus and manipulation with sources, as seen above. I rest my case and I am even surprised that this was brought over here, because, in my mind, it's nothing more than looking for reasons to report people, and finding offenses which do not exist in the original text. Historian is forbidden? P.S: The editor who mostly works on articles about history of the region apparently had no knowledge about works by a prominent local fascist official. I simply don't belive it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have promised to the two editors that I will help them find a solution to the said content dispute. It is not a difficult one, just patience and careful use of reliable sources are needed. One thing I would say is that @Sadko: should stop making personal attacks, aspersions and assumptions about other editors. It is sometimes impossible to have a proper discussion with him on controversial stuff. @Doug Weller: is right that such issues are AE ones. Sadko, if an experienced editor, not Mikola22, reported you at AE, no doubt a topic ban would be the result. You have produced massive amounts of evidence against yourself. One just needs to take a quick look at your comments on talk pages and edit summaries, where you continuously accuse other people of having certain goals on Wikipedia and so on. You need to reflect. Sadko and Mikola22 are keen on writing new content, so good faith and cooperation can solve the content issues. I plan to propose some edits on the article soon to help the two editors. Till then they best do not edit the article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Ktrimi991:I came to your talk page with suggestion to tell me what to do next, I have exposed all the changes and sources which I have(and there are more sources) to make article accurate as possible. Editor Sadko comes to your talk page not to make a joint decision in peace to improve accuracy of that article(Statuta Valachorum) but to talk about my edits as Nazi and fascist. This is not right. It is evident that his actions are not in good faith. I have been searching for data and RS sources for this article throughout whole week but it doesn't matter to him, he mentions Ustashes. Mikola22 (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Iam not making personal attacks and there is no "massive amount" of anything, that is simply not completely true. I am having in mind that we different views on a number of things.

This is a fine example that I am doing no such thing; I attacked the text, the content, the way in which sources are used and not anybody personally. That can be seen on your TP, for starters. I am sorry if you do not like what I was able to read into. I can agree with the last sentence. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment that I have a duty to my ancestors who were fighting various dictatorial regimes to point to any possibility of such ideological moments dominating editing is rather confusing. I think that editing Wikipedia is not a "duty" to our ancestors, and should not seen as such. Anyways guys, the new year is in its first days so we better focus on other things right now. I will soon ping you two on my talk page with a proposal on the article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Idk if @Doug Weller: or @Bbb23: or someone else wants to close this discussion before it becomes too long. This might be better suited for AE rather than ANI/I. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing by Mikola22 is very tendentious. He uses different methods, at first he tried to make his own interpretations of primary sources, then he used outdated sources of 19th century and fascist historians. Now this is cherrypicking and strong violation of the "weight" rule. But his bias remains the same.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes at first I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia and I thought that Wikipedia was based on original information ie sources, if I used outdated sources I dont know what should that mean, I thought every source was RS and now I use the latest data. This fascistic historian are in every Catholic library in Croatia, and this historian is also mentioned in some schools master's thesis and other Croatian historians use his data. I used his information from Vatican archives and I no longer use it even though it is a valuable source of information in Croatia. Therefore I once again ask that this attack on me is properly punished because I'm neither a Nazi nor a fascist. We must understand that Croatia has a history which is based on historical sources while someone does not like that. I have already found more forgerys that existed in articles about Serbs from Croatia and editor Sadko did not want to accept that editing in peace and obviously this is a problem for someone here. However, we all work together to make articles accurate as possible. If someone does not like some historical facts this is not a reason for insults me with hate speech that I am a follower of fascists and Nazi Croatians. Mikola22 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's more recent information on the fascist historian I quote: "Croatian Cultural Society Napredak Zadar and the Archdiocese of Zadar organize the presentation of Proceedings from the International Scientific Symposium Krunoslav Stjepan Draganović - Priest, Historian and Patriot" Welcome word: Msgr. Želimir Puljić, Archbishop of Zadar and President of Episcopal Conference of Croatia(2015). Does not mean that Croatian Catholic bishops are fascists because they promote Krunoslav Stjepan Draganović. At first I thought it was RS and my intention was to present some information about Catholics from the Vatican archives.Mikola22 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the problem: Mikola is eager to find the arguments for whitewashing, but he, for some reason, failed to see numerous sources about Ustashe background of Krunoslav Draganović. And the similar story is repeated with his edits again and again.--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in fascists and Ustashas and I do not know who is Krunoslav Draganovic. I only know that he is a patriot in the Croatian Catholic church. And I used information from his book from the Vatican Archives, the book is from 1937 and 1991. And now I know this facts. Therefore calling me a follower of Nazis and fascists for editing some article in good faith should be harshly punished. Mikola22 (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No one says that you are Ustash. But you make a tendentious selection of information. For you, Krunoslav is a patriot and a Catholic, and you do not notice everything else. And you do the same thing with every "Croatian" issue.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Krunoslav Draganovic is patriot for Croatian Catholic Church not for me. I put information from his book(Vatican archives) at the beginning of Wikipedia editing because I only knew this fact about him. Today some others historian use his book as a source of information. For you he is a fascist and for the Croatian Catholic Church he is a patriot. I do not research his works or his history because I am not interested in it, I am interested in information from books to make Wikipedia accurate as possible. You are probably obsessed with Krunoslav Draganovic but I didn't know who he was. You have to know that Croatia also has a history and we must respect it no matter how much you dislike it. I respect Serbian history but we also need to enter information from the Croatian view. I know this is a problem for you and Sadko but we need to make Wikipedia more accurate and better. If I do it in good faith that is no reason to compare me to fascists and Nazis. Mikola22 (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You are probably obsessed with Krunoslav Draganovic Here is another problem. Instead of apologizing for your errors you are starting acquisitions on other editors. It was your job to find out who is the author of the source that you tried to use.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

After administrator rejected his proposal in White Croats article this is how editor Nicoljaus expresses his good faith (White Croats talk page) I quote: "A simple “fuck off” would help to express the same thought much shorter. And with about the same level of validity.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)" Therefore this statement is clearly not in good faith but no one accuses you of insulting administrator decision. You were just angry and that is why such a reaction but it's not my fault for such decision of administrator.Mikola22 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, here is diffirent story. I was naive and thought that there was just a technical question and a misunderstanding. However, it turned out that in certain circles they still talk about the giant White Croatia from Elbe to Dnieper with its seat in Krakow. And to protect this ancient myth, a real mobilization was carried out. I have learned a lot of new things there!--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a LONG week, but after looking through this briefly I say AE-block his ass and wait for that to fail so we can indef the account. And best protect the article pages too since this comes under not one but two different AE sub headings: Eastern Europe and German War Effort. Food for thought.

@TomStar81: I have no idea how to solve this dispute, but I think you forgot to sign.--Calthinus (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I think a TBAN for both users. I am not sure both are being exactly honest and are both POV pushers.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What concrete did you do for accuracy of Statuta Valachorum article? I quote: "no, you have to get consensus for these changes. You do not get to make a case and then act as if you have won the debate." You supported Sadko although you do not know history of that region of Croatia at all. You didn't help with anything and now you would ban and me? POV pusher? You did not see that this was largely a copied article from Serbian Wikipedia? Is it then a neutral article? But these are laws for the Vlachs, Croats are also Vlachs and where they are in the article? Do you know history of Croatia? Do you know that Croats in Dalmatia are Vlach in documents, we're not Serbs because of that or maybe we are? You support that article and Sadko, and my edit where I placed Vlachs with the Serbs consider POV pushing? What if I put information about the Croats who were under the Vlach name at the time? Whether and this is POV pushing? From where Serbs in an article that talks about the Vlachs? Then the Croats etc are actually of Serbian origin? Promotion of this claim is called how? Then we will also change the article about Vlachs from Wikipedia, there are not mentioned any Serbs there.(The Orthodox Vlachs spread further northward along the Carpathians to Poland, Slovakia, and Moravia and were granted autonomy under Ius Vlachonicum (Walachian law), there is no mention of Serbs in that law. If someone does not know the Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian etc history this is not a reason for all those who know that history a little better consider POV pushers. And that is why we need to work together in good faith to keep the articles accurate as possible. And normally without insulting anyone that is personal Nazi or fascist, that deserves the harshest punishment. Mikola22 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I am talking not just about one article. I recall your attempt to use the dodgy source discussed at length above, and how you at first claims you were using historical documents rather, and ironically as I pointed out a third party source interpreting them. In fact if I recall it was only after some effort you seemed to accept this [[61]]. It maybe just bad use of English, but you seem to often say things that seem to not gel with what you mean. You (for example) seem to claim you have personal access to the Vatican archives, do you? Its clear you mean "his book about the Vatican Archives, but you said "I used information from his book from the Vatican Archives". In a less contentious area this might not be an issue, bit in a highly controversial topic not being able to make yourself clearly understood causes confusion and conflict. Also you say you will now not use Krunoslav Draganovic, but you also )in effect) try to defend his use by "Croatian Catholic Church", and strongly imply that many Croatian sources use him (do the ones you want to use?). It all adds to a sense you are more interested in pushing a Croatian nationalist POV. You are (in effect) pretty much a wp:sap. By the way I have called for you both to be TBAN'd this is not some one sided attempt to silence some "truth about the Vlachs", its an attempt to stop the pair of you ruining it for everyone else.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia at first what does that have to do with this edit or in the last month, or with the fact that Sadko insults me for being a Nazi? You (for example) seem to claim you have personal access to the Vatican archives, do you? I used this information from the book (1991), about these Catholics Bjelopavlići a few days ago I found it in the book of Malcolm Noel "Kosovo: A Short History". I can't find the whole book anywhere, when I find it I'll edit Bjelopavlići artice. Where the conflict is, the Bjelopavlići are referred as Catholics is that a problem for you and Sadko? Bjelopavlići are allegedly Serbs, whether that may be a problem? Do you edit article in good faith or what is it about? It is forbidden to mentione Catholics? I'm not defending anyone, I live in Croatia and I have not researched the work of Krunoslav Draganovic. I know that he is a patriot of the Croatian Catholic Church, I only knew that about him. And I thought it was RS. I don't know how you can't figure it out. "Croatian nationalist POV" maybe it's from your viewing angle because you don't know Croatian history. If you knew the history of Croatia then you would not defend Sadko, you probably would defended accuracy of information in Wikipedia articles and the principle of good faith. Why you don't change the "Statuta Valachorum" article for the better. Whether it is the law of the Serbs or Vlachs? Have you read the article? If you don't know Croatian history then ask me. Therefore, you have no good faith in this case. This is not right.Mikola22 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hold I am even more confused, you launched a RSN thread about using historical documents, now you seem to be saying you do not even have access to the source you were quoting, but rather a source even further removed form the archives (one you also say you do not have access to at the moment). As to Draganovic, again this may be a language issue but you made much about how Croatian historians use him, Now it may be that you are trying to say "he is used widely in Croatia and I was mislead about his nature". The problem is it can be read a number of ways, as we cannot guess at your real intention.

Your attitude (also displayed in a number of edit summaries reading (quite literally) "I have spoken") seems to be "I am an expert, I have final say". This is not how we do things (and I note your DR was closed for lack of real discussion at the talk page). Also I am not defending Sadko I have said (for gods sake read what people write, I have already pointed this out once) he should be TBAN'D too for the same reason as you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You do not even have access to the source you were quoting, What are you talking about? At the beginning of editing(two months ago) I used Krunoslav Draganovic's book as a source of information for Catholic Bjelopavlići, since this source is not acceptable I found another source ie book of Malcolm Noel "Kosovo: A Short History". when i find that book and page then I will post that info in the article about Bjelopavlići. What's the problem here? as we cannot guess at your real intention. And these are Nazi and Fascist intentions? You've been torturing me with this Draganović for two months now, what you want from me? To admit that I'm a Nazi? Do you understand that i'm not researching Draganović, he is a patriot of the Croatian Catholic Church and I used his information from the book (Vatican archives) the same archives uses and Malcolm Noel and I thought it was RS. This is not how we do things (and I note your DR was closed for lack of real discussion at the talk page)Where is the consensus and discussion on talk page about entering "Serbians" throughout whole "Statuta Valachorum" article. Show link. He should be TBAN'D too for the same reason as you. I'm trying that this article be accurate as possible, Sadko wants nothing to change in the article and calls me a Nazi and your suggestion is TBAN'D and me? I have been searching all week that the article be accurate as possible but you and Sadko didn't want to accept that. For that reason Sadko called me a follower of the Nazis and now you would TBAN'D and me. I have no more words. Mikola22 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"I found it in the book of Malcolm Noel "Kosovo: A Short History". I can't find the whole book anywhere, when I find it I'll edit Bjelopavlići artice." which book could you not find the whole of?Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

In the Serbian review of book ""Kosovo: A Short History" are mentioned Bjelopavlići who are and Catholics. It's a book review and I still do not have book as a source. Mikola22 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

John V. A. (Jr.) Fine in his book(When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkan, page 410) cites and work of Krunoslav Draganović from year 1938(talking about Catholics, Croats, Illyrians, etc) which is published by "Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences and Arts". If someone quotes John V. A. (Jr.) Fine and that part of the book probably you're not going to talk about that edit for two months and insult some editor that he's a Nazi because he put that information on Wikipedia. And if you and Sadko want some information not to be entered then that's another problem. So administrators and moderators should pay more attention to this. Otherwise when I put data about Bjelopavlići and their possible Albanian origin according to several RS. Sadko did not want to put this information from several RS as part of the article. It seems that the present situation is being defended from a few editor here ie Serbian point of view which is not in good faith and neutral point of view. Interestingly Bjelopavlići are a tribe from the territory of Montenegro with possible various origins and in the article it was wanted assume their Serbian origin without some concrete RS. Mikola22 (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Good faith does not mean we have to accept "I am using an RS" when in fact you are using an unspecified review of the source. Can you not see how this is disingenuous? Nor it is the fact time you have made claims that have turned out to not be quite truthful. This is why I see a problem, this is why I do not think it is a language barrier thing. Not was it only me and Sadko who pointed out Search Results

Web results John Van Antwerp Fine is a reputable and reputable historian (and as far as I can tell his books are published by the University of Michigan Press, not the "Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences and Arts", at least "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century" was which was the source I believe was brought to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact you are using an unspecified review of the source. I do not use review but I have found information about Bjelopavlići in that review(of Malcolm Noel book). And when I find that book then I will put this info in the article. I haven't put anything in the article yet since I don't have RS. I can tell his books are published by the University of Michigan Press, not the "Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences and Arts", John Van Antwerp Fine cites Krunoslav Draganović and the same information was released in 1938 by "Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences and Arts". Sadko uses hate speech and speak that I'm a fascist and a Nazi and John Van Antwerp Fine cites Krunoslav Draganović in his book. Otherwise what are you doing here? Article "Statuta Valachorum" waiting for you to refine it and make it more accurate. You reverted article and my edit and now you talk with me about Krunoslav Draganović. Sadko offends me that I'm a follower of fascists and Nazis because I edit articles to be accurate as possible and you talk about Krunoslav Draganović? So far I have not noticed any contribution from you? Except you're always around Sadko. We must all work to keep the articles accurate as possible and not because of that insult someone that he is a follower of fascists and Nazis. Mikola22 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:Both users, care to explain>? I do not want be dragged into the mud because I pointed out to a bad use of sources and what not. Several other editors and myself are fighting this sort of vandalism and POV pushing and yet, I am to be found equally guilty? Take a look at this cherrypicking, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yugoslav_Partisans&type=revision&diff=934721120&oldid=934282768&diffmode=source The whole point was: I was reported for some "inappropriate claims", I gave links and proves that they were not inappropriate and that I had a solid basis for my assumption. I shall not answer on this thread any more, I have other projects to work on. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You edit warred, that is one reason (we all forget or get carried away but even so). You do appear to have a similar battleground mentality towards preserving the Truth as Mikola22. Let me be clear, I came into this dispute (not the ANI, the dispute) because of RSN notices. Thus I am not aware of any history behind these articles or you editing history. As such I can only judge you based upon the intransigence I have seen form you towards compromise. Maybe you are right and every source Mikola22 uses is crap, or maybe (as in some cases does appear to be the case) the articles need a bit of a re-wording. The problem is that neither of you seem to be capable of compromise, its either your way or escalation. But as you both feel a TBAN in unfair.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal regarding Mikola22 and Sadko

Neither Mikola22 or Sadko may make changes relating to Balkan ethnicity (in any article) without first achieving consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yoicks. That sounds like the best.. Endorse/support.-- Deepfriedokra 10:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note Sadko appears to have rejected this [[62]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposal but it must state here what that consensus means. Does this mean and third party assistance, arbitration, etc because we may not reach consensus on talk page and Sadko did not come to joint discussion (Statuta Valachorum article). What if someone seeks consensus on talk page or elsewhere and there are no interested editors or as Sadko does not want to reach a joint decision in good faith. I can't wait for consensus five years. They must also be specified and articles which are under that consensus. There are also, unfortunately and some editors such as Slatersteven who reverted my edit although he does not know Croatian history but he must have noticed that my changes had RS. Then I guess he probably read that RS and in good faith accept that edit. I suppose he stood up for the Serbian name in the article and he probably expected a consensus for that change but where is consensus for puting Serbian name through article even though we have very little mention of Serbs in that area of ​​Croatia. If someone(editor) wants to contribute to the accuracy of some article he can do a little research and contribute with something and not leave things as as they were. Maybe Slatersteven is administrator or moderator I don't know, so he just monitors it but in any case we are all working on the accuracy of the articles and not just me. However, punishment for insult must be because I am not follower of Nazis or Fascists. Sadko didn't work in good faith to make Statuta Valachorum article as accurate as possible, he came there with purpose to insult me. Mikola22 (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Be rational enough to stop with the constant aspirations allegations. I am alive and well and can speak for myself and my motives, thank you. There is no insult, as the text and selective use of sources were criticised. I am generally inclined to reach a consensus with fellow editors and have a good discussion in order to actually get to something (a conclusion/solution), with editors who are capable of such a thing, and behave like adults, with Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility in mind. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

After this block: [63], Mikola22 continues in the same style:

• Edit: [64]
• Revert: [65], with explanation on TP: [66]
• Re-revert: [67]

Is there anything can be done at last?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What writes in the book of the Austrian historian? Greek-Orthodox. Then we must respect RS. Why you bother people with something that is properly made. Now you all see with which editors I must struggle to keep articles accurate as possible. They follow each other and they do not work in good faith. RS mentione Greek-Orthodox and they keep in the article Serbian-Orthodox. And how many such irregularities still exist. I'm alone here, and Sadko offends me that I'm a Nazi follower. Simply with these editors here should be no change for the better. Mikola22 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22: I am not sure you understand what is at stake here. You say that you agree with the proposal about not making changes relating to Balkan ethnicity (in any article) without first achieving consensus, while at the same time continuing the edit war at Vlachs in the history of Croatia, which most certainly is about Balkan ethnicity. --T*U (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

TU-nor This is not final decision. It must be specifically explained what it means and when this decision starts. Which consensus? Who entered Serbian-Orthodox information without consensus? On Reliable sources/Noticeboard is said that Austrian historian is RS. Everything is explained on talk page. I'm constantly in touch with two people, where are the editors, we need ten editors here. In the book and census writes Greek-Orthodox and someone puts Serbian-Orthodox. What should I do, to go to arbitration? Mikola22 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 for some reason believes that while there is no "final decision" he can arrange wars of edits: [68], [69], [70] ,[71]. Is everyone allowed to do this or is he some special?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have an alternative proposal - [72] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"...and that any further big or bold edits on the article and other articles about Vlachs would NEED consensus" is what I have more or less suggested. Plus you seem to be suggesting an IBAN. NO issue with any of this. I can support a no edit without consensus on all articles related to the Vlachs as well as an IBAN between the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Anonumus 7

Hello! A block for Anonumus 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user overdue. Their Talk page is full warnings for their disruptive editing and they are still not getting it. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that they are editing in good faith.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly so. Nonetheless, their editing is disruptive. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, this ANI filing didn't stop them. They have no contributions outside article space. I.e., refuse to discuss, or are incapable of discussing, the plentiful warnings about updating stats and not as-of dates. (Classic example of why we shouldn't be trying to replicate stats anyway) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I blocked them pending their response. Any admin can unblock at any time once they have responded to the concerns and acknowledged they will fix their issues. The refusal to communicate is a major problem, and the block is solely for the refusal to communicate. They can be unblocked as soon as they do so. --Jayron32 12:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Nnadigoodluck and WP:BADNAC

A few months ago I came across Nnadigoodluck when I noticed AFD space being flooded with edits (and a few AFDs I initiated were changed.) There were several bad clerking actions ranging from NACs to inappropriate relists, which I laid out here less than 2 months ago, which included:

• this inappropriate relist
• this relist with no reasoning which was later overturned and deleted
• same, subsequently deleted

And you can obviously see the rest in the diff I provided above. I'll also note that I am not the only editor who has raised concerns with Nnadigoodluck over their AFD activities. Fast forward a month and a half, this user again pops up on my watchlist with several BADNACs, though there are some okayish AFD edits, they still seem to be overly concerned with dabbling in AFD clerking.

Just two days ago, another user brought up some bad relists and NACS here. I also noticed this and reminded them of our previous discussion (though one mistake was mine, I misread a vote and thought it was this editor.) Not long after this conversation, with no resolution, this editor again removed the discussion - I understand that they are allowed to do this and removal of the discussion indicates that they've read the feedback and it shows an unwillingness to actually change their behavior.. Within hours of this discussion they went back to clerking AFD and this led to two DRVs related to their closures[73][74] and several more closes, some of which are okay, but in my opinion, demonstrate the same unwillingness to change their behavior. Today, another editor brought up some concerns which were dismissed twice. Their AFD stats are also misleading and it shows a clear lack of experience as the bulk of their votes were padded votes, meaning they were at the tail end where it was inevitably going to result in keeping/deleting or pile-on votes.

So the tl;dr here is that while there are some okay edits, Nnadigoodluck lacks the understanding and frankly the competence to be clerking AFD and I'd like to request a ban from them doing so for an extended period of time. Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm the most recent editor to attempt to communicate with Nnadigoodluck, after putting their TP on my watchlist a few months ago during the last AFD-related conversation. I'll admit, I was a little bit peeved that they removed my talk-page notice in the middle of a conversation, but... I'm not interested in edit-warring with this editor on their own TP, I have better hills to die on.

Nonetheless, I do think this is a problem - A lack of understanding is one thing, but this consistent failure to engage or even entertain any idea that there may be an issue with their behaviour is exhausting. For the sake of maintaining the goodwill of the editors who've tried to help this user, I'd agree that a ban from clerking AFD is a good idea, perhaps with a provision that if they manage to improve their AFD stats they could be permitted to try their hand at clerking, maybe a year or two down the line. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 17:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you to Praxidicae for the well-researched diffs. I've only looked thoroughly at at the first 7-8 diffs you identified and I'm, too, troubled by Nnadigoodluck's good faith attempts at closing or relisting deletion discussions but without any clear understanding of when to close and when relisting is appropriate. There were a couple relists that might've been useful, but on balance, most of them were either clear delete/merge or clear delete. So, I'm going to build on this thread you started and move a proposal... Doug Mehus T·C 00:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't researched the history of AFD clerking by User:Nnadigoodluck yet, but I concur with User:Praxidicae and User:Alfie that it is troubling to have two closures by the same non-administrator appealed to DRV in 48 hours. I think that one of the closes is completely wrong, and the other one shows poor judgment on the part of the closer. I now see that other editors have already tried to discuss this. I haven't yet researched the history in detail, but it troubles me. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon, That's the same way I feel. Looking through Nnadigoodluck's talkpage, one of the closes appears correct and the other was a bad close. One, two, or even three bad closes, okay, that's fine, so long as a willingness to learn from one's mistakes is being demonstrated. But, as you rightly note, Prax (hope he or she doesn't mind me shortening their nickname) has done his or her homework and there is indeed a troubling number of incorrect closures. I don't think we need to outright ban Nnadigoodluck from AfD or anything, but at least from closing and relisting. Reviewing the policies and essay and closure by non-admins would be helpful. Doug Mehus T·C 00:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment— Praxidicae’s decision to bring this to an ANI seems like the only step or the only viable option they could come up with as from my observation of the diffs they have clearly exhausted all other options. I have also noticed Nnadigoodluck close an AFD they themselves opened although I’m not sure this is proper as this seemed to me like a very controversial move/action. Having said that, I’d play the devils advocate here seeing as he has put in good work in other aspects of this collaborative project in terms of content creation & probably is one of the very few Nigerian editors who are still very much active in this community. I fear a ban from AFD clerking activities (although which could as well be the plausible action here) coupled with an administrator stripping away his Autopatrolled rights for off wiki activities only admins were privileged to view/observe might “hit him hard” & as direct consequence, he may decide to permanently exit the project. I see potential in this individual & as Per editor retention is there a less harsh way of dealing with this? Perhaps a final warning? Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Celestina007: Your claim of me closing AfDs that I nominated myself is misleading and untrue. I only close as Speedy keep Nomination withdrawn as seen in here and here. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 01:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Nnadigoodluck please be calm, I am on your side here & trying to make the community let you off the hook with nothing other than a last warning & not necessarily ban you for some months as I see potential in you. You have made some quite bizarre AFD clerking actions in the past of which ironically/coincidentally I personally was going to query you about today via e-mail before I became aware of this ANI case.Celestina007 (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Celestina007: It's okay. Just trying to clear some things that might presume as if I don't know what I am doing. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 01:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Celestina007, Thank you for your reply. Did someone suggest stripping away his autopatrolled rights? Apologies if I missed it. I don't think we need to go to that step, but rather, just a prohibition on closing or relisting certain types of deletion discussions, at least in the short- to medium-term. Nnadigoodluck seems like a good editor and I have no doubt his closes were done in good faith, but I just think there needs to be a restriction on closing or relisting certain types of discussions. He could still be permitted to close discussions that are unanimous in favour of keep or redirect, for example? Doug Mehus T·C 01:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus it wasn’t suggested that his Autopatrolled rights be stripped off but an administrator, I’m not sure who now, perharps Yunshui I believe was the one who carried out this actions after saying he carried out certain off wiki investigations & made some allegations with proof only admins were privileged to view. Yunshui did leave a message on his Nnadigoodluck’s talk page regarding this but strange it isn’t on his talk page anymore perhaps removed or archived by Nnadigoodluck I can’t tell. Anyway I can tell Nnadigoodluck is here to build an encyclopedia and all said & done he is definitely a net positive.Celestina007 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, Ah, thanks for clarifying the autopatrolled rights change was in reference to a past admin action. Yes, I agree that he is a net a positive to the encyclopedia as well, and I'm open to an XfD or AfD mentorship, but I do think that until the mentorship is complete, he should be restricted from closing (he can still participate) in at least AfDs. Doug Mehus T·C 01:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus seems like a bright idea & even Nnadigoodluck has accepted this already. Which indicates an editor willing to learn & do good work here.Celestina007 (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, Yep, agreed. : ) Doug Mehus T·C 01:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Praxidicae has been been hounding me for many months. I think that they are obsessed with me and any of my edit is always wrong in their sight, they won't let me rest, to the extent of wrongfully accusing me of relisting an AfD in which I voted in as seen here, which they later came back apologizing. Some months ago when I started AfD clerking newly, they even proposed that I stay away completely from AfD clerking in a very bad manner, without even giving me a chance or even suggesting ways that I can improve as an editor as seen here. Saying that I currently lack the understanding and competence to be clerking AfD is utterly false and untrue, because I've improved a lot, more than I was when I started newly and can be seen in most of my recent AfD closing and relists which are all in good standing for the past one week in [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118]. If they think that I made mistakes many months ago when I was still a newbie, they should judge it with my current editing history and know if I'm still on the same track or not. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 00:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nnadigoodluck, I've not looked through all your linked diffs, but looking through the first few, I see no evidence of Praxidicae hounding you. In at least one case, I think you are selectively cherry-picking an example where Praxidicae admitted afterward their error. In most of the others, Praxidicae was right to point out a number of bad non-admin closures on your part. I would support a mentorship proposed by Schazjmd below, but I think until you complete the mentorship, you need to be restricted from closing or relisting at least AfDs. Sound good? Doug Mehus T·C 01:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Dmehus: Sounds okay. I'm open to it. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 01:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Yuck. The subject was cautioned on their web page about their activity at AFD, and the subject responds by listing 44 AFDs that they have closed. I said that I hadn't researched the details, but the subject is doing the research for me. That is too many AFDs for an editor whose AFD closes have raised concerns, and it raises further concerns that they don't know when they are doing too much and doing it poorly.

Comment - This isn't directly relevant, but indirectly relevant material indicates whether an editor has the judgment and discretion to work at an advanced level in a complex electronic workplace. It appears that Nnadigoodluck was warned at least twice, less than six months ago, about removing speedy deletion tags from pages that they had created. That implies that we have an editor who either doesn't yet understand deletion policy or only has a recent understanding of it and is rushing into deletion policy too quickly, as well as simply an editor who is pushing limits, when pushing limits isn't a good idea in Wikipedia. The subject and I have done enough research for it to be clear to me that mentorship isn't likely to work. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Although restricting Nnadigoodluck from clerking AFDs for some time may be necessary, is there any AFD expert who might be willing to take Nnadigoodluck on as an apprentice? The editor seems really interested in this area, but lacks the experience to do the work yet. An apprenticeship could help Nnadigoodluck develop the skills to resume AFD work later on. (Hit an edit conflict trying to post this; now in the light of Nnadigoodluck's comment, I'm unsure whether they'd be open to this proposal, but adding it as a suggestion anyway.) Schazjmd (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Schazjmd: I'm open to this proposal and thanks for bringing it up. I want to assist in building this encyclopedia in my own little way. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 01:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nnadigoodluck, I'm glad to hear that. I think with the help of an editor experienced at clerking AFDs, you could gain the skills to be a real asset in that area. I hope someone appropriate is willing to work with you on it. I have no experience with it or I would offer my help. Schazjmd (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

When I opened this topic up for discussion 9 months ago there seemed to be some agreement that NAC at AfD should be highly curtailed. In looking at a wider range of AfDs since I've become a sysop I've only become increasingly convinced that this is the correct case. So I am opposed to the principle of non-sysop AfD mentorship on this basis beyond the specific issues noted here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for time-limited restriction

Procedural Comment Please !vote for only one of the following proposals. Doug Mehus T·C 00:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal A: For a period of not less than three months, Nnadigoodluck is hereby restricted from closing or relisting all deletion discussions.

Proposal B: For a period of not less than three months, Nnadigoodluck is hereby restricted from closing or relisting AfD deletion discussions.

Proposal C: For a period of not less than three months, Nnadigoodluck is hereby restricted from closing or relisting all deletion discussions where there is trending consensus towards delete.

Proposal D: For a period of not less than three months, Nnadigoodluck is hereby restricted from closing or relisting AfD deletion discussions where there is trending consensus towards delete.

Proposal E: For a period of not less than x months (where x is identified by consensus below), Nnadigoodluck is hereby restricted from y to z deletion discussions (specified by consensus below, y refers to the prohibition (i.e., closing, relisting, etc.) and z refers to the type of XfD (i.e., AfD, TfD, MfD, etc.)).

• What happened? Did you run out of letters? Lord.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Bbb23, Le sigh. Doug Mehus has been lecturing us on how Wikipedia works since his arrival. He has about 4,000 edits, and nearly 40% of them are to Wikipedia space. To say that his input often lacks insight would be an understatement. I foresee some restrictions heading that way. Guy (help!) 18:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal F: Per the added proposal by Schazjmd and comment by Barkeep49 above, Nnadigoodluck is to be restricted from closing or relisting AfDs (or, alternatively, all XfDs) pending sponsorship and successful completion of an administrator-led mentorship arrangement. Nnadigoodluck may still participate in said AfD/XfD discussions during the mentorship, but not close them.

• Support F (for all XFDs) because I think that option has the best potential to benefit both Wikipedia and Nnadigoodluck. Schazjmd (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support F (indifferent to AfDs or all XfDs) per Schazjmd and my comments above. (Sidebar: you placed your vote in the correct spot, Schazjmd.) As an alternative, in light of Praxidicae's comment below, I would alternatively, as a second choice, support A or any other of the other proposals when consensus has been determined. Doug Mehus T·C 02:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support A as the closest to what will work, because I have no confidence that a mentorship will work, and I do not want to waste the effort of the community and the subject. I haven't seen the subject at MFD, but I don't have confidence that they understand drafts. I wouldn't have seen the subject at CFD or TFD or RFD. I have seen the subject too many times yesterday at DRV to have confidence that mentoring will work, after the subject was hostile to the suggestion that they were doing too much work at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I honestly don't see anything wrong with the behaviour here, and I've looked through the initial diffs and the 44 AfDs posted by Nnadigoodluck. I think the DRV thing is a red herring because neither of their closes at DRV were technically wrong, though the no consensus close should be backed out on a technicality (delete was a better option.) I'm not sure I see the problems with the relists, either - is the nominator saying the relists were inappropriate because no further conversation existed? This conversation concerns me, because the initial post asks for the user to stop clerking entirely in the very first post, even though in the third link MBisanz relisted the discussion with no reasoning. And the 44 AfDs Nnadigoodluck posted, to me, demonstrates a level of competence in closing AfDs as a non-administrative capacity. On review, I too would be frustrated to have been accused of not doing good work without an accurate explanation as to what I was doing was wrong, and going directly to "you shouldn't do this" instead of allowing the user to have a chance to learn how to do things better.

There are three things I want to say to Nnadigoodluck in terms of clerking and one in terms of AfDs generally. The clerking: 1) if you're clerking in this area, have Wikipedia:Relist bias open in another tab or browser and work through the steps each time you want to relist, making absolutely sure your relist won't be controversial. 2) if you relist, make sure you explain why you're relisting when you relist (and if you're relisting for the sake of relisting, you probably shouldn't relist.) 3) if you close a discussion, you need to be 100% sure your close is absolutely correct and could not be closed any other way. Almost all of your closes are fine, but going forward, I would ask you to avoid closing AfDs as no consensus, or any closes that could be closed as anything other than keep, per WP:BADNAC. In terms of the AfDs generally: At this point, I would encourage you to participate in AfDs rather than clerk them, mostly per Barkeep49's comment above regarding non-admin AfD clerks. But in terms of any sort of ban, I don't think this has been handled well at all by anyone and strongly oppose any sanctions, and that this ANI thread should just serve as both a general warning and an example to Nnadigoodluck of how they can improve as an editor. SportingFlyer T·C 08:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the kind offer of another editor to mentor them, I think this kind of misses the point. This isn't like writing articles or editing broad topics, it's a narrow maintenance area that is somewhat important but should be left to more experienced users (preferably admins but that's another discussion.) So, Support A, an outright ban for 3 months at minimum from doing any maintenance related activities at AFD/xfd. And I saw a comment above about editor retention and fear this user will leave the project and while I understand the overall concern, I'm not sure this should be considered if a user's sole purpose is to relist/NAC afd. As a note, I was not originally concerned about other fd areas but I am concerned that they will move on to that area if they're banned at AFD only. Praxidicae (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support (for all XfDs where applicable) proposals F, A, C, B, D, E in descending order of likelihood to produce good results. (Yes, I reject the proponent's demands to !vote for only one possibility; this is not a bureaucracy.) There is clearly a problem here which needs to be addressed, but we do not need to set ourselves up for yet another ANI on the same problem by, e.g., restricting AfD closures and relistings only to have the problem behavior migrate to another XfD, or shift from relisting of obviously delete-leaning discussions to relisting of obviously keep-leaning ones, or whatever, if we can avoid that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, Fair point. You're right, there's no reason not to !vote for more than option or to rank ordering one's preferences. I'll strike that portion from my nomination. Doug Mehus T·C 09:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all – One of the DRVs was endorsed, and I don't think the second one will end up overturned either. There have been other NACers, and admin, who are overturned much more frequently than this editor, and whom nobody suggests tbanning from AFDs. I think in order to show a close is a bad close, it needs to be overturned by consensus, and in order to show a closer is a bad closer, they need to have some bad closes. So the evidence isn't there showing this editor to be closing in a disruptive way. As for the relists, yeah, they're relisting too often, but that's really pretty harmless (an improperly relisted page can still be closed right away), and that's the kind of problem we should fix by teaching rather than by sanctioning. I don't see a case made for sanctions here of any kind. – Levivich 18:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to close with no action

I don't think there's any doubt of Nnadigoodluck's good faith here, their actions viewed holistically appear to be within the bounds of what normally happens at Xfd - and yes, some might be considered incorrect, but that's not really Nnadigoodluck's fault specifically because the guidance is (perhaps intentionally) vague and in any case nobody's required to be perfect as long as their actions don't appear capricious.

I think we could do with some clearer consensus guidance at WP:NAC or a subpage on when to leave it to an admin (e.g. minimum numbers of !votes for a relist, maximum number of relists before a no-consensus close, minimum time / !vote count before a non-admin SNOW or speedy keep etc). Not so much to constrain people as to prevent drama like this. I am mindful, though, that admins are not special, and the main reason for admin closure of XfD is (a) the technical need for an admin to perform an actual deletion and (b) the fact that admins have at least some measure of community assessment of their knowledge of policy, so this personal preference for better guidance may be considered unnecessary by others. Guy (help!) 08:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'd have no problem supporting this proposal, Guy, if the nom, Praxidicae, supports it (though I note even the subject has agreed to a voluntary curtailing of XfD closures while undergoing a mentorship). So, call it a conditional support if Praxidicae, and others who've expressed opinions below and above this discussion, support(s) it. Otherwise, it's an oppose. As well, S Marshall's and Britishfinance's comments with respect to the necessity, or not, of further revisions to WP:BADNAC are particularly compelling. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Dmehus, we don’t care what OPs think about anything, we tend to look at the underlying case and consider policy based input from experienced users and admins. With your lack of experience you should focus on other areas not the drama boards. Guy (help!) 19:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose to doing nothing here. The over-involvement of Nnadigoodluck in XFDs is problematic. A closure with no action would risk being seen as encouragement. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Strong Support for the suggestion by Guy for a clarification on Non-administrative closures at XFD. The number of recent DRVs involving NAC and including claims of BADNAC show that the guidelines for such closures should be clarified. Maybe the guidelines were deliberately left vague because it was thought that NACs at XFD would be rare and unambiguous; they are neither rare nor unambiguous. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW I also strongly support the idea of clarifying WP:NAC. I would suggest that Robert McClenon is the perfect person to help move that forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Well, well. Okay, I guess I am tasked. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support both closing this with no action and clarifying WP:NAC (and hopefully when to relist as well.) I just hope we haven't run off a good faith editor doing good work from the project with this heavy-handed response to a very small issue (especially since consensus at DRV is that one of their closes was absolutely okay and the other was likely okay as well, or at least being considered as okay by several experienced members of the community.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I am trying to start a discussion at the non-administrative close talk page about the need to restrict non-administrative closes. By the way, I don't think that this has been a heavy-handed response to a very small issue. Maybe I am in a very small minority, but if so, maybe I shouldn't have been the one who was tasked to move the discussion forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Please don't add rules about NACs. Firstly, it's a disproportionate response. The way to deal with poor judgment by an individual good faith editor is to constrain that individual good faith editor, not to constrain every volunteer in the project. Secondly, because Wikipedia doesn't have a widespread problem with poor NACs. We've got two by the same editor at deletion review, but this is the first time that's happened in ten years. Thirdly because writing explicit rules generates a clear roadmap showing exactly how to game the system.—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Agre with S Marshall. This is a strange ANI where a well-meaning and enthusiastic 5-month-duration editor (which is to be welcomed), but who never seems to have ever !voted at an AfD (AFAICS here [119]), is closing lots of AfDs, and some have issues? We don't need an in-depth investigation or detailed proposals, we just need the editor in question to stop using the closer until they have experience. If we need a rule, it is that nobody should be closing at AfD unless they have at least 100 correct !votes logged. The real issue here is that a small number of admins/senior editors do a disproportionate amount of work on most WP Boards (AfD being one), and those editors are starting to disappear. For some reason, the new admins don't seem to be high-productivity editors, and thus the problem is worsening. The real issue is not that NAC needs tightening, but that at some stage in the future, we are going to have to give experienced non-admin editors the ability to close as delete under NAC. Trying to address the issues of an over-enthusiastic editor by going against the inevitable reality makes no sense, imho. Britishfinance (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Britishfinance, You've got it all wrong by saying that I've never voted at AfD. The link you're using is not right and not really my username. Take a look here for the right link. And saying that my closing at AfD have issues is untrue, I guess you've not taken a look at them. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Ah, my bad Nnadigoodluck, not as bad as I thought, however, 5 months in WP is not the right time to start closing at AfD – give yourself more time before doing this level of closing. NACs are going to be an even more important part of WP (per my cmt above), however, NACs always come under a higher level of scrutiny (for rational reasons), and thus you should only be closing when it is obvious (e.g. don't damage your reputation before you even get started). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. We've already had to address the same problem behavior more than once, so it is time to do something about it, not continue to ignore it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  Sure. The "something" is fixing WP:NAC rather than beating up a user whose only real offence is to be Tigger. Guy (help!) 22:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  Not mutually exclusive. It's a common outcome when some party is repeatedly misunderstanding and misapplying a policy, guideline, procedure, or other process (hereafter "P&G" for short), after various objections and previous examinations of the user's behavior, for consensus both a) to enjoin/discourage the party from continuing to do so, and b) to tweak the wording of the P&G to forestall the same misunderstanding of it arising again. The latter part probably comes up more often at the talk pages of the P&Gs (e.g., it's very frequent at MoS), but there is no reason ANI can't also come to the conclusion that revision is needed along with a behavioral change being needed (and/or a remedy to ensure that outcome). Due to ANI not being a content (even an internal content) venue, and P&G talk pages not being disciplinary ones, it's generally going to result in separate discussions anyway, one for the behavioral matter and one for the P&G wording matter; the difference is simply going to be in the order in which they take place. I don't see this particular case as just a "Tigger" over-enthusiasm thing; there's a level of obstinacy in evidence. All that said, I actually concur with S Marshall, above. WP:NAC and related pages (WP:RMNAC, etc.) already have a WP:CREEP and WP:BUREAUCRACY problem. So any revision we do to them should probably be along the lines of just increased clarity and concision, not expansion with new rule-making. Personally, I think almost all of it could just be outright deleted and replaced with something like "Except where a specific process notes otherwise (e.g. at WP:RFARB), non-admins may assess consensus in and formally close any discussions that are ripe for such resolution, provided the consensus result is actually clear (which can include an obvious case of "no consensus"), and the closure assessment accurately reflects that consensus (or the failure of one to emerge).", and leave it at that, and WP would be just fine. WP was just fine before all this NAC rule-mongering, after all. The actual problem in this case is someone (whether an admin or not) improperly closing or reopening AfD discussions in ways that defy the consensus in them. We don't actually need new rules about that, and we probably don't even need clarified ones, since it's not a widespread problem but an uncommon individual one, which seems to resolve to a failure to apply WP:Common sense and WP:Consensus principles, even aside from what WP:NAC says in more detail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comment, on a proposal above:

"Except where a specific process notes otherwise (e.g. at WP:RFARB), non-admins may assess consensus in and formally close any discussions that are ripe for such resolution, provided the consensus result is actually clear (which can include an obvious case of "no consensus"), and the closure assessment accurately reflects that consensus (or the failure of one to emerge)."

That is supposed to be clear? I have legal qualifications, and I don't know where to begin trying to construe that. Narky Blert (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment One of the two closes this user made at DRV was endorsed, and the other is on its way to being endorsed. Two of the three relists weren't good, but those can be easily fixed. I still have no idea why we have knives out when this issue could have been solved with a little guidance. SportingFlyer T·C 03:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close / no action per SportingFlyer; any concerns seem to have been overblown and if there is an issue it would appear to be a systematic one. ——SN54129 08:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support – per my and others' comments above – Levivich 18:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Lord Belburyisdead

Socks confirmed and blocked. (non-admin closure) --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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

---

WP:ATTACKNAME directed at me.

• Lord Belburyisdead (talk · contribs)

From the East London article subjects, this is presumably a new sockpuppet of User:Hopeful2014, reacting to the report I filed yesterday at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hopeful2014. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would add this to the suspected sockpuppets on the SPI. Regardless, the name is highly inappropriate and should be reported to WP:UAA, if not already blocked by reporting this here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  I've endorsed a check, so we'll know if they are related, or else they can remain UPOL-blocked. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

An IP with RGW concerns

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.

---

• 151.229.26.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:151.229.26.18#Your edits at several pages

This IP has been on a campaign to scrub the phrase "convicted pedophile" from Wikipedia this evening, instead opting for "child sex offender". Content issue aside, based on the section on their talk page, there seems to be objection to this and a desire for a wider consensus at the very least. Nevertheless, my attempt to roll these changes back has been met with continued reversion. Thus, I'm starting this to see if the IP will slow down, let the changes be undone, and wait for that consensus before continuing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I still say an IP talk page is not an appropriate place for an ongoing discussion, especially this type. Who knows who'll get this IP next. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly! Elizium23 (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Absurd. The complainant is determined to have Wikipedia swamped by the unequivocally incorrect terminology "convicted paedophile" (i.e. an individual convicted of a psychiatric disorder), rather than convicted "child sex offender", which is used by the British government.[120][121] This is an encyclopaedia, rather than a tabloid, right?

Other users have supported my cause in this issue,[122][123][124] but we now have a case of WP:WIN. Lowly IP must be wrong even though he's right, I guess. 151.229.26.18 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

151.x, please remove the chip from your shoulder and allow a consensus to develop. There is much to be said for your suggested change, but mass changes generally aren't a good way to go until most people agree with you. It is conceivable that there's a better way to approach the issue that either satisfies everybody, or is at least better than your proposed terminology. Or maybe not. Please be patient. Acroterion (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The US government uses 'my' terminology as well.[125] Are we seriously going to pretend that an encyclopaedia reporting convictions on the grounds of a psychiatric disorder, rather than on crime, isn't utterly, horrifically incorrect? 151.229.26.18 (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not the venue to discuss a content dispute. Might I suggest Talk:Child sexual abuse? Elizium23 (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 or WP:DR? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 04:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As I am involved in this discussion, I believe that the IP is right. But as Acroterion suggested, I believe mass changes shouldn't be made until nearly everyone is convinced. It needs to be a vast majority for these controversial changes, not just a majority. Wikipedia is not a vote anyway. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 04:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I note without other comment that IP uses non-American, probably British, spelling. Narky Blert (talk) 05:04, 19 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.

White privilege

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.

---

• White privilege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Keith Johnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

White privilege is, needless to say, a contentious article. For more than two years now, Keith Johnston has been unsuccessfully pushing to reshape the article to portray white privilege as "just a theory", as it were, with assumptions of bad faith forum shopping, promotion of unreliable sources (also with forum shopping) and WP:CANVASSing (see the warning from Doug Weller on his talk page: [126]).

The article is subject to endless circular argument, and Keith Johnston is a significant contributor to that. He has 863 edits of which 270 are to the talk page of white privilege. He's raised it at NPOVN, RSN, DRN, and for the last year he's done basically nothing else on Wikipedia other than argue at that talk page.

Today he raised yet another semi-rhetorical question which turns out to be based on a complete misrepresentation of sources and accuses Wikipedia of being racist. Per WP:SPS and WP:TE I think he should be topic banned from that article, to allow some more recently arrived good faith editors to hash out some compromises without distraction. Guy (help!) 19:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Id like to take this opportunity to respond (forgive me if this is not in the right section):

• I do believe in good faith that the white privilege article violates NPOV - other editors agree - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_80
• I accept the warning with regard to canvassing and will commit to not repeating this error.
• I have not accused wikipedia of being racist and do not believe this to be the case.
• It concerns me that three of the admins listed here are INVOLVED as this may prejudice this discussion.
• My negative reaction to being placed under sanctions is in the context of that sanctioning editor being INVOLVED, which I initially thought was violation of policy.
• I only edit those pages where I feel I am subject matter competent. I edit the white privilege page because I have made myself subject matter competent by educating myself on the topic.
• I do not edit war, and I raise issues on the talk page in the first instance. Keith Johnston (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  Keith Johnston, nobody doubts that you believe in good faith that the article is biased. The issue is your relentless pursuit of attempts to change it despite numerous RfCs and other debates that go against you, combined with the lack of any other meaningful contributions to the project. Under 900 edits in 13 years, more than a third of them to this one article, with as close to zero consensus as makes no odds. You won't drop the stick so I guess we have to just take it away from you. Guy (help!) 01:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to have to support this. Guy's right, the talk page and archives are full of circular arguments. He posted huge walls of text in an earlier RfC- do take a look and we're going around again it seems. Ordinary editors (or busy ones who aren't focussed on just one article) just can't keep up with this approach. Doug Weller talk 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I support this and agree with Guy and Doug Weller. Its been a constant attempt to introduce WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, trying to create WP:FALSEBALANCE, and using sources that do no meet WP:RS. [127].   // Timothy::talk  20:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban from White privilege and related pages broadly construed. Too much bludgeoning for too long. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC).
• Yes, this editor has been beating the same dead horse for too long, wasting the community's time and energy. It's time to ban him from the topic of white privilege. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support a tban from White privilege, broadly construed. I looked through their comments on that talk page. This editor's behavior wouldn't be acceptable anywhere, but is especially bad given the fraught nature of the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support a tban from the subject of white privilege, including the article White privilege and its talk page, as well as discussions of the subject in other articles or other name spaces. It would be unfortunate if a tban from the article/talk page in question still allowed them to do their fringe POV pushing elsewhere. --bonadea contributions talk 22:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - 1 year tban, but I think indef is a bit much considering one block in 12 years of editing. (and yes I'm aware that indev ≠ forever). — Ched (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I'm WP:INVOLVED so I won't !vote, but I wish to second JgZ/Guy's comments. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite ban from the topic of white privilege, broadly construed. Too much argument over settled issues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Suppport an indefinite, broadly-construed TB from white privilege. A relatively-clean block log has little to do with POV-pushing. Miniapolis 23:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite, topic ban from anything to do with "white privilege" broadly construed. This type of disruptive behavior is exactly what topic bans were made for, and I would suggest enforcing this (at least on the page White privilege itself) with a partial block. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Did you really think you would change any minds editing that article? If you would have just read the intro you would know that critics are simply right-wing and misunderstand the concept. Posting content disputes at WP:DRN is forum shopping of course. Questioning the reliability of Hypatia promotes that horrid Wall Street Journal. Two years??! I have to say if you were trying to move the article toward neutrality you made absolutely zero headway.—eric 00:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - if everything that is/has been published about white privilege is true and accurate, and the comments in this thread are true to form, how can we eliminate the bias that is inherent at birth by those editors who are white since they are obviously born into a privileged status? Do we dismiss or discount their iVotes because they were born into the scorn of white privilege? Their iVotes cannot possibly be unbiased, right? Oh, and if we decide that only those editors of different racial backgrounds other than white are the only credible participants free of bias, have we truly eliminated "privilege" or are we inviting a different kind of privilege via our biases against whites? Hopefully, someone can explain this to me because I am thoroughly confused. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I can't tell if you're being melodramatic (seems so), but surely you realize nothing about white privilege suggests we do not allow White folks to !vote on Wikipedia. I'm happy to talk about how the concept is discussed in sociology with folks asking in good faith, but how's this related to Keith? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

What... Is this? I’m assuming this is some sort of personal meta-commentary having to do with the concept of white privilege [in general], as no one anywhere on this project has ever seriously suggested this. Disruptive one-off editors aside. This is kind of a strange comment. I’m not quite sure what to make of this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I just happened to look at this dispute because I'm following another dispute listed on this page. Skimming through the controversy I see a conflict of paradigms. The problem is subtle, and it is a fundamental threat to Wikipedia. It's about what we consider to be "reliable sources". When the very division between what is "reliable" and other sources is the issue in question, then the distinction between "reliable" and "unreliable" breaks down. Ya, there's this argument about "false equivalence" but there's no firm basis for calling it "false." As various topics become increasingly politicized, Wikipedia must figure out how to deal with the problem. The solution proposed here about driving out heretics seems deficient. For the sake of Wikipedia, it seems that all of those folks chiming in to say "support" should instead be directing their attention to how to throw this editor a bone to reflect alternative points of view. By saying this I am not denying or affirming that the editor in question is not engaging in the behaviors in question. I am saying that Wikipedia is engaging in actions that are causing this behavior. Teishin (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from White privilege and all closely related topics such as racism, race relations, whiteness, white people, race and intelligence, and anything else related. We do not need chronic axe grinders editing against consensus in this broad topic area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I very much want to see conservative editors here, but when I see someone using this article as you did here, I don't see an editor operating in good faith. I see someone who is trying to force other editors to read only-tangentially-related texts in order to be able to refute them. This is not good faith. --valereee (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the comments above. The behaviour is clearly disruptive, and I'd go as far as Cullen's proposal as well. SportingFlyer T·C 05:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support proposal. There’s only so much time and good faith editors can expend on a problematic fellow editor. This has obviously become a time sink, and an IDHT issue. If the editor mends their ways, and can demonstrate an understanding and respect for consensus elsewhere, they can appeal. For now, I don’t see the benefit of a time-limited topic ban. So an indefinite tban seems like the proper remedy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I am involved, so I will abstain from !voting. However, I implore experienced editors to step in on Talk:White privilege and help put this issue to rest. Fundamentally, we are dealing with a mix of individuals who either A) believe that social science isn't "real" science, and therefore scientific journals on this topic are no more important than blatantly biased political editorials; and B) individuals who want to downplay race issues in general to support their own racial beliefs. The latter we've seen on Wikipedia for years and can deal with, but the former are pushing a viewpoint that I am concerned will undermine all our articles on social science & psychology topics. This Talk page is a microcosm for how some folks in STEM fields treat every other topic as "lesser" and that can lead to degrading the quality of our articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from articles related to white privilege, broadly construed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment (Semi-involved) Looked out the window and it's snowing. Closing this would save some time. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 19 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.

WP:TALKORDER

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.

---

Forewarned, this is a silly dispute, but I am starting to go a little crazy. Timeshifter (talk · contribs) is reverting my edits organizing talk pages based on the informational page WP:TALKORDER, specifically placing {{Annual readership}} at the very top of the talk page, even above {{Talk header}}. See here and here, among others. Discussion occurred here and to some respect here. Timeshifter's primary reasoning comes across as "I like it at the top of the page" and WP:TALKORDER is just an info page, which for some reason they think doesn't mean there was consensus formed to support that specific order. Regarding WP:TALKORDER, it is important to note I added {{Annual readership}} to the list yesterday (diff) based on comments from the talk page and the natural grouping of template types on WP:TALKORDER. At this point, I just want some consensus formed so that neither of us fall prey to WP:3RR and we have a clear path forward. I don't really intend to go out hunting for talk pages to change, but I also don't want to be constantly reverted every time I fix a talk page per WP:TALKORDER, as I would consider that disruptive. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It might not be a good idea to fiddle with talk pages that you are not otherwise interested in. I guess imposing rules from an arbitrary information page (WP:Talk page layout) might be ok in general, but when resistance from the locals is encountered, pursuing the dream of complete uniformity is not helpful. I suggest moving on and ignoring pages like Talk:List of countries by wealth per adult. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, although I appreciate the advice about staying away from certain articles, what you're basically saying is that people who edit certain articles can own their associated talk pages, which is patently incorrect. I also think it is a mis-characterization of what is going on, as I am not going around looking for offending talk pages, I am only editing ones I come across. What I don't want is certain editors following my changes, which are based on consensus (WP:TALKORDER), and reverting me. It is disruptive and will ultimately lead to greater problems. I also don't appreciate the exaggeration of pursuing the dream of complete uniformity is not helpful, as I don't think it very accurate or helpful as I have only edited like three talk pages accordingly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This is less about Ownership and more about picking your battles. Sure, the changes you make are technically supported by consensus, but they also have little to no actual impact on the usibility or content of the talkpage. I would just stop making these edits unless you're also contributing to the discussion on the talk page, and even then I probably still wouldn't. This didn't need to come to ANI. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 16:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. I get bullied into having to accept my consensus-based edits getting reverted because I should just get over it. As always, ANI shines as a beacon of helpfulness. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:11, 18 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.

User:Scope creep Revenge and disruptive editing

After I listed 7 pages created by User:Scope creep at AFD, User:Scope creep posted on my Talk Page here: User talk:Mztourist#Articles to Afd promising WP:REVENGE. Since then and despite having supposedly retired on 14 January: [128] User:Scope creephas now listed 3 pages I created for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelin Rubber Plantation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho Bo Woods and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S&T Motiv. In addition User:Scope creep appears to have targetted 2 pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac-Talla (band) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Newton (academic) created by User:Buidhe who contributed to the deletion discussions on the pages I nominated see for exmple : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand Feichtner and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Paschke. Despite claiming to have taken part in over 2000 AFDs: [129], User:Scope creep has not acted in good faith or observed any of Help:My article got nominated for deletion! and instead has pursued revenge and disruptive editing Mztourist (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the links for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Personally I do not object to the nominations of my articles for deletion. Although it may be the case that scope creep is scouring my contributions for non-notable articles, these were created early in my editing career when I didn't understand notability and actually ought to be deleted. buidhe 13:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: This isn't the place, but while it's here i'd say you might have a chanec with WP:NACADEMIC #2, depending on how notable the award from St Andy's is. Just a thought, worth a punt. ——SN54129 15:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sure we all have a few old pages like that, its acting in bad faith on a clearly stated desire for revenge that is unacceptable.Mztourist (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• I don't believe in it and truly think that revenge is terrible, it is bitter and hateful, both which I don't believe it. I did it originally to try and scare the editor into withdrawing the nominations which you didn't do, but is only fair and equitable that I now audit your article. scope_creep^Talk 13:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Scope creep: half a mo: ca you clarify what I did it originally to try and scare the editor into withdrawing the nominations which you didn't do, but is only fair and equitable that I now audit your article means? It sseems to copperfasten the OP's allegation, perhaps you could clarify? Apologies if I'm misreading you. ——SN54129 15:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  It is worth pointing out in the initial discussion that the editor stated I would note from looking at your Talk Page that several pages that you have worked on have been declined for lack of notability Comments about Afc Rejection I believe that the editor explicitly targetted me because he believed that I was relative newbie and created a whole bunch of article that had been rejected, thereby believing that I didn't understand what constitutes notability. The editor never discussed the posting of the articles to AFD queue, nor made any attempt to improve the articles, nor made attempts to talk to somebody else about the articles, nor spoke to me about it. It was merely a targetted attack which I consider disruptive and vexatious. He is relatively inexperienced at Afd, only completing 57, whereas I have done more 2000. If he had spent more than 5 minutes discussing any of them with me, he could have posted the whole lot to Afd, we could discussed it and perhaps found a better understanding of what constitutes notability. Instead he targetted me specifically believing I didn't know what I was doing. The Afc messages on my talk page, are NPP articles that were rejected, that were posted into Afc and then queued for a second opinion. The whole lot is disruptive and entirely shabby on his part. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm with SN. I'm not aware of a requirement that AfD nominators discuss articles with their creators prior to nominating the article for AfD. Also, these statements are eyebrow-raising: "I think it will need to have a look through your articles." [130] "I'm a really strong believer in revenge. It comes naturally in my family." [131] "If you had left a message and discussed like the rational human being instead of the ratbag that you are, then it would have been fair enough." [132] That last one really should be struck. In this thread, you admit "I did it originally to try and scare the editor into withdrawing the nominations which you didn't do, but is only fair and equitable that I now audit your article", and conclude that "The whole lot is disruptive and entirely shabby on his part." On his part? Are you sure? – Levivich 15:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  This revenge talk is disturbing. Eostrix (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  Agree. Frankly, at this stage, I'm not particularly interested in scope_creep's concerns about other editors. They seem to pale in comparison to scope_creep's talk of revenge. And then in this very ANI, they now say they think revenge is terrible. While that's obviously a reassuring thing to hear, very next they appear to acknowledge nominating in bad faith, in an attempt to scare another editor. Frankly I'm leaning to supporting a topic ban of scope_creep from nominating articles or even all the way up to a cban. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  scope_creep has been indeffed by User:Girth Summit for harassment which is good enough for me. I'd say we're done here Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've got no opinion at present on the seven nominations that the OP made of User:Scope creep's articles - it does sound a bit odd to nominate so many of one user's articles in quick succession, but perhaps there was a reason for that. What is massively concerning is the obvious (and downright creepy) attempts to intimidate the OP, the undisguised personal attacks, the nonchalant admission that they were trying to scare the editor into withdrawing the nominations, and the apparent opinion that the appropriate response to having one's article's nominated to AfD is to scour through the nominator's contributions in an attempt to gain retribution. I've indefinitely blocked Scope creep's account to prevent further disruption. Mztourist - could you explain the circumstances that led you to nominate seven articles by a particular user in quick succession? No accusation of any wrongdoing, I'd just like to understand that situation better. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure, I stumbled on Ferdinand Feichtner last week, read through it and followed various links to other German intelligence agencies and people involved. I identified several bios of German cryptanalysts/signals intelligence people that didn't seem notable and tried to find sources for them but didn't. I then raised the notability issue at: Talk:Ferdinand Feichtner#GNG/Soldier, I wasn't satisfied with the response from scope_creep and decided that the easiest thing was to put that page and 6 others I had identified as lacking notability up for AFD to see what other users' views were.Mztourist (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Frankly, I believe revenge is a dish best served with pinto beans and muffins!. I'm shocked that an long-established user would do such things. CBANning for AfD would not address the root cause, much as I ache to try out the new buttons.-- Deepfriedokra 16:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Wow. I did some work on Mac-Talla (band) today, without any knowledge of this discussion. While the article did need cleanup, it was a very poor nomination, for an unambiguously notable subject. can an uninvolved admin review these nominations, and see which can be (speedily) closed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Fully endorse the decision to block. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I went and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho Bo Woods, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S&T Motiv, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelin Rubber Plantation as speedy keeps because they were clearly out-of-process disruptive nominations. I did these as non-admin closes under WP:SKCRIT criterion #2a ("obviously frivoulous or vexatious nominations"). Please let me know if there are any objections to these actions. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, endorse NAC - I agree with your assessment of them as disruptive noms. The articles could use some work, but given the context of the nominations I think SK2a is appropriate here. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Me too, it belatedly occurred to me this should happen so was planning to do the exact same thing if someone hadn't gotten to it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have encountered three of the seven articles nominated for deletion at AfD and then saw scope creep was blocked and found my way here. The three articles I saw were not clear Deletes? In fact, there is an important WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER to Wikipedia's mission. At least two have BLPs in German WP (which is a much higher bar for BLPs than En-WP). It is unusual for 7 different BLPs to get AfD'ed in one go, and therefore, as a content creator, I can understand the material stress that scope creep felt under. Scope creep's actions post the noms was wrong, however, it is clear that they put a lot of work and effort into these BLPs. If these were junk-articles, I could understand the simultaneous nom, but they seem fine – not hugely notable charachters, however, not clear deletes either? What was the strong connection between these articles that led to their simultaneous nominations? (otherwise, it would look very unfair to Scope creep). Britishfinance (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• This fourth AfD is concerning, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinz Bonatz. Very short nom rationale for what is a sold Keep for an important historical figure in his area (head of B-Dienst and chronicled on de-WP, and many other databases)? I am a little concerned about what is going on here; perhaps it is all good faith but these are not your typical BLPs with bio entries in the NYT etc. But to editors who understand the sector (and who may not all be arond at AfD), feel like Keeps. I could see how that could have put Scope creep under mental strain. Britishfinance (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW Britishfinance, I agree with you about the mental strain. Having seven articles rapidly nominated for deletion by a single editor would have been exceedingly unpleasant, and SC probably felt that they were being victimised themselves. I for one would have advocated a fair degree of leeway towards a heat-of-the-moment, 'what the fuck are you doing you asshole' sort of response - I've said before that I don't think an isolated breach of civility under stressful situations should necessarily lead to a block. Unfortunately, this reaction went way beyond that - this was a clear and intentional attempt to intimidate another user, with threatening undertones (I'm a really strong believer in revenge. It comes naturally in my family. - that's pretty sinister) - we can't sweep that under the carpet. I'd be open to an unblock if SC accepted that their actions were seriously out of line and agreed not to interact with the OP any further. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the block is entirely appropriate. At the same time I hope Scope Creep only retires for a little while, contemplating their ways in terms of the above, and comes back to request unblock with profuse apologies and a promise not to do this again. Wikipedia does not need to be so stressful; as in life, settling time, apologies an behaviour changes go a long way towards having people get along.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance I explained the background to my AFD nominations above. You say that none of those pages that you have seen are clear deletes while Heinz Bonatz is a solid keep. We are all entitled to our opinions, obviously I disagree with yours and as you will have seen, different users have expressed differing views whether to keep or delete. Various interesting arguments as to notability have been raised in relation to a number of those pages including whether or not deWP has higher standards than enWP as all of the pages are bios of German cryptologists, in the case of Herbert von Denffer deWP has 3 references, one of which is an English blog, so I'm not sure I agree. In the case of Otfried Deubner his archeological publications which are only mentioned in passing on the page seem to be regarded as the only basis for notability. In the case of Heinz Bonatz his role as head of the 250 man B Dienst and its role in the Battle of the Atlantic is held up as establishing notability. In the case of Ferdinand Feichtner you assert that "many historical figures in WP for whom the only GNG we have are what they wrote about themselves, but we chronicle them as WP:PRESERVE" while I believe that an unverified personal account doesn't satisfy GNG. Surely having these type of discussions is what the AFD process is intended to achieve? More eyes, more thoughts etc. Mztourist (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I agree with your block; Scope creep snaped and their response was too extreme. I sigh when I see two experienced and valuable editors, who have done good work in WP, doing this to each other. I would delete any FA article (or more) to keep Scope creep and Mztourist active and happy in Wikipedia. Mztourist should have taken a bit more care in their AfDs, there was no urgency here, and they should reflect about simultaneourly putting seven different niche AfDs (which always require more expert input at AfD, and where a google search is not sufficient), that were created by a single established editor, when there was no SPAM/PROMO/UPE/COI angle. Most, from what I have seen (and as reflected by the current |votes, and existance of de-WP BLPs), are not clear Deletes.

WP:NPP lost one of its most important and long-term productive editors last week because suddenly it became important to batch AfD tiny US GEO locations, without any proper Project/RfC discussion on the basis of USGA sites; and because of this, NPP will probably fail, and the SPAM/PROMO/UPE/COI will rise materially. It is like we are "eating ourselves", and we will all be the long-term losers from it. If someone is a crap editor and/or a SPAM/PROMO/UPE/COI editor, then calmly escort them (and their articles) to the door; however, my impression of Scope creep (and of Mztourist), is that they do not fit this category (quite the opposite in fact, and by a long margin). Britishfinance (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Apology from Scope creep SC has posted the following on their talk page. I apologise to everybody involved in this. I have really wasted everybody's time, including my own. Looking back, the stress put me into overload and I reacted in a way that I would never react to in normal manner. I would never react like that in manner at work or amongst friends or colleagues and wouldn't expect anybody else to react in that manner towards me. Its entirely outside my normal experience. It's only been a few days and feels like it was last year. I don't think I can come back in the short term certainly. It has completely switched me off and would be unable to start editing. If I did come back, I wouldn't be working in kind of non-mainstream article, particularly of the type that was sent to Afd. I never planned to work on any more of types of those articles anyway except b-dienst which needs some work, but for the most part, what could be discovered was already in and already completed. I was planning to create a couple of templates in the first three months of this year to pull all the articles together. I'm certainly much less attached to the question of deletion than I was before. When you go through this sort of experience, you look back and say, you've done it and you know about and know how approach it without causing any hassle. I don't ever plan to create the kind of article that requires thinking out of what box on constitutes notability. For those articles I took the approach that as Wikipedia was the universal encyclopedic it should have at least some kind of entry on every subject, even if it was obscure, secret or byzantine. That has certainly not worked. They will be mainstream articles and if they put up for nomination, then I don't plan to defend then. I think it's clear that they regret their actions, but they aren't currently asking for an unblock. For the record, I'd be happy for any admin to unblock if SC was to accept a one-way IBAN with the OP. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support unblock condition stated by Girth Summit above. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• SC's comments were, as others said, beyond the pale, and a block was likely the right call. However, I do want to also underscore something about XfD norms. If you're unsure what to do with a particular type of article, I would submit this is often not going to be the best approach: the easiest thing was to put that page and 6 others I had identified as lacking notability up for AFD to see what other users' views were. Not only were they all by the same person, but you didn't so much as let that person know on their talk page that you had nominated a bunch of their articles for deletion. That would bother anyone. IMO best thing would be to nominate one if you're unsure, and if it's deleted, nominate others (and notify the page creator! -- the only reason proposals to make that a necessary step have failed is because of outlier cases like when the creator just made a redirect or the creator is banned). None of this is to let SC off the hook, of course; I just don't want this to get lost. My only comment on the resolution is that a one-way iban may be problematic if one's articles are being nominated for deletion (or if you're prohibited from talking to someone asking questions about the article on its talk page), so perhaps some sort of exception is in order? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, I agree with everything you've said. I'd be comfortable with the iban being tailored in such a way as to allow SC to engage in any discussions about content they've written, including AfDs or talk pages for those articles, even if (perhaps especially if) the OP is involved in those discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have to question the sincerity of that apology, coming as it did only 1 day after this: [133], which included: "All that doesn't excuse my behaviour, but MZTourist didn't even make an attempt to find that out. I did try and scare him into withdrawing them, mainly by channelling my family. I certainly do not believe in revenge, it is hateful and imagine it makes you very bitter, which is itself destructive. I must admit I did want MZTourist to feel some the pain that I was feeling, but I felt as though I was being targetted from his comments. He is not exactly the most sanguine character, having had complaints from several editors in the last couple of year." Mztourist (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Mztourist, I can understand you feeling that way, given that you are the target of some negative statements in that first post. However, as an outside observer, I see it differently. The first post was made shortly after SC was blocked - this is a long-term contributor, with a previously clean block log, and they were probably still smarting over the whole affair and continuing to blow off steam. A day is long enough to sleep on it, take time to absorb and accommodate the feedback that uninvolved people have given you, and reassess. As declarations of contrition go, the statement above is pretty impressive - they apologise, accept that the behaviour was unacceptable, and they reflect on what led to it and how they might avoid repeating the mistakes in future. I don't see any reason not to take it as sincere. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ушкуйник

A participant with a pronounced pro Russian position. Which makes vandal edits replacing and deleting any mention of Ukraine in the preambles of Ukrainian persons making them Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.154.30.80 (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the latest edit: [134], changing Kiev from Ukraine to Russian Empire for 1862-1912 is more than reasonable as the Russian Empire was the relevant entity at the time. Ушкуйник even described the subject as "Russian-Ukrainian". Other edits I looked at were similar. 88.154.30.80's assertion does not appear grounded in facts. Eostrix (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Pronounced pro-Russian position, unpronounceable name. EEng 21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Unless the joke is about being unable to read Cyrillic, I'm not quite sure how the name is unpronounceable... Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 02:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That St. Cyril has a lot to answer for. EEng 02:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

GT has it "Ushkuynik"-- Deepfriedokra 10:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

See this dramatic reenactment featuring EEng (left) and DFO (right). EEng 22:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks over greenhouse gas article

RE: GenSQuantum (talk · contribs):
Personal attacks:

• 00:34, 14 January 2020 [135]
• 02:10, 16 January 2020 [136]

Warning:

• 02:16, 16 January 2020 [137]

Personal attack:

• 05:17, 16 January 2020 [138]

Warning:

• 05:20, 16 January 2020 [139]

Personal attacks:

• 05:25, 16 January 2020 [140]
• 05:44, 16 January 2020 [141] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Another personal attack [142] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm shocked, shocked, to see a climate science denier hurling abuse around all over the place. I'm also going to make a surprised Pikachu face at my discovery that this user is pushing anti-science propaganda with dishonest edit summaries. WP:NOTHERE. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• I have edited the word used to describe me as (a climate denier) -GenSQuantum — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum (talk • contribs) 13:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, and since that's totally inappropriate, I have changed it back. --JBL (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• The user now has a DS alert. I think there'd be a low bar to a TBAN if this resumes today. Guy (help!) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• JzG, I think a block would be better here as the user has gotton more then one final warning, But lets see if this continues.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • LakesideMiners, only 51 edits. Might be WP:NOTHERE, might just be someone who hasn't learned how it works yet. Guy (help!) 16:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• No further edits after posting here.-- Deepfriedokra 06:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editor - Kye233

D'okra to the rescue. (non-admin closure) --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

---

We've got a disruptive editor whose account, created only yesterday on 18 January, was purely created to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote a petition to save a television programme. The editor has been given plenty of warnings and had their edits reverted, but I think the time has come for an admin to take action here. Here's a small list of what they have done, against WP:NOTSOAPBOX:

• [143]
• [144]
• [145]
• [146]

GUtt01 (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked x 1 week.-- Deepfriedokra 10:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. GUtt01 (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Nocturnalnow violation of topic ban?

note: I started this as a new section after the two comments immediate below were made, as the subject has changed since closing the above discussion. --Jayron32 17:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Nocturnalnow still topic-banned from American Politics after 1932? 92.19.29.51 (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That should be discussed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that the George W. Bush administration occurred in the United States and after 1932, and that Nocturnalnow did try to add material to an article about that topic. --Jayron32 17:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, what's the proper protocol for handling the transgression like this? I am an administrator, but I do not administrate within post 1932 US politics due to my own personal biases, save for cases of obvious vandalism, restricting myself to it serving as an editor in that area. And, as you can see from the edit summary, I objected based on policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My protocol is to first assess if the person in question intends to abide by their editing restrictions or not. People do sometimes forget that they have editing restrictions or may be unaware of the exact nature of them, especially after 5 years, which is about how long this one is. My usual protocol is if the person in question immediately agrees to desist and recognizes that they were in error, we take it as a "no harm/no foul" event, and we all go on with our lives. If the person in question refuses to disengage and/or continues to protest that they aren't bound by their topic ban, some additional help in remembering the nature of that ban may be useful. --Jayron32 18:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not realize the info about Wesley Clark's conversations with a military general at the Pentagon amounts to post 1932 politics? Please explain if you don't mind. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Raw mixed nuts, somehow a propos-- Deepfriedokra

Oops, I see I myself made a political connection with my subtitle. You're right, I'm wrong. Apologies to all. I immediately agree to desist and this transgression was in error. Best wishes. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, I'm not sure how "Clark claimed Bush planned to take out seven countries" (paraphrase of the edit) is not post 1932 politics. I didn't know about your editing restriction when I responded to you on the article talk page, and my comment there suggested that it made more sense in a article on Bush foreign policy. Schazjmd (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow Could you speak about your recent edits to: Christopher Steele, Bruce Ohr, Stefan Halper, Hunter Biden, et al. You've made many edits to these pages and they seem all very related to post 1932 politics.   // Timothy::talk  22:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have the same opinion as many in the intelligence community which is that Steele is about national security and not politics, Ohr is about the FBI, not politics, Halper is about the FBI and national security and not politics and Hunter is about normal business activities and not politics.

Now the conspiracy theorists with the tin foil hats try to link all these stories to some sort of "deep state" manipulating political events, but I don't think you are siding with those conspiracy nuts, are you? Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the need to defeat someone's presidential bid is only about national security and politics doesn't come into play in any way. Edit: Looking at the history of your topic ban, and rereading your comment, I wonder if you're trying to make some lame point. Except you've missed the fact that most of us are able to appreciate the interplay of politics with other stuff. For example, it's perfectly possible for someone's motivations to have been solely about 'national security', while what they're trying to do definitely involves US politics. Hence also why someone like me with strongly negative views of Trump and fairly negative views of Bush can still safely say both of those edits clearly related to post 1932 US politics. Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow's edits are clear-cut violations of their topic ban, and their argument that they're talking about intelligence rather than politics in a topic that is radioactive with political manipulation is disingenuous. I also note this edit [147], in which Nocturnalnow removed Deepfriedokra's warning on their talkpage as a "personal attack," which is nonsense, but indicative of somebody who isn't prepared to think objectively about their conduct. I recommend a block, this has gone beyond a one-off topic ban violation. I'm not going to do it, because I don't have the time today for the inevitable follow-up discussions, but this is a textbook example of boundary-pushing that has gotten way out of hand. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

So Nocturnalnow is Tbanned from US politics; makes a bunch of edits to US security articles; says security is nothing to do with politics; implicitly calls those who disagree conspiracy theorists with the tin foil hats; wants to appeal the tban anyway; and does so by calling it an obviously wrongful ban in the first place, as well as stupid and idiotic.

Gotta love respect for community norms. ——SN54129 13:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Can almost everything be linked to American politics?

I'd also like to appeal my topic ban, which I accepted simply out of respect for the system. It was an obviously wrongful ban in the first place. Perhaps someone can tell me on my talk page how to appeal such a stupid ban with such an idiotic and Kafkaesque spirit and non-definition. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Jayron32, isn't this pretty much a textbook example of what you discussed above? John from Idegon (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  I have no intention of either blocking Nocturnalnow nor raising any objection should anyone else block them. --Jayron32 04:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Nocturnalnow: It is always a poor idea to object to the topic ban right after you have violated it. I would recommend that you must move far away from this thread as well as this particular topic and instead work on subjects such as Reality Italy, Moses, Diadema, etc. for next 6 months before appealing the topic ban because right now you are only getting closer to an indef block. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 06:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Welp. Mostly it's those matters related to political strife made right here in the good ol' USA. And therefore to government agencies, politicians, and others engaged in said strife.-- Deepfriedokra 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oh, and those who have been weaponized in said strife. I think that covers everyone named above.-- Deepfriedokra   07:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Each one of the articles listed above mentions connections of one sort or another with the Trump administration in the lead. You can say that they are primarily about something else, but to argue that they aren't about US politics at all seems futile. We have a load of articles that don't mention Trump, or US politics, at all. Those are the ones you should be editing until you get your Tban overturned. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• I wouldn't recommend you appeal your topic ban if you've just violated it by getting involved in something which mentioned the purported foreign policy plans of a US president [148]. And you violated again by making another edit which explicitly mentioned the current US president [149] and in a very weird way. And in fact didn't even only mention Trump but mentioned the need to "defeat" him, and I think we can be confident this referring to the need to defeat him in the game of tiddly winks. I mean heck, it's easy to see without needing to visit the source that the NYT themselves considered it a part of politics. I don't know why you were even topic banned, but the fact you don't seem to appreciate these related to post 1932 US politics is enough to make me think your editing in the area must be terrible. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• What Nil Einne said. I'm for closing this if you understand that this was a violation and undertake not to do it again, but otherwise I think you're likely to end up blocked. Guy (help!) 16:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, this message from User:Deepfriedokra, while containing a kinda/sorta weird section title but not a single offensive letter in the paragraph below, was removed by User:Nocturnalnow as, if you can believe it, a "personal attack." This sort of editor is why they wrote WP:NOTHERE. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:B956:C2F2:1E1A:AA37 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Well, that's interestingly ironic. as I voiced my concerns of user's incivility and personal attacks, and I rather think it proves my concerns are justified..-- Deepfriedokra 18:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Which of their edits was not a violation of the topic ban?

Looking at the 100 most recent contributions by Nocturnalnow to articles or article talk pages, we have:

• 7 edits to Wesley Clark and its talk page, about "Outing Bush Administrations "taking down 7 countries" plan"
• 3 edits to Christopher Steele, with an edit summary like "Inspector General: "Steele had a “passionate” belief in the need to defeat Mr. Trump.""
• 17 edits to Bruce Ohr and its talk page, with lengthy posts[150] about Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation), the investigation of the Trump election and Russian interference
• 2 edits to Abu Zubaydah, which are more distant from the topic ban (though not really unrelated either, a Guantanamo bay detainee)
• 9 edits to Stefan Halper and its talkpage: edit summary "The New York Times reported that for Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, Halper was the "person in charge" of running a "highly secretive" operation to get inside information of the Carter Administration's foreign policy and pass it to the Reagan campaign" says it all
• dozens of edits to Hunter Biden and its talk page, rather clearly part of the topic ban: also three edits to closely related article BHR Partners
• 1 edit to Yanni, seems wholly unrelated to the topic ban
• 2 edits to John Solomon (political commentator), e.g. to the section "Pro-Donald Trump opinion pieces"
• 1 edit to Saugus High School (California), not part of the topic ban
• Loads of edits to Greta Thunberg and its talk page, most rather dubious and partisan, but not part of the topic ban.

Basically, from their last 50+ edits, i.e. from the last 2 months, 95% are violations of his topic ban. Instead of lifting it, perhaps it should be enforced? Fram (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Uhh, that appears to be mostly US politics related. Eostrix (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Nocturnalnow even received a discretionary sanctions alert for post 1932 US politics, I think after a 1RR violation at Hunter Biden [151]. But they just posted those 2 comments then later removed the alert [152]. They are obviously entitled to remove it, but if they had a known topic ban it would make sense to seek clarification on why they were given an alert, since they were clearly not editing anything to do with post 1932 US politics. Or at least mention their topic ban meant the alert was pointless since they would never edit the area..... Their editing profile suggests either someone who has absolutely zero respect for their topic ban, or someone who simply forgot about it. Since it's fairly old, and they seem to have been fairly inactive for long stretches (only really editing Jimbo Wales's talk page), normally I'd suggest they simply forgot about it. And if that's the case, although it's an editor's responsibility to remember their restrictions, it'll be fine with letting them off with a warning. But their above comments seem to suggest they're willfully ignoring the topic ban. Or maybe someone who's understanding of it is so poor they lack the WP:competence to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be obvious that I have avoided and tried to avoid all of the many direct politicle articles like Clinton or Trump or OAC or Democrat Party, Republican Party, Bernie Sanders etc.etc. In terms of why I first was topic banned it happened in a similar pile-on back when I dared to inject some due but negative info about Huma Abedin (btw, would she still be considered politics??? i.e. could I edit her now?) and a ban re: Abedin was being considered here yet an Admin. decided instead to give me the Kafkaesque like ( really hard to know exactly what the limitations are ) post 1932 US politics ban...btw, have any of you really done a thought experiment about the appropriateness of such a ban in our project? A full blown time limited block would have been much more just.

I have tried to stay completely away from USA politics which is why I limited myself to Jimbo's talk page but then some brand new editor complained about my edits there, even there, being against this ban. But I digress, even after coming back to regular articles I try to see where I can make, imo, obvious improvements and this case with Wesley Clark is an example wherein a featured article makes no reference...zero..to a matter the Subject put a lot of attention into bringing to the public's attention. This particular Blp is the one which, imo, needs the most improvement because to the millions of people/readers who are aware of Clark's assertions that within a month of 9/11 the Pentagon/Rumsfeld was planning to "take out 7 countries beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and ending with Iran", the complete and baffling omission of Clark's lectures/whistleblowing even? about that plan would cause Readers to doubt the credibility and neutrality not only of Clark's Blp but of the encyclopedia as a whole. And the fact its a Featured article makes the omission even more bizarre. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You spend your time here pushing conspiracy theories and Qanon nuttery. I don't know why people have put up with it for so long. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Fram, the idea that Bruce Ohr might plausibly be unrelated to US politics is... creative. Guy (help!) 16:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: See above. The bulk of the text you have added to Wikipedia articles have been about American political topics. It doesn't matter in which articles you add such text, you're not allowed to have anything to do with the subject of American politics. It stretches the bounds of credibility that you assert that edits where you directly name and discuss American political figures, such as past and current American presidents, are not related to American politics, but on the off chance that you, in good faith, genuinely believed such edits to be outside the range of your topic ban, every one of the many people who have commented on this situation have now informed you that these indeed are part of your topic ban. You may assert that before this discussion you hadn't realized. You can now longer credibly assert that you still don't understand this. You have been adequately informed, and the expectation is that you either acknowledge that you have been told this information and agree to abide by your topic ban, and do so quickly and unambiguously, or it is quite likely you will be blocked. --Jayron32 16:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32:, ok, thanks for laying it out so clearly. Before this discussion I did believe that those topics I edited were outside the ban, but now, after this discussion, I do agree to abide by the ban unambiguously. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Jayron32 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Options:

1. Nocturnalnow is reminded that topic bans are broadly construed and that testing the limits of such bans is likely to lead to escalating blocks.
2. Nocturnalnow is counselled to seek guidance before editing any article where there is doubt as to whether it may fall in scope of the topic ban or not.
3. Nocturnalnow may appeal the topic ban in not less than three months.
4. Nocturnalnow is blocked for one week for violation of the topic ban.

Opinions

• 1, 2, 3 above. Guy (help!) 16:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, 3 per my comments in the previous sections, neutral on 4 pending Nocturnalnow's forthcoming response. --Jayron32 16:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  Amend to oppose 4. A block is not necessary, he expresses understanding, and agrees to abide by the terms of his ban. --Jayron32 20:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• 1, 2, 3 above. They haven't edited any articles since this point was raised here, so there's no immediate disruption - provided that remains the case, I'd be happy for us to hold off on 4, but if they edit again on this subject after this reminder an immediate block would be warranted. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• 1,3,4 User should also be required to relate WP:NPA to own edits, while relating how civilly presented concerns over personal attacks are not, in fact, personal attacks.-- Deepfriedokra 18:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, 3. Per his statement above he understands the terms of his ban, so (for now) 4 isn't needed. - DoubleCross (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, 3 and oppose 4 Although I have some difficulty reconciling Nocturnalnow's statement that he believed the topics were outside his ban because he did not directly edit political articles; with his earlier statements where he appeared to be claiming that making an edit which directly mentioned one US president's alleged foreign policy goals, or an edit relating to the desire of someone to prevent another US president becoming president in the first place were somehow unrelated to politics; now that he's said he understands and will abide by the topic ban I'm not sure a short block will serve much purpose. And frankly I'd suggest a minimum of 6 months before an appeal. But I'm also fine just dropping this. Hopefully Nocturnalnow has gotten the message, if now, well it's their funeral. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, yes, nicely summed up. I'd be more blunt: time to stop taking the piss. But the outcome is the same :-) Guy (help!) 01:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1, 2, 3 Doug Weller talk 15:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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 a problem with this bot. The bot’s description says that it is used to make routine and tedious edits that would be difficult for a person to take the time to do. However, when I edited content on a Wikipedia page for Tereq Salahi, when the page even has a alert saying that the neutrality of the page is questioned), the bot automatically removed it within a few seconds despite it not being something of the nature of extremely tedious editing we would expect a bit to do (like verifying a date or correct punctuation).

The bot left a message on my page saying it reverted the edit but did not provide an explanation as to why. Although in the edit summary it claimed that my post was vandalism. It wouldn’t be appropriate to classify my content as vandalism because my content is completely in line with the undisputed Wikipedia article covering the 2009 breach that this person was involved in.

I’m suspicious that this bot is actually working on behalf of the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Simult2018 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Simult2018: Your edit utilized loaded words and was very unencyclopedically negative in nature. ClueBot NG specializes in undoing things it deems to be vandalism (we have other bots that do things like what you are thinking about) - it is not malfunctioning. Although you may not have intended to vandalize, the bot decided that your edit had several characteristics of vandalism, and reverted you. Although I will not say much more, I can assure you that ClueBot is not a paid editor for Mr. Salahi. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 07:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, @Simult2018:, that was hardly WP:NPOV. The bot is functionng to keep Wikipedia neutral. Especially on a living person-- Deepfriedokra 07:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Now on the other hand, this looks like conflated, inflated, and overrated WP:ARTSPAM, if anyone not as deletionist as I could look at it.-- Deepfriedokra 07:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply: My edit was not unencyclopedic. It was in line with the content on the Wikipedia article describing the breach that this person was involved in. It wasn’t loaded. It wasn’t particularly negative although it was factual. According to Wikipedia, this person was involved in the security breach. Whether that was good or bad was not something I alluded to. Only to mention they were involved. If there truly was a problem, why not indicate how to make the correct content fall within Wikipedia guidelines rather than just throwing stones? With certainty, what is there currently is not correct.

Also, you never spoke to the fact that this bot claims to do routine tedious edits. Deciding that something is “loaded” or “negative e” is not a routine edit.viewer. I never said that it was bad that they were involved in the breach. It’s 100% factual and not negative. Do we need to go to the 2009 page covering the breach and remove the facts posted there?

I suspect both of the people that posted these replies are actually involved with the bot. Why does this bot describe itself is making routine edits when it does much more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simult2018 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Note to those unaware of the history here: Probably more than half the edits to Tareq Salahi are by whichever paid-editing firm he happens to be hiring to whitewash it at any given time, and much of the remainder constitutes of his opponents inserting potential libel. Because one of the people who used to regularly point this out publicly that this page is a BLP trainwreck was some guy called "Jimmy Wales", it's not unusual for people wanting to practice their POV-pushing-detection-skills to head straight for this page.

Simult2018, I appreciate you're frustrated, but you're starting to throw around ridiculous accusations. I strongly recommend familiarising yourself with this core and non-negotiable Wikipedia policy before you go any further. ‑ Iridescent 08:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Oh dear. Do please read and WP:aspersions and WP:AGF. I now have my own suspicions, but it's poor form for an admin to abandon AGF at this point, so I will bite my tongue. Never heard of the subject of the article before, and have no interest in them at all. There are over 5,000,000 articles on Wikipedia. What are the odds? And I hope you do not continue to jump to unwarranted conclusions whenever anyone contradicts you or offers an alternative to your viewpoint. -- Deepfriedokra 08:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Iridescent:. Any hope of sending this dumpster fire to WP:AfD. It s a pit.08:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)-- Deepfriedokra

It's been tried and the WP:ARS-holes all came out of the woodwork to derail it. That was a decade ago and it might be worth trying again. ‑ Iridescent 08:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Better watch it with the impersonal attacks. ARS -- that's Abundant Reliable Sources? EEng 15:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

GAd. And Gah. I don't AfD anymore. Had forgotten about them. heads up. Simult2018 is seeking answers elsewhere.-- Deepfriedokra 08:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The original post is obviously misguided but another point about the edit in question is that is marked minor but introduced text ("infiltrating a White House state dinner as an uninvited guest") that is most definitely not minor. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Good point. Oh well. I'm just came from trying to explain cluebot.-- Deepfriedokra 09:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply: Folks I propose that perhaps some of the things I have said since the deletion of my edit were not all correct. We will never know. It’s not unreasonable to think that pr companies may make bots. However, I think much my edit was correct, was not libelous but factual (it was the same facts as in the page covering the incident), and corrected an obvious distortion in the article. I agree with the comments that the page of this user likely should be deleted. I do t think the user is a public figure enough so as to warrant a page, especially when it seems to have been written by him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simult2018 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand what you mean by "we will never know" but to be clear, the bot and its operators are very well known here. I wouldn't be surprised if someone here has even met one of the operators in person. There is absolutely no question that it is not written by companies for white-washing, nor that it serves a very useful purpose. This is not a case of "we will never know". It's not perfect of course, but frankly I agree with others that you case does not illustrate an example of where it made a mistake. And to be clear, whatever else, it was completely inappropriate for you to mark your edit as minor. Please do not misuse the minor tag again. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 19 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.

89.200.15.69 / Eurocave

Original heading: "User: 89.200.15.69" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• 89.200.15.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Personal attacks [[153]], removing closed discussion template at Talk:NikkieTutorials and continued disregard for MOS:GENDERID after recently receiving last warning. cave (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eurocave, thanks for opening an ANI report; I will now move the other user's complaint from WP:AIV here too. Please have a look at your user talk page and reconsider one part of your complaint.(done) Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC) (updated ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC))

Thank you. cave (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User is referring to a perceived 'personal attack' that only lasted for about one and a half minute before I removed it. There is no evidence that the user read it while it was still on my talkpage. No other edits where made during this one and a half minute.

I was referring to the militant behavior and not the user themselves. I do not know what the verb is because English is not my native language. I removed it as soon as I realized that it I should not have made that edit. User forgot to link that edit. Anyway, my action does not change what user did. Neither does my action make the users actions less severe.

User was already in an edit war with someone else when we collided. User was already repeatedly reverting the contents of a project talkpage. Refusing to participate in any conversation even after several requests on the users own talkpage. 89.200.15.69 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been no disregard for MOS:GENDERID by me. When I made my first edit I was not aware of that guideline. User just reverted mine and other peoples edits repeatedly until in one of these reverts the user pointed out the guideline. Had the user used the talkpage (rather than reverting the entire section multiple times, which constitutes vandalism) we would not have been in this situation. 89.200.15.69 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

My reason for redacting Timmy's comment is that it deadnamed Nikkie. This information is sensitive and private and should not be published on Wikipedia, not even on a talk page. There was absolutely no point to including it, just like we shouldn't be including anybody else's poorly sourced medical histories. From the Talk page template: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page". This is what I was trying to do and you kept reverting it. cave (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Eurocave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Temporary cool down block requested. Eurocave keeps vandalising talk pages. Reverts an entire disucssion on Talk:NikkieTutorials ‎multiple times in a row and then puts it all inside a closed template, so it cannot be read or edited anymore. Eurocave disregards people who try to reach consensus because Eurocave is offended by the discussion. Also vandalises the talk page of this IP adres. Continues after I have requested them to stop on their talkpage multiple times. Judging by their history, Eurocave talks through reverting rather than using a talk page. 89.200.15.69 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Quote:" Restoring talk page notices, even if they should not be removed, is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule."89.200.15.69 (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Eurocave, can you explain why you keep removing discussions and/or closing them down at the talk page in question? I am unclear where MOS:GENDERID has text that says that you should do this, and yet you keep citing it. You're going to need to explain yourself, as it is unclear why you keep doing so. --Jayron32 18:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I was struggling with a couple of users on NikkieTutorials' talk page. User Timmie1606 was active on the Dutch wikipedia, and after he tried to misgender Nikkie there and got a rebuttal that "it's best to follow the English Wikipedia example", he apparently took that as a cue to make an English wikipedia account solely for the purpose of attempting to get us to deadname Nikkie de Jager here. Another (anonymous IP user who insulted me) joined in and I have already given him 3 warnings for personal attacks and continued disruptive edits, as cited above in my complaint about him. I tried closing the discussion because it was not productive. These users just posted Nikkies alleged Deadname on the talk page and kept misgendering her, and didn't suggest any proposals for change that were remotely within Wikipedia's guidelines. In the end oversight ended up closing the discussion, so it turns out it was the correct call to make, however the IP user kept reversing my closure. Now the IP user seems to be currently in the process of Forum shopping as well. Meanwhile all this sensitive information remains on Nikkie's talk page and I don't know what to do about it. From the Talk page template: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page". This is what I was doing by removing, and then later trying to hide a message that included Nikkie's alleged, poorly sourced birthname. I still maintain that it is in violation of Wikipedia's policy, as it is "contentious material about a living person", it shouldn't be there. cave (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of these topics are already under discretionary sanctions. If someone is disruptive on a BLP, warn them via {{subst:alert|blp}}. If they're being disruptive about gender-related issues, you can also warn them of Gamergate discretionary sanctions via {{subst:alert|gg}}. If the disruption continues, report them to arbitration enforcement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why the IP wasn't blocked on the spot for this edit, or this subsequent one. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, wait. so for stuff like that, I can report right to AIV? And IP seems to be ranged blocked now. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

LakesideMiners, as far as I'm concerned, yes--this was pretty blatant and I am sure most admins would take it seriously. Yes, that range is now blocked and I'd LOVE to know what lies behind it. Perhaps Favonian can share some relevant information, or transmit the SuperSecretFiles via carrier pigeon. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Favonian, I'll be tagging a bunch of accounts shortly. Thanks. Thanks also to Materialscientist. LakesideMiners, we are dealing with a simple troll, a vandal making tons of nonsense edits, and every now and then, I suppose, they want to be taken seriously and troll in a more serious manner. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Drmies The range block and its predecessor have nothing to do with the subject of this discussion. Among the denizens of the range is a person who carries Persian patriotism to absurd heights by, for instance, hijacking the Kingdom of Prussia and the Flag of Hungary. Favonian (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Favonian, gotcha. I suppose you saw my tags--please correct me if I mistagged any of them (I think all of them made such edits). Drmies (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, something a bit odd, this Special:Contributions/GibberFishing account was made and only respond to a comment I made on the IPs question on the MOS talk page. I forget what made me say the issue seems to be resolved, was resolved(as I said that BEFORE the IP was blocked), but seems a little bit odd. I'm still waking up a bit so I may not be thinking straight, but somthing seems odd. If I forgot anything. let me know. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Aesthetics4eve

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.

---

Aesthetics4eve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User's only contributions are vandalism, and responded to my warning with a personal attack. Tdc42 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:AIV is better suited to address this kind of behaviour.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 19 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.

User: Wira rhea

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.

---

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

This boy has done multiple harassment and name-calling on IP vandals such in User talk:120.188.92.81 (calling the editor "anjing"; dog), Special:Diff/932807723 (calling the editor "anjing"; dog as well), User talk:58.8.64.151 and User talk:58.11.16.46 (calling the editor "bangsat"; bastard), User talk:61.5.115.130 (calling the editor the "F" word in F-U), and User talk:61.5.115.130 (calling the editor "anjing"; dog as well). Finally answering my warnings here, he said in Balinese about "go kill yourself". There are many more in his contributions on user talk pages. Flix11 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Flix11: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ to do so." —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Flix11, you have to notify someone when you report them here - there's a template you can put on their talk page at the top of this page. I've done it for you.

Flix11 is one of my CVUA students, and so I'm going to leave this for another admin to deal with. However, in my view it seems clear that Wira rhea is out of line here, both in their comments to people they are reverting, and in their response to Flix's warnings. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Flix11 should not call another editor "boy". Also, I can't verify what Flix11 says because I cannot find an online Balinese translator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, true - 'boy' isn't a good way to address/describe someone, I'd overlooked that. Try some of the edit summaries and additional text after their templated warnings with Indonesian. I can't translate the passage in question, but I'm prepared to believe Flix given the stuff they're putting on vandals' talk pages. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

If I am going to block a user for personal attacks, I would not take the word of the accuser. That would be grossly unfair to the accused. Google screws up the translation (I tried with the "go kill yourself" language), I assume because Balinese (a dialect of Indonesian?) is sufficiently different from Indonesian to make the translation too difficult to do properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 19 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 add to this after it's been closed.) Bbb23 Google Translate indicates that the Indonesian word for 'bitch' crops up regularly in their warnings to vandals, and as Jamie says, FU is pretty clear. However, I wasn't suggesting a block, I think that a warning for abusing user warning templates, and perhaps reading through WP:DENY, would have been sufficient. Wira rhea - please do not insult vandals when you revert and template them, it is not helpful. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

On further consideration, I'm going to drop the block and replacing with a final warning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

(EC) Thought it might be helpful to point out that while a number of those may be Balinese, I'm pretty sure "Eh Anjing, sibuk kali tanganmu ya bangsat" is either Indonesian or Indonesian slang. Also the Google or Bing translation of that is IMO not far off given my understanding of that sentence due to the similarity to Malay. BTW while the literal translation of en:wiktionary:anjing may be 'dog', in Malay and from what I can tell Indonesian, it's also an insult in a sense that the translation probably doesn't convey [154] [155] [156] [157] . Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Indonesia is a majority Muslim country. In some schools of Islam, dogs are haram; so that calling someone a dog can be a grievous insult. (I tailor my insults to the circumstances, but there are limits. I would never call anyone Jewish or Muslim a pig, for obvious reasons. 'Anjing' in the present context could be analogous to that.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to add this after closed. Okay, I'm sorry for the way I'm behaving. I'll try to control my temper next time. And for Flix11, I never said "go kill yourself". "Ape sih ci, oyongang liman ci e. De ajum iban ci dini" means "What are you, keep your hand to yourself. Don't be arrogant here" or in Indonesia "Apa sih kamu, diemin tanganmu. Jangan sombong kamu di sini". I'm not try to defend myself here. I'm crossing the line when I said bad words or dogs word, but I never said go kill yourself. But then again I'm apologize for that. And calling me "boy" considering you one-year younger than me, has the same degree as Bachelor of Computing, and once supported Juventus. Maybe we can meet sometime when I go awaydays to Persebaya or you go away to Bali United. Girth Summit thanks for the warning. I'll not add anything when I revert a vandalism. Wira rhea (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Amirhosein Izadi

I am surprised that my proposal to ban User:Amirhosein Izadi on account of hoaxing was archived without being refused or heeded. A subsequent sockpuppet investigation had a checkuser request declined, but hoaxing is still a bannable offense, right? I saw no counterarguments being made in the last discussion in regards this user being a hoaxer. He's done this multiple times and has voiced no intention to stop. So, again, i believe it may be necessary to block this user to prevent him from creating further hoaxes. Once he's stopped from creating further hoaxes i'd like to go through his articles and see what is and isn't a hoax. Please consult Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Turkmen Sahra and the previous ANI thread as to how i've deduced this user is a hoaxer. I find this case bizarre, never before have i seen an unopposed proposal be archived and ignored. Koopinator (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It's possible that your thread was archived due to inactivity rather than because an admin declined your request; I think WP:ANI has an automated script which does that. I think one of the issues also is that the user (Amirhosein Izadi)) stopped editing a week ago so the situation would appear at first glance to be less urgent. In the mean time, I think it would be helpful to go through his contributions to identify potential hoaxes. I have tagged one article already as a hoax which you identified, and I am willing to take a look through his history later today to see if I see anything obviously fake. Michepman (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, my first ANI thread was created only a few hours after that user's last edit. The only reason i'm now creating this thread on a week-long inactive user is because the admins have been taking their sweet time with taking action. I think it's better for me to get to work with these hoaxes now rather than wait for the day that the admins actually enforce this consensus. Hopefully that day comes sooner than later. Koopinator (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koopinator: in my experience, just grab the nearest admin and ask for their comment. Also, the less words you make people have to read, the better. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, but have been noticing this case as it develops. Archiving is automatic; it appears your thread was simply overlooked. Good on you for bringing it up again. I support an indefinite block on the hoaxer. If no admins respond, as MJL said, you may have to ask someone directly. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: can you please look at this thread and take action? Koopinator (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Previous Thread: I think Archived here. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC) someone erased this comment twice - not sure why - please explain.

• I removed it twice because the OP linked to it in their initial post, so your link is unneccessary. Surely you know how to look at the revision history of this page to (a) see it was I and (b) see my edit summary explaining why I removed it. But all that for absolutely nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Doh...Thanks, by the time I look for the diff, there are always so many new posts that I could not be bothered to weed through them all. I just kept reposting. I also did not see that the OP included it and that is my mistake. Lightburst (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Viewing the user's fawiki contributions shows "07:28, 10 December 2018 Sunfyre blocked Amirhosein Izadi with an expiration time of indefinite". @fa:User:Sunfyre: Would you mind outlining what the problem was at fawiki? Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's quite concerning. FWIW, I did see the earlier thread. Did not comment at the time in part because what I saw was suspicious but also quite difficult to assess given the obscurity of the subject matter of what they were dealing with. They failure to offer us any explanation was not re-assuring, still I also did not want to kick out an editor who may be an expert on an obscure non English subject area just because of a misunderstanding. While I can't say for sure, I wonder if other than the time of year others also felt the same, hence the limited response. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: At this point i don't think there's any remaining doubt as to this user being a hoaxer. Consider the article Ice Flower (album) by the same creator. "Ice Flower has been featured in several prestigious publications, including the Los Angeles Times" - this sentence is sourced to this article, freely available online. The reference looks convincing, it is from the right publication and the title looks related to the subject matter, the only problem is the source's text does not make a single mention of an album called ice flower. It is deliberately intended to deceive the reader into thinking the reference & info is legitimate when it isn't - a textbook definition of a hoax. I see no reason to keep this thread open or keep this user unblocked. When i first failed to find the sources, my mind went to the Bicholim conflict investigation from 2012. In that case, the AFD immediately led to the article being deleted in a day and the editor being banned within a week. I wish this investigation would've gone that smoothly - that there's wouldn't be a need to wait a week on my unopposed AFD, that i wouldn't have to make 2 ANI threads, no separate sock investigation, no cross-wiki shenanigans, no admin user saying it could all be a misunderstanding and that jazz. Koopinator (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The block log entry at the user contribution page at fa-wiki [158] contains a Persian word with a link. That word put into Google Translate comes out as "Sabotage". It links to a policy page [159] that is apparently equivalent to our WP:Vandalism, per both putting the top of it into Google Translate and the interwiki link. That page of ours does talk about hoaxes. This is all very consistent with this editor being a hoaxer. I am going to notify Sunfyre on their talk page on fa-wiki to ensure they see this, in case that link did not generate a ping. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Thanks. My ping did not work. I forgot that a normal User:Example link is needed to generate a ping, not fa:User:Example. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• User:Amirhosein Izadi (User:Amir.85) is WP:SNEAKY: The user is suspected of creating false articles.--Sunfyre (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• • Thank you Sunfyre. Here is Sunfyre's reply to me at fa-wiki: [160] The translation (with some commonsense tweaks) reads:
  • @Crossroads: Hello, User: Amirhosein Izadi, User: Amir.85, He was making inaccurate information with both accounts, so he was denied access. (en: WP: SNEAKY), For more on this, read this and this. - SunfyreT
  • Each "this" gave me a link. Each discussion can be pasted into Google Translate and read. They are not long, but they establish that this user's content is not trustworthy and most editors were saying his content should be deleted.
  • This all supports that both Amirhosein Izadi, and the account Sunfyre has just mentioned, Amir.85, should be blocked indefinitely. The Amir.85 account does have 2 edits on en-wiki from just the last few months the latter part of 2018, [161] so it should be included.
  • I concur that this user's content is not trustworthy and should be deleted. All of it. Only exception should be if someone else has personally verified it, but that won't be the case generally, as most of the sources are in Persian and it is too hard to check each piece. We already know this user is a liar, and even if there is content that is partly true, it is still totally misleading. I know Koopinator has PRODded some of the hoax articles - I think the rest should also be put through PROD or AfD (possibly AfD to prevent WP:REFUNDing, and perhaps they could be bundled into one nomination as well). Finally, any PRODs that get removed for some reason should be sent to AfD.
  • I think we should also commend Koopinator for insisting this not fall by the wayside and for tracking down and destroying false information. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Crossroads: Thank you for your kind words. While i think a lot of this user's articles are unsalvageable, there are some articles from this user which i think should be partially kept. These are Battle of Rasht, House of Dadvey, Mohammad Qoli Salim Tehrani. Recapture of Isfahan, Siege of Tabriz (1908), and Atabak Park Incident. These articles were translated from good-faith articles from Persian Wikipedia, with the user in question adding fictitious material. I used Google Translate on the original articles to get an idea which claims were fabrications and which were good-faith importations, then i removed the fictitious material and copied the original sources to verify the good content. In Battle of Rasht i also added a small amount of information, since i was familiar with the subject at hand. Koopinator (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Agreed with you here. Basically my thought was that any content original to this user should be presumed false. If some of it was on a page created by him, but was original to good faith users on fa-wiki, then that could be fine. You seem to be doing the right thing with regard to what to save and what to cut.
      • Johnuniq, any further thoughts at this point on the two problem accounts? -Crossroads- (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @Crossroads: By two users, do you mean Amirhosein Izadi (talk · contribs) and Amir.85 (talk · contribs)? The latter has a total of two edits, plus several entries in the edit filter log, and no activity since October 2018. The former has no activity since 27 December 2019. If they were to resume editing and declined to engage with other editors asking about the veracity of their articles I would be willing to block indefinitely until a satisfactory explanation was available. However I do not see proof of a hoax at enwiki and blocking now might not be right. I'm sorry to drag this out but can we leave it another week and see if they have resumed editing. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
          • @Johnuniq: You see no proof of hoaxing? To repeat myself, consider the article Ice Flower (album) by this user. "Ice Flower has been featured in several prestigious publications, including the Los Angeles Times" - this sentence is sourced to this article, freely available online. The reference looks convincing, it is from the right publication and the title looks related to the subject matter, the only problem is the source's text does not make a single mention of an album called ice flower. It is deliberately intended to deceive the reader into thinking the reference & info is legitimate when it isn't - a textbook definition of a hoax.
            "Subtle hoaxes seriously undermine enwiki. If there is some possibility that a hoaxer will start editing again in the future, then a block prevents that harm." Koopinator (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
            • @Koopinator: Thanks for your work on this—maintaining the integrity of articles is very important. Be assured that if the editor resumes editing but fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, they will be blocked. As a clueless admin, all I can assess is what good editors have concluded and I don't see very many such editors who have concluded that a particular article is a hoax. The biggest clue is the block at fawiki but we don't know much about that. Google finds lots of pages discussing the singer Kourosh Yaghmaie and his song "Gol-e Yakh" which apparently is "Ice Flower", for example [162]. The question remains concerning whether Ice Flower (album) exists. The Los Angeles Times article is definitely about Kourosh Yaghmaie (with a different spelling of the second name). It discusses "Back From The Brink" by Kourosh. According to this the first track is "Gol E Yakh" which, as mentioned, is apparently "Ice Flower". That makes the topic very murky and I would want to see more evidence before blocking the user before they have responded. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
              • @Johnuniq: Well, maybe i chose a poor example since this was an example of a claim that is a hoax and not an article topic that is a hoax. Take Capture of Ardabil and Battle of Turkmen Sahra (of which the latter was deleted in prior AFD): In the former article you have sources with bogus page numbers, Iranica which does not contain info about Ardabil in the 1910s, and a non-existent (as far as Google search will tell me) work from 2008 called "Russia in the Constitutional Revolution". In the latter article, Battle of Turkmen Sahra, none of the sources supported the existence of the battle, and no google books searches indicated that it existed. Claims unrelated to the battle's existence were also unsourced or had sources which had nothing to do with the claim presented. And this user has had plenty of opportunity to prove he's not a hoaxer, i invited him to comment on the possibility of hoaxing back on 20 December in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Turkmen Sahra, but he continued editing unrelated articles. Koopinator (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, below there was an indef issued on the basis that indef need not mean infinite, but it was partly to force the user to acknowledge the complaints and address them. [163] Couldn't there be a block of Amirhosein Izadi on that basis? It seems dangerous to leave him free to roam without addressing this. What if he pops up again months or years down the road when or where nobody is scrutinizing? As for not having edited since 27 December, that is the same day Koopinator opened the first report. It's just taken a while to get it handled. It seems pretty clear that Amirhosein Izadi is ignoring us. I say we force him to pay heed.

As for Amir.85, I did have a brain fart in saying that account edited in the last few months. [164] I was subconsciously thinking it was 2019, but it's 2020 and the edits were in the latter part of 2018. Still, seems that if one is blocked, so should the other. Fa-wiki established they are the same person and the two edits from Amir.85 are the same behavioral pattern (about music, "creating" an article from an article on fa-wiki, adding dubious material).

Bbb23, Narky Blert, Dekimasu, Michepman, any thoughts on what to do with this? -Crossroads- (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no good evidence for this idea, just a sneaking suspicion: that Amirhosein Izadi has had several or many accounts, and drops them like hot potatoes as soon as rumbled. The high quality of his User Page suggests a second or later rodeo. There can't be many English-Farsi cross-Wiki trolls, but there is at least one: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chyah.

I too would like to commend Koopinator both for spotting the problem and for persevering with it. I've only ever nailed one WP:HOAX, and proving the fact was a real pain. (It had been around for several years, but the creator had made one tiny mistake - linking to a DAB page - which brought it within the scope of my radar.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert - Honestly I cannot think of a real reason not to ban this person. I realize that he hasn't edited since the 27th, but the misconduct that we are talking about here is too pervasive, sneaky, and dangerous to just ignore solely because he has (possibly temporarily) stopped editing. He has over 1500 edits that will now have to be manually checked over for hoax material, and this will be a painstaking process since his hoaxes are constructed in such a way that you have to have a reasonable amount of patience and subject matter expertise to tell.

I too have only discovered one WP:HOAX in my career, and it was one that had managed to go undetected for years because the hoaxer used fake sources and plausible sounding details. This guy is even more dangerous since his area is a less well understood by the majority of English speaking editors. Michepman (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Michepman: (Non-admin comment) Nor can I. Hoaxing is the worst sort of misbehaviour. Even after having spotted something odd, it takes more time and effort to root it out than to write a similar-sized article - very possibly at least double.

Gud catch! I can't remember (or be bothered to look for) mine, but it had the same tell-tale signs. A C18 French painter, knew all sorts of people; all his paintings were collected after his death by one person, and unluckily lost in a fire in late C19. All sources demonstrating notability were print-only, not in English, and impossible to locate. Plausible circumstantial details and bluelinks and sources, which only began to smell after considerable digging.

There's a paradox here: the more you know about WP, the easier it would be to write a near-undetectable hoax; but the less inclined you would be to do so. Narky Blert (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I've actually come around to the view it may be best to block them at least until they are willing to engage. I'm generally also very reluctant to advocate a block to force engagement unless there is a reason we absolutely require (as opposed to desire) engagement. But IMO especially with the Farsi wikipedia question mark, combined with what happened with the battle articles, I think it's got to the point we need the questions answered before they edit again. (I did look into the Ice Flower stuff myself after reading Johnuniq's comment and ended up deciding there was too little info, even having looked at Geocities and other such places to be able to conclude whether such an album existed.) And maybe they've abandoned the account, but maybe not. Given the type of concern, I don't think we should just ignore it as stale since I don't think there's any guarantee anyone will still be watching in a few months. Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to indefinitely block the accounts Amirhosein Izadi and Amir.85 per WP:SNEAKY

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.

---

• Amirhosein Izadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amir.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Support as proposer. The evidence above is clear that this user adds WP:SNEAKY vandalism by means of hoaxes that could easily go undetected. Sunfyre, an administrator at Persian Wikipedia (fa-wiki), testified that both of these accounts are operated by the same person (which is certainly consistent with these accounts' behavior here) and that the operator adds WP:SNEAKY vandalism, for which they were indefinitely blocked there. The lack of activity by Amirhosein Izadi since then is just them ignoring us and leaves the unacceptable risk that the person (using either account) will come back and add falsehoods in the future, when they won't be under this kind of scrutiny. I believe there is consensus above already for this block, but since this topic apparently has an uncanny ability to fall through the cracks, I am creating an official proposal and pinging the previous participants: Koopinator, Michepman, MJL, Lightburst, Bbb23, Johnuniq, Nil Einne, Sunfyre, Narky Blert. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin). As positives from this exercise, there are now several editors who know the signs, and collaboration between English and Farsi WPs has worked well. Narky Blert (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I have been supporting a block since day 1 of thread 1. Hoaxing is the worst type of misbehaviour. Koopinator (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I have some reservations because blocks are supposed to be preventive rather than punishment, and the problem user stopped editing last year. However I think such a prolific and sneaky vandal should be banned to prevent them from resurfacing (either as their current accounts or as a "new" user). Michepman (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Seems pretty straightforward. Hopefully, an admin will close this soon. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:58, 17 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.

Possibly relevant

From te:వాడుకరి_చర్చ:JzG:

report vandalist ..... sockpuppets user Modern_Sciences

Please let Wikipedia managers know. This person is accustomed to importing raw and false information into articles. And on several wikis, it has had a history of restricted and unrestricted access and has repeatedly violated access now. Unfortunately, because of Pan-Armenian tendencies, there is a lot of misinformation in the articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Modern_Sciences

long term abuse multi account :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Modern_Sciences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blackorwhite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Europe2009

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Luckie_Luke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/World_Cup_2010

he is an Iranian Armenians and have many edits in persian, english, armenian and arabic .

He has been blocked numerous times for violating the law on Persian Wikipedia. It has also been blocked on endless in English and Arabic Wikipedia, but has broken the rules by creating multiple accounts. He receives extensive support from his friends at local wikis for circumventing access. This user will surely have many other accounts in Armenian and English and persian languages that require more careful inspection.All accounts require a global lock to prevent excessive sabotage. I guess he has at least ten other accounts. I think an LWCU would be required as well.

Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks JzG. How long ago was this? The link above does not work. Koopinator, since you are much more familiar with Amirhosein Izadi's fake articles, would you say "Pan-Armenian tendencies" at all fits what he is trying to do? -Crossroads- (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Amirhosein Izadi never edited anything regarding Armenia. Mainly Iranian history & Iranian rock-related hoaxes. Koopinator (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, oops, soz. https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%B5%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%A1%E0%B1%81%E0%B0%95%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BF_%E0%B0%9A%E0%B0%B0%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%9A:JzG - my user page on teWP. I know Telugu not Farsi, but the timing was a coincidence.

Timestamp is 2020-01-14T14:07:34‎ and reporting account is "te:user:Khaskabul". Guy (help!) 08:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

That is te:User talk:JzG and the post was made by a now-locked user. That makes it highly suspect although even a globally locked user might occasionally be correct. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I now got this message on my talk page at Wikiquote (of all places). Most likely, the globally locked user/socker who evidently contacted me is in the wrong. However, one thing that is kind of odd is the fact that Modern Sciences (one account they are accusing) is blocked indefinitely here on en-wiki, but has a whopping 344,000 edits at fa-wiki. [165] They are also blocked indefinitely at lrc-wiki (whatever that is; looks to have Farsi/Arabic-like script), and after only 2 edits. Here on their talk page at en-wiki, Number 57 accused them of a pro-Armenian POV. Those accounts listed above with Modern Sciences (Blackorwhite etc.) look like they could all be the same person. There is a possibility of some shenanigans or nationalist POV pushing on the other side here as well. CC: JzG, Johnuniq, Koopinator - in case this is of use. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The user posted what appears to be the same at de:User talk:JzG. I haven't looked yet. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. I think these aren't relevant, because I know how and why they have happened. User:Miiquoit is a sock of User:Rowingasia. I reported this at fawiki, and CheckUser evidence confirmed that Miiquoit and User:Laxesuomex were tied to each other, but Rowingasia has no action in past 3 months and therefore, we couldn't technically tie it to other accounts. However, these two account are now blocked indefinitely per WP:DUCK. I also requested for a global lock and login.wikimedia ("global") CheckUser at Meta, that resulted in globally locking ~50 socks, including User:Rowingasia2. The user who wrote this at JzG's talk page, User:Khaskabul, has been locked globally as well for the same reason. This probably dates back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rowingasia, but it has been discussed if these are related to User:پارسا آملی or not. Ahmad^talk 06:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the edit on de. It needs rev del, at least.04:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs)

Allegations of English-Farsi cross-Wiki trolling

There are now three in this thread:

1. Amirhosein Izadi and Amir.85, the main topic
2. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chyah and its Farsi equivalent fa:رده:سوءاستفاده‌کنندگان از حساب‌های کاربری زاپاس/Sonia Sevilla.
3. User:Modern Sciences and alleged family

(2) can be taken as proved on both WPs by similar-fact and WP:CheckUser evidence.

I have suggested that (1) and (2) may be connected. This could only be confirmed or denied by new evidence sufficient to justify a CU investigation.

(3) The other two seem to be active solely in English and Farsi WPs. This one is said to have been active in Arabic and Armenian WPs also. User:Modern Sciences (who was WP:INDEFfed in February 2018) claimed to have been a native Georgian speaker and to have only limited proficiency in Farsi. At first sight, all that evidence suggests no connection with the other two. Narky Blert (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor threatening to edit war using students

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 is User:Tympanus who on User:Ermenrich's talk page said

Dear Ermenrich, As you deduce from my posts at the Teahouse, I am prepared to start an edit war in order to get a decision from wiki authority. (However, I would not appear in this war, because I have enough students who would be ready for this job.) But do we actually need an edit war? Any attentive reader of Badenhausen's article would conclude the superfluousness of Ritter's basic position at hand of elder German scholarship, as I have pointed out this in the German Thidrekssaga article. We know that this does not contradict the prevailing opinion even of the eminent William J. Pfaff who considered Thidreks's Bern not only in Italy but also at the northern Verona-Bonn with regard to earlier legendary northern accounts. Furthermore, it is obvious that Badenhausen follows not Ritter, but only Kemp Malone's and some elder German scholarship's identification of the historical prototype of Thidrek (cf. the German article), since we also know that his milieu cannot be identical with those apparently Italian drawn Dietrichs provided by MHG poetry. I was told that Badenhausen's article has some hundred hits per week, that is much more than the German wiki article. I have no idea of the final wiki decision or a consensual policy that allows a link to Badenhausen's article, but I can assure you that he generally removes obsolete contextual statements in its update history as well as in the text.

As Ermenrich appears to be not around now I'm reporting this as I advised him to do earlier. See also his post to me at User talk:Doug Weller#Another Fringe pusher where he suggests Tympanus may have a COI. There's a content dispute underlying this, but the threat to editwar is clearly unacceptable. In the meanwhile I've protected the article at issue, Þiðreks saga. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I'm in the midst of a romantic weekend getaway so I actually hadn't even read this threat of edit warring carefully enough to notice the threat to use students. Only other thing to add is that Tympanius appears to be a single-purpose account (he has one edit not related to Dietrich von Bern) and that I have suspicions he may actually be Rolf Badenhausen, the fringe author he's pushing. He is at the very least in direct contact with him [166]. Also: who else would insist on using this guy's website as a source on WP? In that case, there's also wp:coi going on here.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 19 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.

• People who say they have armies of students to do X or Y for them always turn out to be fantasists. EEng 09:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Cjwilky topic-ban

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.

---

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

Cjwilky was topic-banned from homeopathy, and responded by testing the limits - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835 § Persistent bullying on Homeopathy talk Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835 § Persistent bullying on Homeopathy talk.

He has recently started editing homeopathy and commenting on Talk. I asked on his Talk page if the ban had been lifted, as both Brunton and I have looked for any lifting of the ban without success. I invited him to self-revert if the ban is still in place. His response was belligerent, he did not link any discussion lifting the ban, and he made another edit at talk:homeopathy early this morning (UK time, he is UK based).

Is anyone aware of any lifting of this ban? Guy (help!) 08:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked Cjwilky for 72 hours for violating their "indefinite" topic ban. El_C 09:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, thanks, that suggests that you can't find a lifting of the ban either. I think it's fair to require the user to link to any such discussion if it exists, otherwise we can proceed on the basis that the ban is still in force.

For context, he's a homeopath and antivaxer. His edits to footie articles seem fine though. Guy (help!) 09:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned, the topic ban duration was fixed as "indefinite." If it was lifted, somehow, they should have just plain said so upon being queried about it. Their failure to have answered that question, in my mind, results in the topic ban still being active, by default. On the rare chance the topic ban was, in fact, lifted at some point, they could make that clear by linking to that discussion and, in turn, be immediately unblocked with apologies. El_C 09:16, 20 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.

79.33.121.131

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.

---

79.33.121.131 (talk · contribs) Can an admin please redact the edit summary from the first edit made by IP 79.33.121.131 per WP:CRD#2. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, Pkbwcgs, but I really don't think it matters. Another admin may feel differently. Bishonen | talk 14:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC).

That's "ordinary" incivility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: and others, just for future reference, this is WP:LTA/SBT. They've been over-excited recently. Please have a read. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:04, 18 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.

User:Elainasla

Elainasla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello, I think this is the appropriate place to post this, but I apologise if I'm mistaken. This user continually goes against several guidelines: they make many edits to articles in quick succession clogging up article histories, mark all their edits m when many clearly aren't, and extremely rarely provide edit summaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elainasla

An example of all three of these would be their 12 edits to Medical Police in the space of 15 minutes on 11 Jan.

They also rarely engage with people who have posted about such issues on their talk page, including me, as evidenced here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#January_2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#February_2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#February_2019_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#'Show_preview'_button

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#Edit_summaries

- 115.70.7.33 (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Their talk page is disturbing. At the least I'd suggest a ban might be appropriate to stop them from uploading non-free images. And the marking edits as minor despite warnings is unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The user appears to have undertaken 5 reverts on 14 January on page: Medical Police -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I was involved in some of their revert activity on that page, of which I'm the creator. They falsely claimed the preferred upload format for images was PNG (it's JPEG) and edit warred with me over the cover image. They are fairly disruptive, in my experience. Timdorr (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for long-time disruptive editing and lack of communication. Any admin is encouraged to unblock if the user responds to the block and undertakes a) to stop uploading non-free images and b) to respond to posts on their talkpage from now on. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC).

• Unblocked. The user has made the required promises, and I've unblocked them. I hope some people will add their user talkpage to their watchlists. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC).

Generally pointless TE

Can someone uninvolved please have a look at this, this and this (or indeed the rest of that recent talk history) and kindly suggest an attitude adjustment? There appears to be a pattern of pointless antagonism here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also this. If someone could apply a quick cluebat to stop this nonsense that'd be great. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Whew -- pointless antagonism is right. --JBL (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a competence issue also, as the edits cited left paragraphs with ungrammatical mixed tense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, even the first sentence ("Fulling ... was a step ... which involves ....") was broken. --JBL (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, words like "plonker" and "silly" clearly constitute a WP:PERSONAL attack. Even that aside, the user's editing pattern has been generally disruptive across other articles. What I have noticed with Roxy is that he (or she?) consistently engages in edit wars, (often with the help of his friend Guy Macon), refuses to discuss the issue (or any relevant issues, for that matter) when questioned, and instead insults the users with whom he disagrees. I have dealt with this user on more than a couple of occasions, and I must say that his editing significantly hindered real progress being made. If he doesn't show any signs of improvement, I suggest we do something about it - whether it be a 1RR restriction, a block (next time a similar issue inevitably arises), or anything else. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 03:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not reasonable for you to notice my comment at Roxy's talk then pile on here without mentioning that you have been indefinitely topic banned from creationism after many disputes with Roxy and other opponents of WP:FRINGE ideas (ANI permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is that not reasonable? I have had many problems with the user, which is why I want to do something about it. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Also, should I mention my topic ban in every comment that I make? Should I make it part of my signature? I don't really see how it's relevant here, given that the disputes that I had with Roxy that contributed to my topic ban were probably one of more minor disputes that I had with him, and they definitely weren't the first ones that I had with him. By the way, I am a WP:FRINGE opponent (including creationism opponent) as well, as you can see on my user page, so, once again, I don't really see how WP: FRINGE is relevant to the discussion. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 13:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Why did I only receive a notification about this discussion two days after it started? Why didn't the OP notify me? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

WHEN YOU POSTTO AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-shave --EEng 08:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC) (and Levivich and creffett)

Note for future readers: the above originally read "WHEN YOU POST / TO AN/I / YOU HAVE TO TELL / THE OTHER GUY," thus the "guy" discussion below. creffett (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thumperward: He was being kind to you. [167][168][169][170][171]. -Pudeo (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (Banner)

This banner should be adopted to replace the current banner. It's eye wrenching catching and has high nostalgic value.-- Deepfriedokra 10:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC).*AS proposer.-- Deepfriedokra 10:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Humurous alternative (or default) templates would be a fantastic development; apart from UPEs, none of use are getting paid, so lets enjoy more. Britishfinance (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - more likely to be noticed, read, followed, and remembered. – Levivich 14:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - what if the person is not a "guy"? sadly, English stress patterns make this complicated, e.g. when you post an incident / you have to tell / the defendant. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In many dialects of English spoken in the northeast United States, "guy" is gender-neutral. But I have seen at least one or two AN/I incidents in which someone took offense as a result of that usage. --JBL (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That would be someone like me. It always seems to be men who try to explain to me why it's okay for them to use "guys" to refer to me, somebody who is not a man. We have better terminology, although I admit the rhyme is catchy. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I have zero issues being referred to as part of the collective "guys". Support silly banner. Natureium (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't support new version. Not as funny. Natureium (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Once your case is AN/Ied \ be haste to tell \ the other side. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  SashiRolls, Alfie, thanks to you both for pointing that out to me, I was going for the rhyme but hadn't considered that I was gendering the message (and I do come from areas where "guy" is colloquially used as a gender-neutral plural). I'll change it to the gender-neutral version I suggested below. creffett (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you 💜. It is funny, but I also think that getting out of the habit of using "guys" to refer to people who aren't men is a noble goal. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 11:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment WHEN YOU POST / TO AN/I / DON'T FORGET / TO NOTIFY ? Unfortunately loses the part about _who_ you have to notify... creffett (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• No, it's perfect. Truly, you are the poet laureate of Wikipedia. With luck we will reduce all policies and guidelines to Burma-Shave ads, limericks, haikus or (in the case of MOS and Arbcom cases, respectively) sonnets and epic poems. EEng 18:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  frivolous report

  content disputes and vandals

  admin noticeboard

  creffett (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  when arguments do turn to heated strife

  harsh words 'tween editors and tempers flare,

  tell not the oth'r one to "get a life"

  soft! hostilities will go nowhere

  creffett (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you make the words flash and maybe add animated gifs of flames on each side?   // Timothy :: talk  22:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support IF "guy" is changed to "person". Or "human", "lifeform", or "earthling" if you want to be quirky. (ETA) I just realized you're trying to rhyme. It didn't click because my brain pronounces "AN/I" as "annie".Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Place a post on AN/I

Place a post for free

Place a post on AN/I

And (^andand) you gotta post to notify me _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I should not have been taking a drink while reading that. (wiping off screen) (and now that song's earworming me)Schazjmd (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is all my fault [172]. I've crated a Frankenstein. EEng 01:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• As Tennnyson would have said it: Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to notify. --T*U (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:HARASS violation, possible WP:THREAT

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 asking for input on what to do after receiving this comment in my talk page from Hijuecutivo. In a clear breach of WP:NPA, I was called a "political commisary", "inquisitor", "Stalinist" and received unfounded accusations of vandalism, just because I reverted some unsourced, tendentious IP edits at Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, Francisco Largo Caballero and Jesús Hernández Tomás (by now, it is apparently obvious that the IP is Hijuecutivo editing while logged out). While I'd normally be done with reverting such comments from my talk, I am worried after I was told that "after these actions, you better consider leaving Wikipedia" and after another comment was issued when I reverted the original one, calling me "imprudent", "Wikipedia guard dog", asking me to "resign" and somehow suggesting that this new comment was a "torture-like policy" on me; all of which would be a breach of WP:HARASS. Also, the remark that "Injuries are criminal offenses" made by Hijuecutivo within their first comment on my talk looks like WP:THREAT. Impru20^talk 15:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hijuecutivo blocked for one week for general battleground behaviour that includes personal attacks and harassment. El_C 15:13, 20 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.

AfD canvassing

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connections-based learning

This article was created by the inventor of the term. It has three Keep !votes: one is his, the other two are people he canvassed off-wiki, neither of whom has previously contributed to Wikipedia. Since I don't do much in this area I don't know what our current approach is to canvassed AfDs, whether we protect at some level or just tag them with the canvassing notice of joy. Can anyone advise please? Guy (help!) 09:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I added "notvote".-- Deepfriedokra 09:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, that was the one I was looking for, thanks. Guy (help!) 10:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Tagging them as SPA and leaving the notice is all you can do. If they engage in DE, they can be blocked via the ArbCom directive where editors acting in concert can be treated as one editor. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:37, 19 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.

User:David Gerard and The Sun sources

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 know The Sun is depreciated, but that doesn't mean an outright ban! I am not sure David has the health of sources in mind, because he is systematically going through and removing sources with some strange summary comments which doesn't seem to match what the source is about. At the same time, there are a few occasions when The Sun is being used as a primary source and backed up with a secondary source, however questionable the content is I feel there are some issues with how David has been going about removing these sources and handling the content on offer. I am really questioning the method of this removal and asking for a more thorough review of the situation. Reviews of movies, football matches, analysts, summaries of events, these are some of the things that have been removed. Deprecated isn't a total ban so why is he trying to remove every citation from the newspaper. I asked this before, I don't want to shop around, but I feel there are some issues that need to be addressed and to make sure certain articles are not compromised. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

1) You have failed to notify David Gerard of this thread as you are required to do by several prominent notices on this page, and 2) WP:DEPS says Citing the source as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. If the Sun is being used as a primary source and it is backed up with a secondary source, then clearly other more reliable sources exist and the ref to the deprecated source should be removed. As an aside, I think you might have WP:PSTS backwards, we prefer secondary sources over primary ones. But even if the two linked articles are otherwise identical, the non-deprecated source should be used and the deprecated source should be removed. The exceptions in WP:DEPS are very narrow and generally relate to a source talking about themselves. Do you have any examples of David Gerard removing references to The Sun where one of those exceptions applies? Where did you contact them to attempt to resolve that dispute? ST47 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs that show the removal of the source in contravention of WP:DEPS, the relevant policy in question. Please note that deprecated sources mean the source is not reliable and should not be trusted for just about any use at Wikipedia; removing such sources is perfectly in line with removing ANY clearly unreliable source. --Jayron32 19:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes - I was about to ask this too. I just took a flick through David's contribs and all the ones I saw were either redundant refs or were tabloid reporting. None of them seemed to meet the criteria for being kept. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32: Wrong, WP:DEPS is not a policy, not even a guideline, it has equivalent status to an essay as WP:SUPPLEMENTAL expains. David Gerard has indeed countered arguments about policies and guidelines by saying that a source is "deprecated", although I am not suggesting that a wrong edit was done for The Sun. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of having WP:RS and WP:V if we can just allow any source at all; if someone adds an unreliable source (according to your rationale) we're not allowed to remove it, ever. Can you explain that? --Jayron32 20:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Peter is completely incorrect here - his misunderstanding goes against verifiability (policy), reliable sources (strongly supported guideline) and WP:THESUN (RFC finding with strong general consensus). Adding The Sun back without an excellent reason violates WP:BURDEN, a subsection of the WP:V policy:

1. WP:RS says: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.
2. WP:RS is a guideline, but it's included by explicit reference in the first sentence of WP:V, which is policy: On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. The words "reliable source" link further down the page to #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, which is headed with Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
3. Verifiability - which is policy - requires the use of reliable sources. Deprecated sources are those that have been found, by strong consensus, to be generally unreliable. The deprecation RFC for the Sun says: the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article.
4. WP:BURDEN - which is policy - states: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

Thus: removing links to the Sun is almost always the correct thing to do, as it is a source that has been found generally unreliable. It is not mandatory - but it is almost always correct.

WP:BURDEN - which is policy - also states: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So the burden of proof for addition or restoration of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.

Thus: if I remove the Sun and someone reverts that removal, they have to justify that revert, as it is a new addition of a presumed-unreliable source. "I like it" or "looks OK to me" isn't really enough to overcome the strong general RFC consensus, either in edit summary or even the talk page - WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't overcome a strong general consensus.

In conclusion, Govvy and Peter need to review the relevant policies, guidelines and RFC findings. - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Rather than going into what Jayron32 and David Gerard seem to think I said, I'll say what I actually said, in full, as verifiable by looking right above. Jayron32: Wrong, WP:DEPS is not a policy, not even a guideline, it has equivalent status to an essay as WP:SUPPLEMENTAL expains. Jayron32 indeed said "WP:DEPS, the relevant policy in question", and is indeed wrong, it is neither policy nor guideline as its heading shows, and WP:SUPPLEMENTAL indeed says such things, "like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Notice the total absence of a reply to that in what Jayron32 or David Gerard say. David Gerard has indeed countered arguments about policies and guidelines by saying that a source is "deprecated" ... on the page that I linked to you can see that the argument pointed to policies/guidelines as I said, and that David Gerard's counter-argument was indeed about "deprecated" as I said, click and see. Notice the total absence of a reply to that in what Jayron32 or David Gerard say. ... although I am not suggesting that a wrong edit was done for The Sun. David Gerard says that what I say "goes against" WP:THESUN, well, saying that I'm not objecting is objecting, eh? And that's all I said, statements even vaguely similar to "allow any source at all" just don't exist in the post. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Govvy says I don't want to shop around - but is doing so. In addition, it turns out the source of his upset is that he has a relative who works for The Sun.

I'd suggest this present discussion is a waste of everyone's time - but if anyone is superlatively bored, feel free to come remove deprecated sources with me! I do it as a marginally more productive use of my time than playing Angry Birds, and it definitely improves the encyclopedia. Got The Sun down to about 1500, but there's 22,000 Daily Mail links to go - but chewing through them three or ten at a time is good work and makes the world a better-informed place.

I noted this on WP:RSN, but since it's been brought up here, it's worth mentioning again: In my now-considerable experience of the sort of claims The Sun is actually used to cite on Wikipedia, such links generally warrant a {{cn}} at best, or removal of the claim. References to The Sun are generally:

1. redundant to existing cites
2. citing quirky and eye-catching information that can't be verified anywhere else, probably because The Sun made it up
3. tabloid gossip about BLP material, which will usually warrant straight-up removal under WP:BLP, or a {{cn}} if it looks uncontroversial
4. early-life BLP claims that can't be verified in an RS - same treatment
5. Past WP:CRYSTAL, often failed, about pop stars, TV stars or soap operas - remove
6. Sun-only-sourced inflammatory stories about ethnic minorities, which should generally just be removed
7. football scores, which are almost universally replaceable per the RFC.

That's not all of it, but that's most of it.

The Daily Mail is much the same, with an extra line in unusually-contrived sports statistics, which in science would be called "p-hacking".

You would probably believe how defensive Sun defenders get - including the one who we saw at WP:AN late last year, who was edit-warring back in controversial BLP claims that were sourced to literally a dead link, and loudly asserted that The Sun was a top-notch source for the subject because it was about sport therefore was wrong to remove, and berated me for my clear incompetence in not letting him keep his literally nonexistent reference.

One interesting issue with The Sun is that they changed their website layout a few years ago - so there's a vast number of Sun references that were dead links, any URL with /sol/ in it. The claims are literally unsourced already. Only some of this content was ported over to the new site - but I'm certainly not going to lift a finger to find a replacement Sun link to insert, and in any case doing so would fail WP:BURDEN. Replacing with a {{cn}} is literally not changing anything, just stopping us pretending to have a cite when we don't.

Quite a lot of the people objecting recently to my Sun removals are objecting, and sometimes revert-warring, over "cites" that don't work at all. Editors who aggressively defend The Sun are, IME, loud roughly in proportion to their misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I should note - all of these edits are made by hand in Firefox. You can tell by the occasional broken reference. I make mistakes, and I'm grateful to the editors who fix them. If you want to ask about any particular edit, I'm happy to explain what I was thinking, or go "sorry, that was my mistake". But in practice, I've been getting thanks for my deprecated source removals, and I think they get reverted less than my other edits - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard: Re: "references that were dead links" … "The claims are literally unsourced already" — from WP:KDL: Do not delete a URL just because it has been tagged with {{dead link}} for a long time. — content with dead-link sources generally isn't considered the same as unsourced content, as I understand it. There's a case to be made against that practice (and in my opinion working to put Sun refs in the bin is also quite sensible) but just thought I'd point it out. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

oh, absolutely - as that notes, it "may" be useful, and in this case the only information the dead link conveys is that it's The Sun and therefore we're claiming a source that shouldn't be used in the first place - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 21 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 think this deserves a block and a revdel

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.

---

The edit in question. Thank you. Dr. K. 09:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by DeepFried. I've revdel'd. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC).

I left an explanatory note about BRD and DR. User may require more coaching than I can provide.-- Deepfriedokra 12:23, 24 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.

US school buses have been hidden from search engines without discussion.

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 don't know how to explain this or if it goes here. I am doing this fast because 500+ a day US viewers have lost access to an important page. I am notifying the editors involved but they haven't had time to reply yet.

At 04:20, 17 January 2020 "School bus" was deliberately US/Canada subject specific. It was about operating US./Canada school buses in the US/Canada. No other countries. It was getting 500+ views a day. There was a "worldwide view" flag that I should have removed. The problem is the name of the article, the article itself is excellent.

The article has been made effectively invisible. Without a move discussion it was moved so that anybody in the United States who searches for "School bus" gets nothing. The United States is the major user of "School buses" and we can't find them. Who would search for "School buses in North America"?

This controversial move should have had a Request for move and should be reverted until that happens. Thank you.

Edited in for clarity: Should this move have been made like this? If not can we go back to a stable version and then talk about it? Sammy D III (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If I type "school bus" in the search box, the second result I see is "School buses in North America" (the new name of the article about which you complain), so it's hardly invisible and nobody has lost access. "School bus by country" is in first place (and that shows clearly that it's really not a specific US thing). Also, looking at the page views, I don't see anything close to 500 views per day before the move (just an average of 3 per day over the past 90 days). Oh, and finally, this really doesn't look like an admin issue to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

(It looks like the page views thing might just check by title and not the actual history of the article, so strike that part. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC))

Thank you for your time. If I click on "School Busses in North America" I get "School bus by country" which has nothing on the US. Are you looking at the page views for "School bus" before the name change? I got over 500 on "Bus" and 50+ on "by country. I might be wrong, but I think you missed the name-change.

I don't know where to go. This move wouldn't fly on the talk page for years so somebody tried to slide it through the back door. Sammy D III (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Just type "School bus" in the search box and you'll see results pop up, then click the "School buses in North America" one (in second place for me). It does seem strange that School bus by country doesn't have a link to the US one - perhaps you could add such a link? Oh, and please assume good faith and don't go accusing people of nefarious actions like "tried to slide it through the back door". Anthony Appleyard is a very experienced editor and admin and is absolutely not the kind of person to perform bad faith actions as you seem to be accusing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If I click on "School Busses in North America" I get "School bus by country". Could that be the difference between the US and where you are? Do the search engines work differently?

A controversial move was made without any discussion. I have no idea who did what, I know that the move was made without discussion and it was in fact contested.

Sorry, I'm really not trying to argue, I am trying to get a discussion before a complicated move is (was) made. I think it should go back until discussed. Again, thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to contest the page move, Wikipedia:Move review is always an option for you. I also linked the page to School bus by country#North America as the main article on the subject for that section. (Non-administrator comment) OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Pinging Sammy D III because I forgot to do so in my reply. OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, a more apt question to ask is have you discussed the page move issue with the editor that moved the article? That's as good of a place to start as any. OhKayeSierra (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think I see part of what Sammy D III is concerned about. When I do a web search for "School Bus" (not through Wikipedia's search bar, but another search engine), the search results provide two links: one to School buses in North America and another to School bus by country. Clicking on "School buses in North America" leads to a redirect for "School bus," which for some reason has been pointed at "School bus by country."

So, "School bus" itself no longer exists and the URLs that used to lead to that article, the content of which is currently in "School buses in North America," now lead to "School bus by country."

I don't think my opinion here is particularly important, but I do agree the quick changes requested without discussion have led to an entirely confusing outcome. It looks like the person who made the requested change started a discussion on "School buses in North America" (formerly "School bus") about merging the two articles in question, and then quickly went on to make the request for the move when one editor objected to the merge. Not sure how "School bus" got redirected to "School bus by country" though, and I don't know Wikipedia's tools/procedures well enough to find that out.

So this is really more than simply about a page move, but involves an entirely confusing redirect, along with the smallest hint of Talk page discussion that seems to have been quickly left behind.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Disregard "quickly"; there were a few days between the last comment in the discussion and the move request.--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: "Not sure how "School bus" got redirected to "School bus by country" though". It looks like the original "School bus" article was moved to School buses in North America without leaving a redirect, then School bus was recreated as a redirect to School bus by country. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps School bus should be a disambig page (as there do seem to be plenty of articles with it in the title)? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• @Boing! said Zebedee, Pinchme123, OhKayeSierra, and Sammy D III: Currently, School buses exists and redirects to School buses in North America; School bus exists and redirects to School bus by country; and I have no access to any system that could tell the world's main search engines (such as Google) not to look for particular words or phrases. I live in England and I have never seen a bus or a coach that was labelled as a school bus. I cannot answer for what unmarked buses or coaches are used for. Both School bus and School buses are redirects; do Google etc search among redirects in Wikipedia or in other wikis? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

In the United States every two-year-old points and says "Mama, school bus" as they watch them load. It is just so ingrained, part of the culture. Sammy D III (talk)`

What am I missing? This move is opposed and was made without consensus. Without much discussion at all. Aren't we supposed to talk about things before we make major changes that are opposed? Is it impossible to just go back and do it right? Sammy D III (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_buses&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_bus&action=history . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: My point was, the URLs for "School bus" - which up until yesterday-ish pointed to the same page of content that it has for years - now points to another page of content, and that change was made without discussion. It seems to me a more reasonable redirect procedure would be for the older URL to redirect to the newer URL (hence the term "redirect"). Or, at the very least, pointed to a far less-confusing disambiguation page as suggested by Boing! said Zebedee.--Pinchme123 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee, Pinchme123, OhKayeSierra, and Sammy D III: At 23:05, 21 January 2020 Anthony Appleyard moved page School bus to School buses in North America (requested by QuadColour at WP:RM/TR: Intending to move 'school bus by country' into 'school bus' namespace to fix globalisation issues with the current article in the 'school bus' namespace. Also, renaming 'School Bus' will indicate that it has an overwhelmingly North American focus). Page School bus had several subpages (archives etc), so to avoid problems if the page had to be moved here and there and back, I moved it without redirects, and then I put a redirect in from the article page to the article page only. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=School+bus Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: The move was a controversial move and should not have been requested by QuadColour at WP:RM/TR. Sammy D III (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard, and yet, it looks like another editor changed that "School bus" redirect from "School buses in North America" to "School bus by country." Which is one of the issues Sammy D III brought here to discuss: this decision was one of a few made without a discussion. For me, that the page was moved without discussion was concerning, but not especially so. But that the prior "School bus" URL no longer redirected to the same content but instead something else entirely is much more of an issue, because it really goes against what a URL redirect is for. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pinchme123: Sorry, that was me. I boldly changed the redirect because I felt redirecting to the North America article presented a bit of a bias as it was, but I accidentally logged out when I did it. Given that my redirect was in question, I went ahead and reverted myself, until consensus can be properly determined. OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@OhKayeSierra: I can see you changed the redirect at "School buses," but it was @Davey2010: who changed it for "School bus." [diff]

Is it inappropriate to boldly revert a redirect change and request discussion? I honestly don't know and don't want to piss a bunch of people off by doing it.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC) should have included the diff for the redirect change at "School bus."--Pinchme123 (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on this one way or the other, but I think that it might be better if this thread is moved to a talk page to determine the consensus and how best to move forward. Personally, I think that disambiguating "school bus" is going to be the quickest and simplest solution here. But, as it stands, trying to hash things out on AN/I is only going to create a muddle IMHO. OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• ANI? REALLY??? EEng 07:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  Well, Wikipedia encourages users to be bold, so I was. I hope me reverting the School bus redirect back to be pointed at "School buses in North America" doesn't anger anyone. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  Look, I know everyone thinks of their pet article as the most important in the universe, but it's hard to see a temporary obscuring of an article on school buses worth pushing the panic button over. EEng 07:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

THIS IS SO OFF-TOPIC. My question was should this move have been made and if not can we go back to the last stable version and talk on it's talk page again?? This move has been opposed for years. I think most of this stuff should go on that talk page.

Wow!!! After all this time it looks good in a couple of hours. Who cares what my topic was, the end results work. Sorry if I was a pain. Thank you everybody. Sammy D III (talk) 08:42, 22 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.

For the most part, the worldwide issue in question has been brought up over for at least 12 years now and a general consensus has been reached into the article wording; it has also led to the creation of the School buses by country article (which has nearly doubled in size since its creation). While the move was made through proper channels (making a request)

I have never seen any recommendation to moving or renaming the article and the current move was done with nearly no discussion. While the move was made through a request (the proper channels), this was definitely a controversial move instead of an uncontroversial one. Over the past 12 years, the worldwide view issue has followed the article (not going to make a thread out of that); it has lead to the creation of School buses by country, split from the article. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• As someone who's currently locked heads with someone over the School bus redirect I have to say this move really should have been declined - Having School bus with North America content only isn't ideal but imho it would've been better to have had a discussion/rfc on it and its redirects, It would've avoided the redirect back and fourth reverting and it would've avoided this report, That being said Anthony does a lot of moves and exercises caution with them all so understandably (imho) mistakes will happen from time to time. –Davey2010^Talk 11:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Does it work as it is now? Sammy D III (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 uncivil and rude

I would have been happy to let this go but the editor has tripled down on their rude and uneccessarily crude behavior.

School Bus has suddenly become a hot topic.

It started with diff:[[173]], which while not policy breaking was a tad rude.

I reverted back here diff: [174] , explaining why it should be temporarily pointed to the North American page and opened a talk page discussion diff: [175]

That earned me diff: [176], followed by diff: [177] on the talk page.

And for full disclosure my comment from the Technical thread diff:[178]

Long Time Active Editors do not get some special pass to be rude. Especially when the cleanup of the 3 involved pages will take some work. Slywriter (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Well at least this isn't another thread about school buses. Oh, wait... yes it is. No, it can't be. I must be dreaming. Impossible. EEng 01:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  A cyclical process of Hegelian proportions. Viz: THE WHEELS ON THE BUS GO ROUND AND ROUND... ——SN54129 01:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, hahaha. That made me laugh out loud. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. All I asked about was stopping one bogus move and the circus came to town. Very little of this is about just reverting the move and going to Talk. It seemed so simple... Sammy D III (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Truly. Slywriter (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Davey2010: Your behaviour here was well into uncivil territory - Please avoid being so bizzarely aggressive in future, even when interacting with users who disagree with you. Additionally; both you and Slywriter should both probably have a re-read of WP:BRD before diving back into this. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 01:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Will re-read though considering opening the discussion caused this, not really sure what issue you see on my part Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• I guess creating nonsense reports passes the time whilst we all wait for the outcome at WP:RM#TR, I've become increasingly frustrated with the school bus redirect and the fact it was redirecting to an American-only article even tho the term is used worldwide, I stood by the edit summary and made no further reply to the other editor ... but ofcourse Sly had to jump in and essentially start unnecessary drama (although you could argue I started the drama by my choice of language). –Davey2010^Talk 02:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I was here before WP:RM#TR. To try to stop a bogus move. If that move hadn't been made, if we were on the Talk page... Sammy D III (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've apologised to Pinchme123 and Slywriter for my comments,

As I've said to both editors I felt like I wasn't being listened too and then to be told "Discuss it on the talkpage" was the icing on the cake for me,

Either way shouldn't of reacted the way I did and again apologise for my comments. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am edit warring a bit, see Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Reverts

Check it out if you are interested. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing CSD tags

Indeffed by Ad Orientem. (non-admin closure) --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

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

---

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

Sofidelonia has been tagged CSD several times as a hoax. The creator keeps removing the tags and blanking their talk page. MB 02:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, i already write in the top that my article is not real (From The Creator) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanopegs (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed. Page deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Pederasty trolling - possible LTA?

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.

---

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

Do these edits look familiar to anyone? I don't follow the pro-kiddie porn trolls much. Guy (help!) 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you only enacted a partial block from a specific set of articles; I would have simply blocked them from all editing; pedophile advocates are not compatible with collaborative editing at Wikipedia writ large. Wikipedia:Child protection recommends such users are permanently blocked from the project. --Jayron32 19:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, fair Guy (help!) 19:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Leucosticte, maybe? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

---

I went with a 3-month sitewide block, which as lenient as I could stomach (lenient in terms of mitigating other individuals who may end up using the IP, that is). Simply put, these users are not welcome on the project and the risk of missing an article in a partial block is too great to wager on. The reputation of the project is at stake when it comes to how (unequivocally) we deal with these sort of users. El_C 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't Leucosticte. El_C, it is a static IP and the editor has been on it since at least August 8. No one else is using that IP and no named accounts were on it. You could double that block time based on his persistence there and I would support it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Understood and  Done. El_C 21:27, 22 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.

Masquerading user pages as articles: continued

• User:Battle of Sherpur
• User:Battle of Moga
• User:Battle of Mansa

This is a continuation of this previous request.[179]

User is still creating accounts with userpages disguised as genuine articles. They attempted to insert a link for one of the previously created userpages into an article so as to mislead readers (as they had done previously).[180] Later did the same with an article draft regarding a fictitious event.[181]

I believe the three above accounts are created by the same person since all of them have edited this draft.[182][183][184]
Alivardi (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: You might want to file at WP:SPI. They are better suited for this sort of thing and have magic glasses.-- Deepfriedokra 12:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with it now. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Kazemita1 block changed from indef to 3 months

Through Cabayi's advice, RoySmith recently indef-blocked Kazemita1 for block evasion. El_C changed this from indef to a 3-month block. The case could do with further feedback.

Some highlights from Kazemita's editing history to his current block:

1) For the last several months, Kazemita1 has been a SPA account at People's Mujahedin of Iran, where he has received an increasing number of warnings for edit warring there. ([185]) ([186]) ([187]) ([188]) ([189])

2) The edit warring led to Kazemita1 being blocked several times

3) While being blocked (for two weeks), Kazemita1 uses different IPs to continue edit warring (at which time I file a SPI)

4) The SPI leads to Kazemita1 being indef'ed for socking

5) Kazemita1 appeals the block by citing the US constitution. The unblock request is rejected by 331dot.

6) Kazemita appeals for a second time, this time blaming "lack of proper SPI investigation to at least relate these IPs to me", as well as blaming other editors and not admitting to socking.

7) I point out that the IPs edited the exact same text that Kazemita1 was edit-warring about, which was either an amazing coincidence or block evasion.

8) Kazemita1 removes my post and his claims about "lack of proper SPI" practices, and changes his unblock request now admittig to socking/block evasion.

9) El_C changes Kazemita1's block from indef to 3 months.

Only when it was pointed out that the evidence showed he was the one behind the IPs, did Kazemita1 admit to socking/block evasion. Kazemita1 has apologized in the past for their actions, and yet they continued to edit-war using purposely-deceptive IPs that wouldn't be traced back to them. In light of this, I think that the changing of Kazemita1's block from indef to 3 months, for an increasingly-disruptive editor, merits further feedback from the community. Alex-h (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I secured the permission of the blocking admin to amend the indefinite block. Note that I warned Alex-h against edit warring on Kazemita1's talk page.[190] El_C 10:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex-h: opening this thread may not be a good idea. All behaviors become open for scrutiny. In your case, your edit-warring on the talk page, but further, the subsequent revocation of the user's talk page access which was questionable to say the least. A can of worms, I think it's called. ——SN54129 12:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, yes, El_C did warn me about restoring my post on Kazemita1's talk page, which is when I stopped writing on Kazemita1's talk page. About "the subsequent revocation of the user's talk page access", that had nothing to do with me, although I disagree that it was "questionable" since Kazemita had been canvassing. Alex-h (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex-h: which users were canvassed? El_C 15:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I interpreted Kazemita1's pinging you as canvassing since the actual blocking admin had been RoySmith. Alex-h (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm the admin most involved in sanctioning the user prior to this block evasion incident — a ping to me or to the blocking admin does not constitute canvassing. El_C 15:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Block of User:MikaelaArsenault on Terry Jones

I have just blocked MikaelaArsenault (talk · contribs) from Terry Jones after they continually changed his date of death without any source or edit summary, despite being reverted by multiple editors. I did this because the article is being updated rapidly (as you might expect from a very famous person who has recently died) and their edits are trampling over others right now. As I have been editing the article to clean it up, I would consider myself WP:INVOLVED, and hence I am bringing the block here for review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, Auntie has it now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51209197

It does piss me off when people race to be the first to add a death to Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: They're called WikiJackals. Narky Blert (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I dont see why "People rushing to update wikipedia" can be a problem, we actually want people to edit. If they are doing so without sources or edit warring then it is a separate problem and that problem should be addressed. DBigXrayᗙ 14:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, because we keep getting edit wars with unsubstantiated rumours that persist for half a day or a day and then finally the announcement comes from a reliable source. Guy (help!) 16:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the block is OK, but I would have preferred a direct warning before blocking. Letting the user self-correct their behavior by telling them they will be blocked is always preferable to just blocking them. They were clearly in violation of WP:EW, and it looks like they went over the 3RR limit, so technically the block is fine; I don't think we have any reason to unblock them yet. However, you SHOULD add the block template to their talk page so they know how to properly request an unblock. If I were the one doing this, I would have warned first, but I also don't think there's any reason to unblock them as yet. --Jayron32 14:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, this is a partial block from that article only. In other words, they can come to this thread and appeal, as well on their talk page. By "block template", if you mean Template:uw-block, that is not appropriate because they are not site blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

They have more than exceeded WP:3RR. While I have also, the BLP exception applies on my part. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that it is a partial block. Yes, then they can come and appeal. Have you yet notified them of this discussion, so they may do so? --Jayron32 14:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Now, you listen here, Threesie! You're not the Messiah. You're a very naughty boy!" Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Since it looks like we're still shaking out the partial block policy - it would be helpful to have a partial block warning template (per the Jayron32/Ritchie333 discussion above) to formally notify editors of the block. I can slap something together this evening if nobody wants to do it sooner. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

QEDK has put together Template:Uw-pblock. It's not quite ready for prime time yet; the page parameter doesn't seem to work - in this case I want to write "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours from Terry Jones". The reference to WP:GAB is misleading, as is the suggestion to appeal on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of that - I'll have a look and see if I can help get it working as expected. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Just use the |area= parameter and put in all the kind of blocks imposed (so the template will read: blocked from <area paramter content here>). I never got around to updating the documentation (my bad), but the rest of template is wired to work on the functionality per {{Uw-block}}, hence also, the GAB links and the suggestion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good example of sensible use of partial blocks.Deb (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too keen to use partial blocks until Twinkle let's me, to be frank. That doesn't mean I won't, but the extra work... Doug Weller talk 15:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, May be you can make a request at WP:TWINKLE. This can be of good use and I am sure you are not the only admin not using it due to the extra work. DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A request to add functionality to Twinkle is here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

And User:Amorymeltzer has responded to a request at WP:TWINKLE. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Should be up in a day or two. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Tmayerferg101 Part II

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 disruptive user was brought to ANI previously by myself but sadly due to inactivity, the report was archived. Now 3 months later this person continues with their unsourced additions to Depeche Mode articles despite a multitude of final warnings on their talk page, personal pleas by other editors such as SnapSnap to refrain and to date shows zero indication that they ever intend to communicate. Please could an admin look into this. Thanks. Robvanvee 16:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for one month, pending a response to any concerns on their talk page. Any admin can unblock once the user acknowledges the problems. Notably, the user has zero edits outside of the article space, and has never communicated with anyone ever. If they fix that, anyone can unblock early. If after the block expires, they return to the same issues, drop me a line on my talk page, and I'll reinstate the block. --Jayron32 19:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated Jayron32, Robvanvee 19:28, 22 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.

"We must respect the historical sources" mantra

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.

---

Mikola22 for some reason is sure that he is allowed to edit warring if he endlessly repeats “We must respect historical sources” or something like that: [191] [192] [193] [194]. And he just repeats the same thing on the Talk Page: [195].--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you here to work in good faith then it would not be a mantra. On the talk page you came up with one word as a problem. If is information from the historian's book or scientific paper then we have to respect it. If you have any problem feel free to bring it out on talk page. I don't even know why you are editing this article because you did more edits for no purpose which could be interpreted as vandalism. Let's respect the sources and discuss each issue at talk page. Why you bother people with irrelevant things. Mikola22 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

On the talk page you came up with one word as a problem. - Anyone can check this statement (diff) and decide whether there is "good faith" in Mikola’s words.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears there are two issues here. The first is that neither editor is a native speaker of English, which makes it a bit difficult to understand each of the parties. (And I expect this makes it more difficult for each to understand the other.) Otherwise, I have no reason to doubt both are editing in good faith.

The second issue is that a primary source is cited here -- a census performed in 1712 -- which presents a challenge in interpretation. Normally there is little problem with citing a primary source: historians prefer them over secondary sources because one is reading an account that is more reliable & less filtered than what a secondary source provides, & often provides facts clearly to all readers. However, every primary source has portions that is problematic, & this appears to be the case with this 1712 census. I will not go into the details -- for one thing, I'm no expert in Balkan history beyond knowing that ethnic-based strife has existed there for centuries -- but instead of fighting over what the 1712 census means (& both have violated the WP:3RR rule), what needs to be done is to find a reliable secondary source that explicates this portion of the census. Or -- & this would be the simpler solution -- both should drop this dispute & find other articles to work on. -- llywrch (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest! I want to clarify my position. The article already has a secondary source. It is in Croatian, but it is available online and I can check it. This source analyzes in detail the census of 1712/1714 and there is, among other things, information on Smiljan. In this paper of Croatian historian, part of the population of Smiljan is quite directly called the Serbian Orthodox minority. If it is necessary to conduct any talk of what is "actually" written in the primary source - I would send all this to a footnote. Obviously, this is out of WP:WEIGHT to the article on the village.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The book of Austrian historian is reliable secondary source and he mentions the Orthodox Vlachs or Schismatics Vlachs members of the Greek church. The Croatian source(paper) also mentions Vlachs ie Schismatische Wallachen but he calls this Schismatische Wallachen as Serbian Orthodox Vlachs. Since the book of the Austrian historian does not mentione Serbian Orthodox Vlachs we must also specify that original record mentione Schismatische Wallachen, both sources cite this. For another group of people Bunjevci is used term Catholic Vlachs and today they are Croats but this must be written in an article which talks about them. This is history, there is no extra reliable secondary source. It is a Vlach population which migrates to one part of Croatia. Sources call these people Vlachs Catholics and Schismatische Wallachen etc and they are called that in the book of Austrian historian. You can come to the talk page if you you want and we'll edit the article together. Mikola22 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was talking about - all this shit should be discussed in a footnote.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You cannot put the history of some people and a village in footnote. This is some citation from Bunjevac article "In 1788 the first Austrian population census was conducted – it called Bunjevci Illyrians and their language the Illyrian language. It listed 17,043 Illyrians in Subotica. In 1850 the Austrian census listed them under Dalmatians and counted 13,894 Dalmatians in the city... Austro-Hungarian censuses from 1869 onward to 1910 numbered the Bunjevci distinctly. They were referred to as "bunyevácok" or "dalmátok" (in the 1890 census)." It is historical information that is significant, this information will probably not be put in footnote. These are facts from the history of some region and its population. Mikola22 (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You cannot put the history of some people and a village in footnote. -- What a beautiful Straw man.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nicoljaus Mikola22 Stop arguing here. ANI is not a place to discuss content. The bottom line here: you need to keep discussing the issue at the talkpage. If that fails, use Dispute resolution. Oh, and don't edit war, either of you, regardless of whether you think its justified. Making more than three reverts in 24 hours will get you blocked. And don't make personal attacks. If you can't keep civil about it, just don't edit the page, or ask for dispute resolution before it gets to that point. I will try to chime in at the talk page to see if that can't help smooth things along. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. We are waiting for you. Mikola22 (talk) 21:02, 22 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 person, or persons, keen to edit Shamsheer Vayalil

I am one of several editors who'd never heard of the name Shamsheer Vayalil until begged to help in countering this or that claimed injustice in its editing. (For the plea I received, see User talk:Hoary#Help.) The article is the obsession of a person, with or without his brother, who uses Bharti Airtel IP addresses that geolocate to Patna, Bihar, and also of User:Ankitroy1997, who has implausibly presented himself as a different person. These pleas for assistance, accusations of unfairness, etc, have gone on for some time and have been very tiresome; but they have hardly been actionable. Recently, however, this person has become more agitated, and offensive (example).

Although I don't consider myself involved (other than as a bemused/despairing onlooker and occasional voice of what I think is reason), others may disagree. And so I turn this matter over to one or more other admins. Do look through Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil and User talk:AlanM1. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Hoary for filing this. Note that the article's talk page has an archive, too, where they've been beating the same minutiae to death since June. The relevant IP addresses are primarily 223.230.128.0/18, though there is some involvement from 106.207.32.0/18 106.207.32.0/19. The 223 range has primarily only one other editor in it (contributing to Indian politics), so a block there might be reasonable. The 106 has a lot more. I'd also suggest a CU, given the overlap between Ankitroy1997 and the IP (careful examination of their edits makes it clear that they are probably either the same person or co-ordinate with each other off-wiki, pretending to be strangers here). Every time an editor gets tired of them, they move on to drag another into this time sink (as recently as today), conveniently not mentioning the wreckage left behind on the talk page in the hopes that the user won't look and they'll just get what they want. I even tried compromising on something that is a close call, and it didn't help. I've asked them to stay off my user and talk pages after today's attacks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

::Not interested in biased wikipedia. I have seen all the rules and regulations which are only for Shamsheer Vayalil article and not for others. I don't want to contribute anything here. Before leaving I'll point out some of your statement: Eagleash: His one of the kind statement: Some of the articles are only perfect on wikipedia. Which are these "some"? Are they Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Jimmy Wales? AlanM1: His statement: Removing degrees from bio infobox is not correct because infobox without degrees is incorrect. For which article it's incorrect? Is that Jimmy Wales article or Mark Zuckerberg article? So, I don't want to contribute to that place where there is biased nature. Keep your wikipedia with you. Ankitroy1997 (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those are quotes or even correct interpretations of our comments, nor is there any rational reason we would have a bias against a respected, successful doctor and wealthy businessman or Indians in general (witness the amount of work I do fixing Indian subject articles while you're picking at nits). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 Please don't show baby tantrums. I have read your every explanation or reason which you gave after reverting my edits which shows that you show biased nature. Degrees should not be removed from Jimmy Wales article but it can be removed from Shamsheer Vayalil article. Carefully read your reason which you gave after reverting my edit in Jimmy Wales article. I'll definitely leave wikipedia because it's the place where anyone can learn how to become biased. Ankitroy1997 (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ankitroy1997: I did not remove degrees from the article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to all editors who showed a lesson in WP:Civility. These are the 99 100 IP addresses I collected until now, after I was similarly contacted on my talk page. My match was with User:Royankitkumar, but I see that user is blocked too now. Thank you for the intervention. Wakari07 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wakari07, we must be talking about different people. I haven't sampled any of your collected IP addresses, but are you saying that they appear to be block evasions by User:Royankitkumar? I'm new to this article Shamsheer Vayalil and that's probably why Royankitkumar is a new name to me. I have looked at half a dozen of Royankitkumar's edits. Every one was simple vandalism. The edits are utterly unlike the edits of the IPs I had/have in mind, or those of User:Ankitroy1997. The latter edits aim to present the biographee in the best possible light. (This aim may be honourable; it's the demands, accusations and miscellaneous childishness that are problematic.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: There was a gap in time of almost a year, and then a mis-formatted unblock request in November 2019 that may explain this. I've also corrected the 106 range above for the record (I goofed the subnet). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ankitroy1997 has been confirmed by CheckUser as a sock puppet of Royankitkumar. I'm striking through their edits. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, there were two comments above by Ankitroy1997; you struck through one and I have now struck through the other. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is all very odd. If Ankitroy1997 is a sock of blocked Royankitkumar, then of course this is very wrong of Royankitkumar, whose activities should be limited to appealing for the end of his block. Yet when Royankitkumar attempted to do just that, he messed up his own attempt. And we know that he did this, thanks to mention above of "a mis-formatted unblock request". Of course what he really ought to do is carefully reread the instructions and make a new attempt; but we all know from experience that plenty of people can't/won't do this. Anyway, I've resuscitated his request. This says in part: Few months earlier I was new to wikipedia I didn't know that how it works,in that duration of time I made various mistakes which lead to vandalism but my intention was not to vandalise wikipedia. If vandalizing truly wasn't the intention, then I diagnose utter incompetence. However, CU says that Ankitroy1997 and Royankitkumar are the same; and if for a moment I put aside other problems (petulance, time-wasting, block evasion....), I have to concede that Ankitroy1997 is neither a vandal nor grossly incompetent. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yamla has already declined the appeal, and I certainly have no objection to that. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: Royankitkumar = Ankitroy1997 = the freshly invented "Alpha Rows" (see for example this appeal of theirs to Arjayay); quickly blocked by Bbb23. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Disney1999 and DisneyMan1999‎

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, I'm not sure where exactly to take this as I have a number of concerns so please redirect me if necessary. I spotted Disney1999 yesterday when I was doing pending change review and, as they had edited an article about the Disney company, I raised a WP:USERNAME concern on their talk page (qv). There has been no response to that.

Subsequently, Trivialist has reverted several edits by Disney1999 and has spotted a similarly named new account called DisneyMan1999‎ operating in the same area. It seems obvious that these are by the same person and, as they work exclusively on Disney-related articles, I think there is a conflict of interest. I have another, wider, concern that the edits are those of an experienced site user because there is nothing careful about the way they have leaped in. I suspect that these accounts are clones of each other and also of some master account operating elsewhere or previously blocked.

I'm advising all parties of this on their talk pages. Please let me know if I should do anything else. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The 'Birth name' given on User:DisneyMan1999 matches that of an account recently blocked for vandalism. [196] 165.120.15.119 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked DisneyMan1999. I expect Disney1999 is a sockpuppet, too, but leave that to another admin to take action. --Yamla (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, Disney1999 is clearly a sockpuppet, too, given the deleted draft, Draft:The Richardson Company. I'll block. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted by 165.120.15.119 and thank you, @Yamla:. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

All socks blocked, and tagged, nothing more to do here folks, suggest we close. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 14:15, 24 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.

Obvious sockpuppet needs blocking 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.

---

Could someone please block Arr1333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ars3nal311/Archive for background. No point wasting time waiting for SPI to deal with this, since the account is active now and making their usual disruptive edits. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked, tagged, made a report to SPI, edits may need cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if that domain needs to go on the blacklist...it's on a number of pages, and might or might not be a decent source (I haven't actually read any of it yet), but this behavior is not okay. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: The domain used to be owned by the Gay & Lesbian Times (magazine). I'm guessing at a certain point of time, the magazine closed and someone took over the domain to sell their alternative medicine (read: bs) products. Either way, case archived. An edit filter can help probably (also to keep track of the socks and whitelist older links which use Wayback Machine or smth). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:31, 21 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.

Kobe Bryant

There are reports from tabloids that Kobe Bryant has been killed in a helicopter crash; but there are no reliable non-tabloid sources confirming it at this time. Article will need a lot of eyes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

There is now reliable source confirmation from Variety. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Akshara Reddy

Deva Sangeeth (talk · contribs · count)

This article is not ready for mainspace (ie. Shouting, empty sections, ect...). I moved it to draftspace and the user moved it back. Not what or if anything can/will be done. The user account is over 4 years old with 128 edits, but the editing pattern is that of a newbie. Just want to bring this to some admin's attention. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Also the editor is editwarring over infobox images with no proof of permissions. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I went through and cut out all the various YouTube, IMDB and Instagram "citations" as non-WP:RS, as well as the entire Early Life section which was unsourced WP:BLP content. Which... basically leaves us with three cited facts. The infobox also has BLP material that either needs cited or cut, but at this point, I don't think there's enough sources to sustain an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack from User:DBigXray

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The requirements for the ongoing section of WP:ITN is "the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information". Removal is done with a nomination at WP:ITN/C to build consensus that the article either meets or fails to meet the criteria. I read the Citizenship Amendment Act protests article, determined that at the time it no longer met the criteria and started a good faith nomination for its removal. User:DBigXray made several updates to the target article [197] [198] [199] [200] -- this is wonderful. User DBigXray then posted their updated content in the nom at ITN/C and used that as evidence that "you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove". Being called a liar, especially when using fraudulent evidence meets the criteria of a personal attack. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here asking for bans or sanctions or anything of the sort, just for someone who is uninvolved to point out to User DBigXray that such conduct is inappropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

^^^Yet another reason, if we needed it, to just blank the main page. ——SN54129 14:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:You are so right. WTH, @DBigXray:, you didn't call someone a liar, did you? You are far too experienced to do such a thing. Very disappointed and saddened.-- Deepfriedokra 14:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray called BS on LaserLegs' claims, which he backed up with evidentiary diffs. Grandpallama (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahem, as an ITN regular can I please ask that this not turn into a "bash the Main Page" thread. Also is it just me or does the first diff point to a 2006 version of Jennifer Hudson? Plus I don't see any attempt to discuss this with DBigXray before coming here.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray supported his concern with a series of diffs (declaring them "fraudulent" puts you in the same category of DBigXray, so consider the irony). A personal attack usually involves unsubstantiated claims. I'm unpersuaded by the evidence here, and actually a little more concerned with the behavior of the OP at the conversation in question. Grandpallama (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And a link to the "calling a liar" edit would also be helpful.-- Deepfriedokra 14:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 To be precise, DBigXray didn't call someone a liar. DBigXray said, "you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove". This is not like saying someone is a liar or that someone is lying. There is no evidence that DBigXray attributed the verb "lie" to LaserLegs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The "evidence" DBigXray used to support their claims was added to the target article after I nominated it for removal from ITN. That's the whole point here. The link in which I was called a liar is here [201] --LaserLegs (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove" is quite clearly attributing the use of a lie to me, thus calling me a liar. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: Dif, please.-- Deepfriedokra 14:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The word "liar" appears nowhere in that diff. Moreover, DBigXray was responding to your current claims that nothing had happened since 1/17, which were, indeed, BS. You can't simply ignore changes to the article that occurred between now and the time you nominated it. This is getting close to a boomerang situation. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Actullay, the word is ";lies" in the dif. @DBigXray: C'mon, man.-- Deepfriedokra 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Which...eh. If you provide diffs to support that someone is being less than honest, it might not be great to label them as "lies," but it's different than slinging allegations of dishonesty without providing evidence that someone appears to be deliberately presenting an inaccurate portrayal of events to support their own position. Grandpallama (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The criteria is continuously updated with new, pertinent information, not continuously edited. It's a real struggle explaining the difference. Pasting a mountain of diffs which contain ref fixes and content tweaks is not the same as new information. I actually read the article and evaluated the updates as visible to our readers, and found it lacking. It's ok for me to be wrong there. It's not ok to ignore the distinction between updates and edits and call me a liar. No boomerang at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you should probably let the matter drop. As noted above, you are at least as guilty of every accusation you have leveled against DBigXray, for example where they used the word lies, you used a similar term "fraudulent". Instead of running to ANI to gain some sort of "first move advantage" in what is ultimately an inconsequential and petty dispute, you should probably have just walked away and left the matter alone. Coming here first has only brought your own behavior in the matter under scrutiny as well, and I can't say it makes you look particularly good either. DbigXray should have probably not used the word "lies" that one time. Other than noting that, there's absolutely nothing useful to do here. Recommend we close this thread, WP:TROUT both of you, and get on with our day. --Jayron32 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Per Jayron-- Trout bouth and close' OP merely wanted admonishment for DBigXray. That is given. Nothing more to do.-- Deepfriedokra 14:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, TBH. I'm not here to re-hash the removal discussion, or explain how ITN works. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:54, 23 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.

There once was a laser with the audacity
to accuse the x-ray machine teh Big X of mendacity'-- Deepfriedokra 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)'
called mendacious in turn
it too felt the burn
both trouted for alleging a lack of veracity incivil capacity-- Deepfriedokra 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
+1 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

--2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There once was a limerick with potential

Which unfortunately didn't really scan because it had too many syllables

Or sometimes too few

And anyway -- who knew?

But it does have potential with some work.

EEng 16:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Sarcastic Sid, over there. I thought it was very good. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There once was a droll engineer

who's rhymes were known without peer

his limericks though

had some room to grow

last to write owes the other a beer.

2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:11, 23 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.

• Since the thread was closed quickly while I was away, without allowing me to comment, so I will exercise my right to respond as a defendant here.
  Firstly, LaserLegs made no effort of bringing this to my User talk page before bringing this trivial issue to ANI.

DBigXray called BS on LaserLegs' claims, which he backed up with evidentiary diffs. stated above by Grandpallama is a perfect TLDR; of what I have to say.

The situation is quite simple. WP:ITN says

Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status.

Looking at the updates in the article for the last 7 days until the time when LaserLegs nominated it for removal, shows that more than 43 KBs of updates were added in past week (diff) and then LaserLegs went ahead and claimed it as "No update". If this is not a blatant lie ("untruth" / "outrageously wrong") then what else is it? I showed why that is a lie with evidence in the form of a collapsed summary of content that was added in past week. To be clear, I did not call anyone a liar, I commented on their statement that their assertion that article received no update recently was a lie. (There is a difference.) If you hate your statement being called a lie, may be consider not making outrageously wrong statements. (In hindsight, I could have used "outrageously wrong" instead of "lie" and avoided this sily mess, for that I take the trouting)
Regardless of the content that was added 'after his nomination', there was already enough update to pass the ITN Criteria for ongoing event. Yet LaserLegs continued to speak "untruth" here on ANI claiming that all the said updates was added after he nominated it", going as far as calling the evidence "fraudulent" and it seems no one bothered to check the timestamps and called out the obvious BS in this.
User:Deepfriedokra, I note that you failed to do this simple fact check/timestamp checks on claims by Laserlegs before making a conclusion.
Other than this it appears to me that there are some WP:CIR related issue in LaserLeg's understanding of WP:ITN#Ongoing event criteria and a discussion over it is taking place at WT:ITN --DBigXrayᗙ 20:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you got to share that. Closing again. --Jayron32 12:35, 24 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.

Adenekanfauziyah reported by Ar2332

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Adenekanfauziyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I became aware of this editor today when they "fixed" a [citation needed] with a source that looked superficially reasonably, but in reality had nothing to do with the topic at hand, in a way that only an expert familiar with the material would be aware. I looked at this editor's history, and a high fraction of their edits seem to have been reverted, and of those that remain, some of the ones on non-Nigerian topics seem to be questionable in the same way as the one that I had to revert. It is not quite clear to me if this editor is making their problematic edits in good faith, or else is a particularly subtle troll. Either way, I think their edits need to be checked en masse by someone familiar with the topics at hand, and the misleading ones removed. Ar2332 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I too have come across this editor, and reverted some of their edits where they have replaced {{cn}} tags with citations from Wikipedia mirrors.[202][203] They seem to have poor understanding of what actually constitutes a source, and should be directed to read our policy on this before making any further such edits. RolandR (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

UniSail2 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.

---

UniSail2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has made a lot of personal attacks against me and I think this is enough. Even after he got unblocked he is still making personal attack.

• However, it seems that you are chewing so much Qat right now that is making you half-blind and acting with no sense at all !
• I do not blame him, he is still 21 years old ! I would like to reach an understanding or a compromise here, not a personal conflict. ...  please so I make sure that you are not deaf or something! Because I am really worried about you with the Qat daily consumption !
• @SharabSalam: I do not think the minister was talking about your grandfather,
• a kid is warning me while chewing Qat! Go take care of the Yemeni Civil War related articles, here is not a kindergarten where you swing around with adults!
• A civil discussion with a chewing Qat kid ! However, I hope that someone with authority and common sense removes you from here, because it seems at least three editors find you nothing but a pain in the ass !
• I do not an edit war with a kid talking about mental capabilities while chewing Qat which make humans act like animals. I only feel sorry for your parents or anyone who can bear dealing with you in real life, because you are rude and a liar !
• You are simply rude and a liar!
• You are simply delusional !
• After that he got blocked for 48 hours, his first post in the that talk page was,
• It seems that one editor tries to create a biased documentation of all the topics related to this man. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable, it is clear that he has a middle eastern mentally, where they worship what they like without taking objectivity into consideration
• You could not even hear a basic Arabic conversion, maybe you put the earphones in the wrong holes !.

-You can see all the discussions in this talk page Talk:Qasem Soleimani. I have been civil to this editor all time except that time when he mentioned my grandfather or my parents, I told him that he is not mentally capable of having a civilized discussion that time but that's after he said all of these insults to me. The editor got blocked but is still making personal attacks. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought we talked about attaching diffs to excerpts, SharabSalam, that way we can see if any of these occured before or after I blocked the user for personal attacks... El_C 15:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, there are too many diffs and I am using my phone right now but his comments like the last about about "wrong hole" made me report without any delay. Here are his comments after he got unblocked [204][205]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not mobile diffs — so green! El_C 15:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I modify mobile diffs all the time. I remove Mobile and the .m. part for those who can't read mobile diffs. I learned that when the admin Drmies said long time ago too much mobile diffs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(EC) You can actually fairly trivially convert mobile diffs to diffs which will work as normal diffs on a desktop device. Just remove the m in the URL. Or scroll to the bottom of the diff and click on 'Desktop'. [206] [207] Anyway, the first one is particularly troubling, not just for the personal attack but also for the bigotry "it is clear that he has a middle eastern mentally, where they worship what they like without taking objectivity into consideration." BTW I had a quick look and don't think there is anything else since their block. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Man, closing this report is proving difficult! Yes, I am aware of how to convert the awful green-highlighted mobile diffs to normal diffs.  Already done. El_C 15:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I understood his last comment to be personal attack when he said maybe you put your earphones in the wrong holes. I thought by wrong holes he meant something else. But anyway, after the ANI notice he said that he feels bad about my parents.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:46, 24 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.

User:RyanRReider7795 editing radio station article he/she is employee of

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 would like to bring to your attention, User:RyanRReider7795 who extensively edited KDSJ on 22 January, 2020. This user is an employee at the radio station, per [208] edit. The edits to the page broke formats and removed citations. The edits also inserted a bit of original research. The edits were generally disruptive. I would say this justifies a conflict of interest. Thanks! ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 04:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree on this. Radio station articles are kinda my field. These edits removing standard information from the article, that veers wildly into vandalism territory in my book. There is no reason for the station's tower location, an FCC link, an FCC history link, and a South Dakota station stub template to be removed. None. Clearly the editor is only here for advertising and possibly vandalism reasons. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:24 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

Also, this edit by RyanRReider7795 is a complete copy/paste of the "about" page from the KDSJ website. He did not write that himself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Milonica and Neutralhomer: Looks to me like a new user who does not have any knowledge about editing or policy, I put a COI notice on RyanRReider7795s usertalk page, seems to have stopped editing for now, so hopefully, they will start to engage there, and this can be worked out amicably. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D: You would be surprised, see Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Personal_involvement#WNRI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:59 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Yeesh, I would be surprised. Well I'm still going to try and assume good faith, this already feels a tad too WP:BITEy for my taste, even if it was too some degree deserved. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC) didn't anyone ever tell you pings don't work on IPs :-)

We have a few accounts that are named after their IPs, so I wasn't sure if you were one of those, so I played it safe. :) I guess I'm a little jaded at the moment from the whole Pauley Perrette et al. discussion and it's shining through a little. :S - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:12 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

Good call Neutralhomer. I didn't even catch that. A long time ago, this used to be a permanently ban-able offense. I guess times have changed. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 04:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I just warned them about that, and also dropped off the required ANI notice. Hopefully they'll start to engage soon. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The user has apologized and is being helped, I suggest we close. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:01, 24 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.

IP vandal cluster

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.

---

• 195.246.108.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.246.108.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.246.108.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Are all recent (active in the past two weeks, anyway) vandal-only IPs. Could someone check to see if they, and others, are a sufficiently coherent block to warrant an IP range block. Two of them vandalized the same article in my watchlist, and the third vandalized the same article as one of the other two. (I've made similar requests at WP:AIV, and they've been ignored.

If anyone cares how I discovered this, one of the IPs vandalized an article one my (short)-watchlist. I sometimes check when there is obviously vandalism, whether they also vandalized some articles where it wasn't caught. The first IP's edits were all caught, but some of the articles were vandalized by one of the other IPs. WHOIS reports "Bristol City Council Children & Young People's Services".

And, no, I haven't notified the IPs. The odds of any particular IP returning in the next day is minimal. Do we really have to notify obvious vandals? (Not to give the Vandals a bad name.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I see .227 is already blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, WHOIS says that those IPs belong to the range 195.246.108.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), but the only recent activity I see in that range are the above IPs + .224 (who is also doing the same vandalism), which (if you want a really targeted rangeblock) corresponds to 195.246.108.224/30. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(edit conflict) @Materialscientist: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A /24 range block out-to do it, it wouldn't surprise me, given how network DHCP settings are often configured that cause end users IPs to hop automatically within a range if this was all the work of one person, but I'll take a closer look when I have time, I do agree that for IPs the ANI notice is mostly a formality, but it's usually best to place it anyway just in case even at the risk of being overly bureaucratic. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Update, while placing the notifications I noticed that the entire /23 is registered to Bristol City Council Children & Young People's Services, see here. Anyone who is on the network will almost certainly hop between different IPs in that range periodically. Hard to say if it's one or several users, but I suggest anon-blocking the whole range if disruption continues. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The logged-in edits aren't any better. I range blocked the /24 for a month. If it starts up again, or if the range block turns out to not be wide enough, you can leave a message on my talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:08, 24 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.

User:WALEED3030

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.

---

• WALEED3030 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. Please could someone take a look at this editors contributions. Their talkpage is full of warning messages, and I get a strong feel of both WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE from their edits. Their last batch of edits was to revert edits by User:Spike 'em, with no apparent rationale for this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

They seem to be deliberately inserting factual errors with pretty much every edit. I had reported them at WP:AIV a few days ago, but no action was taken. Dee03 16:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I also reported them at AIV today, which was removed without action because I later logged an SPI (I was not aware of the potential socking until further checking their edits). Even if the SPI fails, the AIV should still be actioned as they are disruptively editing and ignoring large numbers of warnings. Spike 'em (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to add my agreement to all of the above. There are pretty major problems beyond someone not knowing the basics. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to be a bit of a contrarian here for a moment and pump the brakes. I don't see any obvious vandalism or bad faith editing scanning a bunch of random edits in their history, and the warning messages aren't for things I would consider egregiously blockable. If we're going to build a case to block someone like this, we're going to need to see some diffs "look at their contribs" isn't going to cut it. I'm looking at their contribs. I don't see it. I mean, it looks like they're writing a lot of sports statistics, probably running a bit afoul of being excessively detailed in doing so, but they're a new editor and it doesn't look like anyone has tried to explain anything to them. Just a lot of random boilerplate warnings with no follow up and no one reaching out to work with them. No, I'm not comfortable blocking them based on this, unless there's something I missed in my analysis of their contribs history; and there may be, but please provide some diffs for what I may be missing. --Jayron32 17:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This is just plain vandalism. This, this and this (adding Babar Azam as ODI captain on Pakistan national cricket team) are all speculative / unsourced. There is borderline edit warring on creating Babar Azam statistics in International Cricket. He added the same content to Babar Azam a number of times but was reverted. Spike 'em (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Please take a look at the contributions at Afghanistan Premier League and 2018–19 Afghanistan Premier League, with the diffs I posted on their talkpage. There's also been this unexplained date change, and a batch of edits at the 2020 Asia Cup, which were reverted Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI:The SPI has been done and user blocked for a week. Let's see how they get on when it expires. Spike 'em (talk) 17:40, 24 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.

User editing from a U.S. government office, with a long term disruptive agenda

• 155.19.91.37 (talk · contribs)

WP:NOTHERE, per [209]; [210]; [211]; [212]; [213]; [214]; [215]; [216]; [217]; [218]; [219]; [220] and associated edits to Nathan Phillips (activist). Primarily disruptive, trolling and using Wikipedia as a personal soapbox. Perhaps the Defense Department should know if this is the activity of one of its employees. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If we do block them, WP:SIP probably needs to be followed. The DOD is not specifically listed there, but I would be cautious and notify WMF as described there. --Jayron32 19:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, only the first two ranges listed for the U.S. House and the range for the U.S. Senate are tagged with class mw-tag-congressedits on contrib lists. The other ranges listed at WP:SIP have markup no different than any other IP address. Other than having a browser user script tag them (is there one?), where should I go to suggest expanding the tagging to these other ranges? I'd like to be able to style these so I notice them in histories/contribs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Even if they aren't explicitly in the list of sensitive IP addresses, if we believe that the IP address or range is just as sensitive as others listed in the table (or if we believe that they even might be), we should follow the guidelines and procedures as if they were. It's much better to be safe than to be sorry. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I've left a custom warning message on this IP user's talk page (diff, permalink). If further disruption occurs from this IP address, we should treat them like we would any other user. If no admin is willing to do so, I will - just message me and let me know. I've done it before under circumstances that warranted it, and I'm not afraid to do it again. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah: WP:DYK DoD has a lot of IP addresses? I've submitted an edit request for some DoD IPv4 addresses to be added (specifically, the 218,103,808 from their 13 /8 blocks plus the /21 this was from). They own a lot more too, just too scattered about for me to bother finding them (Apparently DoD owns 20% of all IPv4 addresses, but this is only about 5%.) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757 - Good call; thank you for doing that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see a continuation with today's edits. User appears willing to game the system by laying low for extended periods; in this case, going quiet, until today, in the week since the report was posted. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Two edits isn't that much, but even low-level disruption is annoying if it continues over a long enough period. I tend to see this, and I wish there were a nicer way to say this, as a WP:CIR issue rather than deliberate malice. I'm somewhat uncomfortable about reporting employees to to their boss over Wikipedia stuff. It could be long-tenured unionized DOD civilian who would face nothing more than a stern reprimand, but it could also be a a subcontracted service worker for any one of dozens of private DOD contracters in the DC area, wouldn't want to have someone lose a job over this. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It's more than a competence issue when the edits have a political agenda and are accompanied by trolling--if malice is too strong a word, 'deliberate' is not. Agree re: job loss, but the user has presumably read this report by now, and rather than respond here has continued trolling today. Perhaps there's some alternative to shrugging and following the disruptive breadcrumbs from a DoD computer, indefinitely. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I take your point, I guess what I was trying to say is that the real issue appears to be meta:MPOV. But you are right in saying that alternatives to shrugging are needed. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Never seen MPOV before. Very good. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Exodus (Uris novel)

Please could we have temporary protection at Exodus (Uris novel)? An IP has been repeatedly changing a quotation. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Done by Guy— Diannaa (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sandxan

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.

---

Sandxan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Legal threats here and here "stop trolling his page, its vandalism and is punishable by law" by single-purpose editor at Nav (rapper). Magnolia677 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I chose to indefinitely block based on disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 25 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.

Multiple accounts and inexplicable 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.

---

A series of users, who are all obviously the same person, has been making inexplicable edits mainly in List of Indian intelligence agencies. The accounts include: Anti13931 (talk · contribs), Use4012 (talk · contribs), Use4011 (talk · contribs), and Use4022 (talk · contribs). The edits repeatedly insert the text ==Anti Crime Organisation== information by Ministry of Home Affairs and similar, as well as non-functioning links and templates to those. I'm not aware of anything by the name of "Anti Crime Organisation". I've left several messages on the article and user talk pages, but they don't respond, and just keep creating new accounts and making the same apparently-nonsense edits. --IamNotU (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Use4012, Use4011, and Use4022 are  Confirmed to each other, but Anti13931 is more likely to be WP:MEAT. I'll block them and semi-protect the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 24 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.

Legends Football League rebrand

User:Yosemiter is trying to start an edit war. They are continually reversing my edits on Legends Football League with no valid justification. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute, not behavioral, two reverts, I asked you to discuss per WP:BRD, and I gave justifications: neither one is WP:RS and the league is calling 2020 "inaugural". The BroBible one is mostly there to show there is a perception of continuation (and even mentions it as a "new" league in its body). We can take it to the talk page if you want, but unlike the Lingerie to Legends rebrand, you will not find any references to the LFL on the current website. Also it is "mostly" in the same locations (7 of 8). If the league mentions their history with the LFL in the future, then we can fix it". Content disputes should first be discussed at the Talk Page. I have shown I am quite willing to talk about the content, this is not the place for it though. Yosemiter (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yosemiter, I urge you both to familiarise yourselves with the policy on reliable sources. Guy (help!) 23:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I am familiar. The two sources that are mentioned in the content dispute is the WP:PRIMARY league website and a non-RS blog. A blog that you have since rightly removed, although I did explain on the Talk Page and Edit Summaries that it was only there because it was the only source at the time to make the connection between the two leagues (there is at least one better one now). I feel I both responded to the editor's statements of my "continual" reverts (which actually was one content edit based on a balance of the Primary and the non-RS in order to not be WP:SYNTH and one direct revert that I then edited into a rephrase) and I am definitely not trying to start an edit war. They then opened this ANI six minutes after taking the dispute to the talk page, which is not nearly enough time to discuss or respond. ANI is simply not the place to discuss content disputes, especially on a subject that gets very little coverage (pun intended) in the first place. cue to all those the Burma-Shave limericks in the sections aboveYosemiter (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yosemiter, IMO most of the sources in that article are unreliable. Guy (help!) 00:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Agreed, but that is the existence of being niche minor sport or event. For example, there is another separate discussion about the lack of good sources on my talk page about another minor football league. This league has some RS sources mostly covering the oddity of it, enough to pass GNG at least. But as for the comings and goings of the league business, its primary or non-RS only. If we deleted every single thing on that page that could only be referenced via primary or non-RS, then it would either be very dated or have about two paragraphs of prose. Yosemiter (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yosemiter, we don't relax our sourcing standards in order to allow inclusion of things because we like them. If minor leagues are not covered in reliable independent sources they shouldn't be covered in Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 10:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I commented here, but felt the topic is better at my talk page as it is about editing minor leagues in general and nothing ANI related. Feel free to respond there. Yosemiter (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User attacking AFD nom

XeroxKleenex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been accusing S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of having a "vendetta" in several AFDs of Indian organizations the latter nom'd. DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has provided the evidence at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, so I won't hash everything here. ミラP 16:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I've posted an only warning, and will block if it happens again. Thank you for reporting, ミラ. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

Thanks Miraclepine . I did not wanted this to ANI at first so I left a note at their user talk, but looks like XeroxKleenex have never responded to anyone on their talk. I would recommend reverting all of these personal attacks at these AfDs that they have made in a matter of few seconds. This is an obvious WP:TROLling behavior by XeroxKleenex. DBigXrayᗙ 16:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, DBigXray. Blame me if you get flak. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

Done, Bishonen. I have reverted all their NPA violating comments.DBigXrayᗙ 17:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Meta email use by blocked sockmaster

I have once again received a Meta email from blocked sockmaster Zenkaino lovelive regarding his block:

"Dear SlitherioFan2016, I'm Zenkaino lovelive. I'm blocked indefinitely because of abusing multiple accounts, but block evasion is occurred because of someone's misjudgement about 175.223.3.71. This is mobile IP which I didn't use. Block evasion is misjudgement. How can I appeal the checkuser decision that was made and what is the best way that I can do? If you want to reply, please respond via talk page or email."

After receiving this email I went to check for a sockpuppet investigation on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenkaino lovelive/Archive and rather interestingly, found nothing about this particular IP. Furthermore, the only edit I found linked to this address is this edit to a UTRS bot page.

As a side note this user sent me Meta emails a few months ago regarding their block for sockpuppetry and changing WP:SO's period to 2-3 months, so I filed a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive309#Note regarding WP:SO to discuss this. The result was for this user to appeal to the Arbitration Committee should they wish to appeal their block. --SlitherioFan2016 (^Talk/_Contribs) 07:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually if you look at their talk page, User:Berean Hunter did say they used that IP based in part at least, on their own mention of using that IP. [221] From what I can tell, given the obscurity of that edit and that it seemed to be intended to try and speed up their appeal, it seemed to be accepted that it was Zenkaino loveline. Frankly I think they're their own worst enemy. Their evasion seems to be fairly minor and pointless mostly arising because of their impatience. If an unblock request came to AN or ANI, I would probably have supported an unblock, if it had been 6 months since they last socked, they stopped denying their socking (the IPs aside, last time they used a lame my sister did it excuse), and they were not bugging people all over the place for an unblock or about how to get unblocked. None of these should be very hard, I mean maybe there's more than meets the eye since I'm not a CU but AFAICT they're done almost nothing on en.Wikipedia for at least 6 months. But instead their own impatience has ensured they have no chance of an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} I went to take a look at the discussion and found that Zenkaino denied using either of the IPs to make the edits, denying it once again in the email he sent me. However there should first be a check-user and then we can advance with this discussion. Interestingly I found that the user’s talk page and email access had been pulled. --SlitherioFan2016 (^Talk/_Contribs) 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Check declined by a checkuser. Per the access to nonpublic information policy, checkusers will not publicly associate a user with an IP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

They gave their permission to disclose their IP addresses after I asked them. SlitherioFan2016, ST47 is a checkuser who also looked at this when he denied the last request on their talk page. Are two checkusers not enough?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Yes, two Checkusers have given sufficient information that Zenkaino was the one evading their block. However the issue is if Zenkaino continues to resort to cross-wiki attempts to evade their block (in this case, misuse of the email this user function) then they are only pushing the date of their possible unblocking back. I would see a global lock for 6 months with the right to appeal to the Arbitration Committee so that they can take WP:SO --SlitherioFan2016 (^Talk/_Contribs) 21:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You can ask a steward to lock the account, but we can't do that here. Only stewards can lock or unlock accounts, and English Wikipedia has no authority over that process. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@SlitherioFan2016: you could try asking a steward now, but it might be easier if you just post on Zenkaino loveline's talk page making it clear that they are not to email you any more. IMO if you do so and they email you again, it should be easy to convince a steward to lock the account, and any future accounts they use to email you. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Done, and also told them to watch their cross-wiki actions. --SlitherioFan2016 (^Talk/_Contribs) 19:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Pauley Perrette

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.

---

More eyes are needed at this talk page for an actress who tweeted what I see as an ambiguous comment about asexuality. The most lengthy and contentious section by far is "Coming out on Twitter" but the controversy is discussed in other sections as well. I am being accused by Neutralhomer of an overly strict interpretation of BLP policy and would appreciate feedback here and input on that talk page. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't say overly strict, but more wearing blinders. But more eyes are needed....lots more! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:49 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

• As expected, Cullen is correct at Talk:Pauley Perrette. Apparently the article subject tweeted "Aces, it is actually me" and the tweet was used to reference "Perrette came out as asexual on Twitter on January 20, 2020" (diff). If a secondary source comments on the significance of the tweet, information on that might be added. Sorry to those who believe aces is unambiguous but Wikipedia needs a reference that does not need interpretation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, So we can't use sources that say 'ace'? They have to say 'asexual'? Adam9007 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Now, maybe I will get an answer to this this time: Ms. Perrette followed 11 asexual accounts on Twitter extremely recently. She has "Ace" in her bio. "Ace", not "Aces" is a common slang term for "Asexual". With that, and using WP:TWITTER, an extension of WP:V, is that enough? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:44 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

Not to be overly bureaucratic, but shouldn't this go to WP:BLPN first, this does not appear to be a chronic and intractable problem. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

shouldn't this go to WP:BLPN first it has been. Adam9007 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam9007: So naturally in addition to being the wrong forum, the discussion is now being forked between at least three different locations, seems like a good idea. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

An admin action on a fully protected article was taken (to remove a category). That is why this discussion was started. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

meh, disputes over admin actions needn't automatically come here, often concerns can be resolved on a user-talk page. Admins do of course sometimes post to have their own actions reviewed by others for propriety when contentious, but usually that is done at WP:AN, I know, I know, bureaucracy. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

So, copy the thread over to AN (or BLPN) if you want, IP editor. I am asking for feedback and I think my request is legitimate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen (twice in one night, I'm as shocked as you are), can we just stick to one forum and go with it please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:44 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No, more moving would just make this worse at this point, it was more a general observation for future reference. Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the editing through full-protection in the BLP context to restore a pre WP:EW version, no opinion on the merits of the content dispute itself. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It is at a pre-edit version now. Just so everyone knows, the page is available to be edited. It is not page protected. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:57 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

• I'm done for the night, if anyone has questions or concerns for me, I will be back up after 12 Noon EST (I work tomorrow, 1/23). I will check this page and respond to what I can before I leave. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

Just for everyone's information, this drama has extended to Emilie Autumn, Janeane Garofalo, and Mary Cagle. Adam9007 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

And fer the benefit of those wishing to participate in the drama, the appropriate venue is a thread I started on WP:BLPN [222] 165.120.15.119 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe NedFausa's actions and language in these discussions aren't helping matters. He displays a clear disregard for WP:NPOV and is showing a bias against those who identify as asexual. I would like to also point out that his account is brand new. Started on December 13, 2019 and, as of this writing, he has 708 edits. But he has a clear understanding of Wikipedia structure, policy, stuff that a brand new editor shouldn't. I believe that NedFausa isn't a new editor, but a sock of a blocked editor. Too many red flags there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

• If a secondary reliable source commented on the fact that a verified Twitter account had followed 11 asexual accounts and had "Ace" in her bio, an article on the person might mention that she had followed 11 asexual accounts and had "Ace" in her bio. For the article to assert that the person was asexual, a strong self-declaration would be required (a declaration that did not require interpretation), or a clear verification in a secondary reliable source. The RS would have to say that the fact that this specific person had "Ace" in her bio means she is asexual. Another point is that there is no requirement for Wikipedia's article to have every detail knowable about a person. Anyone wanting their Wikipedia article to describe them as asexual only needs to make a clear self-declaration of that. Further, there is no rush—the article can wait for secondary reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 24 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.

Peramburkumar

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.

---

Apart from an early interest in SEO, User:Peramburkumar's entire history has been to insert links to promote what are presumably his own businesses. On the other hand, the activity has been infrequent and low-volume. I have warned him on his talk page. Block now or wait for another occurrence?

1. Perambur Kumar Blog Consultant Services, Oct 2014.
2. Link to PeramburkumarInc on G+, Oct 2014.
3. Links to promotional page by R. K. Kumar with photos captioned "Perambur Kumar @ [domain]". Nov 2018.
4. Citation to another promotional page with same characteristics, Nov 2018.
5. Modified URL of reference to point to same real-estate web site as above, whilst retaining the previous displayed text. Nov 2018.
6. Another link, same as (4), June 2019.

Pelagic (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Pelagic, as far as I can tell the editor last edited on June 2019, and your warning on their talk page is the first one they've gotten since 2014. Since this is a stale issue, just leave it and file a new report if they come back and continue. creffett (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks creffett. —Pelagic (talk) 21:04, 25 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.

Olivia Koopa Plude

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.

---

• Olivia Koopa Plude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continuing to remove CSD tags from Just Play LLC, despite warnings; continuing to add the admin topicon to their user page despite not being one (and being reverted); talk page is a morass of warnings, CSD notices, hoax warnings, etc. Probably WP:NOTHERE. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I was filling a report while Deacon was compiling the information above. In addition to the behavior showcased above, Olivia's talk page is filled with other, similar warnings from a number of other editors; they include warnings about threatening to block other editors, vandalizing articles, and creating hoaxes. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering this user's history of multiple warnings for hoax, vandalism and incoherent editing, I have blocked them indefintely per WP:NOTHERE. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

From their User Page - "Hi, I’m Back Guys!, My Name Is Olivia Koopa Plude". Hmmmm. Narky Blert (talk) 21:57, 25 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.

User:JonathanX0X0

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 want someone to pay attention to suspicious activity of this user: JonathanX0X0

His pattern of contributions shows he is a paid editor who hasn't declared he is not. Most of the user's contributions have been spam about the companies and were subject speedy deletions processes in the past. --199.79.46.44 (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

For starters, as it says in big ol red letters atop the page, you gotta notify someone when you start an ANI thread. I see someone else has done that for you. Secondly, what evidence do you have here? What pages do you think he was paid to edit? Why do you think that? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: It's unlikely that 199.79.46.44 will be replying as they've only made two edits, or their IP may have changed, and depending on DHCP settings that can happen as often as every few hours. It looks as though the concern arises from the numerous speedily deleted articles that JonathanX0X0 wrote, as evidenced by their talk page, which seem mostly to have been about non-notable companies, there's also a COI notice that was placed by Jimfbleak, ultimately am admin may have too look into this as the knowing the content of the deleted articles will be necessary to fully assess this case, however as they were all G11'd and in one case {{db-multiple}} for G11 and G12 this does not look good. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• After looking over the talk page, some of the articles, a discussion or two, I have decided to block the editor indefinitely, also because they choose to not respond to talk page questions and notifications. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 26 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.

Russian vandal adding Saibogu Drakon to credits

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.

---

Somebody using Russian IPs has been disrupting music articles by adding a false entry in the personnel section listing a musician named Saibogu/Drakon. The Russian IPs have also been doing a lot of genre warring, and they sometimes add dates and (curiously) times to video productions.[223] Should we add a vandal filter or rangeblock the IPs? Below is a list of IPs that I know about. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• 85.140.0.218 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.1.148 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.2.228 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.3.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.4.162 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.5.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.5.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.7.162 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

If these are the only disruptive IPs they can be covered by a rangeblock of Special:Contributions/85.140.0.0/20. Suggest a one-month duration. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact a /21 block will do, it's a mobile range so likely the work of one individual, although only the users with truesight will be able to confirm a device match. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree that a /21 is a better choice. I've now blocked Special:Contributions/85.140.0.0/21 for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 26 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.

Unique problem on my User page: unwanted photo added, not in the page edit history. This is a first!

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.

---

Greetings all. While doing some vandal patrolling in the past few hours, I have mysteriously aquired a photo of a male individual from Commons on my User page. I assume my work annoyed one of the vandals I reverted in that period. What is unique about this vandal's attack is the lack of an addition to my User page edit history, telling me who edited my page. The photo also appears in all the older versions of my page. Quite the vandal! Any ideas how I can fix my page, and more importantly, how we can prevent this type of attack? I would also appreciate a link to the WMF tech squad to report this to them. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem was caused by this edit to a userbox. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. So every member of that WikiProject that used the userbox had the same photo added. Interesting! Many thanks for the quick response! Update: I have nominated the vandal's promotional User page for speedy deletion. Jusdafax (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Vandal? This looks far more likely like someone trying to create an autobiography but seriously confused. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

He put his photo on a major userbox template, which is vandalism in my view. What fooled me was the lack of edit history and the photo outside the userbox. I had not seen that before. As for his autobio stuff, others have removed it. Case closed. Jusdafax (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of upgrading protection on that userbox to template protected, as the previous semi protection didn't prevent this incident. Also moved the documentation out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

And now his mugshot is forever immortalised on Wikipedia. - J man708 (talk) 13:11, 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.

Please block ASAP

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.

---

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

Please block this user as soon as possible. I have reported him to WP:AIV however it's been over half an hour with no response. They have since went on a rampage, creating vandal pages and blanking my userpage with this "hunging" vandalism. funplussmart (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Done I've given them an indef for vandalism. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:58, 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.

Help with understanding why my edit was deleted

Hi folks, I'm a new user and made an edit which I thought was important because it rectified a serious misrepresentation. And also met all the criteria - was accompanied by a proper 3rd party source that has been around 25 years and has a wide circulation etc. I was correcting an unsubstantiated claim for which there was no source. But it was deleted by a user then sent me a message telling me all about what I should not do, etc. etc. And offered no reason for his edit. I think his person wants there to be a slant in the page. Would appreciate help. Thanks Jp7311 (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311 This sort of question would be more appropriate for the Teahouse or Help Desk. This page is for discussing the conduct of other users- and you must notify any user you are discussing here of the existence of this discussion. If you are accusing someone of a conflict of interest, that should be brought to WP:COIN. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay yes, I do think their action was wrong so I will inform them now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp7311 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jp7311: There's a message on your talk page about not copying from copyrighted sources. As a result of your plagiarism, you introduced promotional material onto the site, which we don't use.

That's why your edits were reverted. You are in the wrong here, don't try to sugarcoat it or turn it around on other users. Learn from this experience because keeping up this kind of behavior will not turn out well for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, one of my edits was deleted because I made a mistake - not realizing that a quotation (even with quotation marks) from a newspaper would qualify as copyright violation. Point taken and lesson learned. But that's not why I'm here, that's your assumption. I'm here about another edit. Am I not entitled to be here? Also, I don't really appreciate the threat "this kind of behavior will not turn out well for you". May I ask what specific behavior of mine has been objectionable and what exactly the consequences are that you threaten me with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp7311 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the edit in question. But there are others that establish my claim further. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=937269030 Jp7311 (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

They did the same thing to someone else also recently - deleted their content and the perfectly reliable 3rd party source. In my case the source they deleted is from mainstream news media that's been around as I said 25 years. And in both cases no reason was offered. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=924355224

So attempts by people to bring fact to the page are not acceptable. But when they want, they can bring the most dodgy of sourced material such as below, and somehow that's okay? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=919727242

Please also pay attention to the content in Harshil169 edit via the 3rd diff - and how it is negated by the user contribution in the 2nd diff. There seems to be a strong bias here and they are seriously lacking a neutral POV. Anyways, I'm here about my edit. Would love to know what people here think. I'm a newbie yes, but this seems plain wrong. Thanks much! Jp7311 (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Jp7311 (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of the posts in this thread strike me as distinctly WP:BITEy. A new editor has asked for help. Yes, the post might be in the wrong forum. Yes, OP may have violated WP's copyright policy or have broken other guidelines. If OP is a newbie, there is absolutely no reason to condemn them for that. We were all newbies once. OP's Talk Page has been flooded with warning notices, and has had no welcome message. OP has asked for help and advice, and deserves better than this. Narky Blert (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:ANI is often the first noticeboard or internal discussion page that new users find, I think this is because some of the user talk templates mention it, and it's otherwise better advertised than all of the other ones. I dropped off a welcome message and tried to point them in the right direction, hopefully that'll help clear things up. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Copyvios can waste significant amounts of time of other contributors. I don't think there's anything wrong with being clear to editors that it's completely and utterly unacceptable to introduce copyvios, even if it was done in good faith, and that it's something you must learn about very fast. Also the editor was already told they're at the wrong place fairly politely. Rather than taking that advice on board and saying 'my bad' and heading off to somewhere more appropriate, they continued to ask off-topic questions here which was only when others started to be stronger with them. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE user

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.

---

Patriotpk (talk · contribs) is a WP:NOTHERE trolling racist user, per these diffs: [224][225] and should be blocked accordingly. Orientls (talk) 16:13, 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.

Robert Archibald

Biography of a recently deceased athlete, replete with WP:LP violations re: personal life, manner of death, etc. Because there's really no bottom for trolls here. Requesting rev/deletion, probably going back days, and page protection moving forward. Multiple user blocks wouldn't be bad, either. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Ohnoitsjamie took care of it. However, defamatory BLP violations generally shouldn't be reported here. See WP:REVDELREQUEST or the instructions in the big red warning about requesting revision deletion here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Ram

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 disambiguation page, persistently commandeered by a WP:SPA to post a promotional article on a non notable musician. Don't know whether the the new user ought to be blocked yet, but I'd appreciate more eyes before this goes to edit warring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• And it really doesn't help when a careless patroller undoes my reversion and issues a warning template. Let's use rollback a bit more judiciously. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(ec) : I (a non-admin) have this on my watchlist. I don't believe there is need for admin action yet. Also pinging @CAPTAIN RAJU: as he restored the content; I suspect that was a mistake though. Dorsetonian (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• • • Thanks. I'm sure it was a mistake, but it's also the second time this week CAPTAINRAJU has reverted me in error and gifted me with a warning, and doesn't return to acknowledge the error. My assumption is I'm not alone. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was an injudicious use of WP:HUGGLE, and the Cap'n has form for this quick-fire rollbacking. Just from their edits today: [226], [227], [228], [229] aren't obvious vandalism. And this removes the article's lead section—restoring a {{no lead}} tag when the prevous edit had written a lead and then removed the tag! Incredible. ——SN54129 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for ping me.I mistakenly revert this page.I have read the rollbacking policy well.I will be careful and keep this my mind in the next time rollbacking or using huggle/stiki.and my huggle software has some technical problem.thanks again.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever technical problems the software you are using may have doesn't take away from the fact that you are responsible for any edits you make with it, so you should check the results before saving. If you don't do so then you shouldn't be using such software, Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Serial Number 54129 and Phil Bridger. I didn't come hear primarily to complain about CAPTAIN, but the quick reversion and warning worked as an accelerant. Sometimes opting to do this anonymously is a pain, but not using the tools also offers extra time to double check an edit and edit history before acting. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

CAPTAIN RAJU, From personal experience, I caution that even when using software, quality is more important than quantity. Making 10 reverts a minute isn't very useful if if you get one wrong. The software exists to make things faster, but doesn't mean the process should be faster. Huggle speeds things by showing you lots of information in one place and by filtering out obvious non-vandalism, not by the fact that you could make a revert every second if you wanted. So slow down a bit. If it isn't obvious vandalism, like inserting curse words, take a moment. Open the page, see if there is context that explains the edit. If the edit needs reverting, but its an edge case, leave a personal explanatory message to the editor you've reverted. Do remember, if you have to be brought back to ANI, the community may decide to revoke your rollback permissions, which would be nasty for all involved. From one captain to another, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

We all make mistakes in reverting from time to time, I think CAPTAIN RAJU has acknowledged a lapse in attentiveness, and stated an affirmative intent to exercise more care in the future I don't think there's any need to address it any further. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:04, 26 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.

User:197.87.101.249 refuses to DROPIT

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.

---

The IP 197.87.101.249 (and an alt IP) has edit warred on the BLP article Bret Hart and tried to remove cited information, three experienced editors rejected their changes but they kept on, which resulted in it getting protected, since this article is a frequent target of POV editing. He was warned several times and told to DROPIT, but removed the warnings and accused it of being "trolling from bigot". Since then the editor has continued to rage on the articles talk page for days, trying to discredit every single source brought up to counter their opinion, they don't seem to understand what a reliable source is or how Wikipedia opperates.★Trekker (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Another opportunity for editors to take a gander at the walled garden of in-universe wrestling articles. EEng 15:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a problem that needs to be adressed (I have tried several times) but not one at all related to this issue. Please stay on this topic.★Trekker (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The article (presently locked) reads like a teen fanzine, rather than an encyclopedia article. I merely pointed out that the article needs more NPOV. The person who 'reported' me, another editor, IMMEDIATELY accused me of being "a Bret hater", and then laid into personal insults. Any and all suggestions to add npov wete dismissed as "hatred" from "bruised egos". They also said that I was "just the latest Bret hater"(or words to that effect) who had suggested adding some criticism to the subject (referenced and verified of course). The constant accusations of "hatred", the rejection (with personal insults) towards people IN the wrestling business (such as Al Snow, Bad News Brown, and Hulk Hogan ) make it clear that these two users don't want a consensus, by discussion and verifiable sources. They want THEIR version to remain, and accuse ANY discussion of it as being motivated by "hate". Yes, they have ONE source (from someone with no legitimate connection to the wrestling business). But, there are multiple sources to the contrary, which they dismiss as being motivated by "bruised egos". I request actual Wiki admins look into this article in depth, and try to bring it up to the proper Wikipedia standards, rather than the teeny blog it reads like now. I attempted this, but was met with hostility and accusations. 197.87.101.249 (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It got protected because you were edit warring and ignoring when people told you to stop.★Trekker (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a one sideded edit war, one sided vandalism yes, but an edit war accusation goes both ways, as the other side of the "War" failed to deescalate, MPJ-DK (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

False. One can edit war against several parties while they are simply trying to support the consensus.★Trekker (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Where was that consensus acheived? Please back up your words by linking to a place where editors in general (not just the 2-3 of you) have achieved said consensus? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The talk page of Bret Harts article is widley open for you to see. (Also pretty sure it's been brought up on the wrestling project before.) There have been several sections of the page where this subject of the Legacy section has been talked to death already, every time it's resulted in most people not seeing major issue with it. It honestly feels like beating a dead horse by now. I told the IP this as well more than once.★Trekker (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep the page is not hidden, but I do not seen an actual "consensus" - I do see references to where "it has already been established", but that's again a reference to this apocryphal "consensus" and not showing where it was achieved. At the moment the "Consensus" seems to be a hammer that gets pulled out to knock anyone who disagrees with you over the head. Since you cannot produce evidence of such a "consensus" then there isn't one - which means that a discussion on the matter should not just be dismissed. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

And it means it's not just a matter of "removing vandalism" or whatever the explanation for why this isn't an edit war at all (since there is no one-sided edit wars; those are called "stopping vandalism"). MPJ-DK (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because you keep claiming that it doesn't make it true. Many issues are deemed "edit wars" because one person with a fringe opinion won't accept that their opinion is fringe.★Trekker (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hart has done the EXACT same thing, yet I wouldn't advocate for adding his "Flair/HHH/Hogan sucked" comments to any of their articles. Because this is an ensyclopedia, not a place to highlight celebreties personal issues. It's not notable that wrestlers trash talk each other, it happens every day and is not of any interest to anyone outside of a gossip forum. Does anyone who is interested in Ric Flair life and career really need to hear about every single colleague he's pissed off?★Trekker (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't just say "journalist don't count because they don't work in the industry". That's not how anything works.★Trekker (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the way it should work is that "journalists" shouldn't count unless they don't work in the industry, because most "sources" on pro wrestling are artificial apparatus of the kayfabe machine. It's as if we used the Daily Planet as a source, passing its reports of Lex Luthor's villainy as if he were a real person. Here's the entirety of a random source from the Bret Hart article:

Bret 'Hit Man' Hart was giving away a ton of size and strength to Diesel, and to make matters even tougher for the challenger, it was a No Disqualification Match. Diesel worked on Bret s back early on in the match by sending him into the steel post and smashing him with a chair, but the Hit Man countered by working on the big man's knees, securing him in the Figure Four Leglock, trying to take away his mobility. The Excellence of Execution was merciless. He tied Diesel's ankles around the ring post with a cable and demolished his legs with a steel chair. Diesel somehow got out of the predicament and used the same cable to choke out the Hit Man. Moments later Diesel knocked Bret off the apron, sending him crashing through the announce table. It's very common nowadays for the announce table not to make it through a pay-per-view event, but this was one of the first times such an incident occurred. Diesel brought Bret back into the ring and tried to give him the Jackknife Powerbomb, but Bret was able to hook him in a small package for the shocking win and the WWE Championship. Diesel showed his frustrations after the match by leaving Bret for dead after two monstrous powerbombs.

Here's another:

Just one year earlier, Shawn Michaels was still a member of The Rockers. Now he was the Intercontinental Champion and had his opportunity against WWE Champion Bret Hit Man Hart. These two would of course go on to have the most infamous match in Survivor Series history five years later. Michaels was still coming into his own as a singles competitor, but you could already tell that he was destined for greatness. After some back and forth action, HBK was able to hit the Sweet Chin Music and a suplex, but only got a two-count. The Showstopper then went to the top rope, but Bret caught him coming off and turned it into the Sharpshooter for the win.

The idea that one of our articles would cite such nonsense is a joke. Once we realize that such "sources" as are simply post-hoc scripts from fake "matches", not sources on anything, then 95% of pro wrestling topics lose their notability, the corresponding articles can be deleted, people who think that pro wrestling is real can go celebrate it on Wikia or Fandom or wherever, and the rest of us can be left in peace instead of continually refereeing these dumb disputes. EEng 18:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Good thing the wrestling project does not and never had regard WWE.com to be a reliable source......★Trekker (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that his "Legacy" section is all rah-rah pro Bret is ridiculous and does not represent the sum total of people's views on Hart. I agree with the NPOV problem being pointed out here. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The legacy section is fine. It's cited and does reflect the reality that hart is one of the most highly regarded wrestlers ever and there is little critisism around Hart that doesn't centre around how he handled the Screwjob, which is covered more in that article. We can't go around adding random comments from every wrestler who's had an issue with one another, Hart himself has said some incredibly negative things about other wrestlers both as people and as and as professionals, I don't think that means we should add those things to Hulk Hogan, HHH or Ric Flairs articles. It's not "POV" to refuse to add fringe negative opinions. For example people like Ric Flair and Kevin Nash have blasted Hart for a number of things when they were unfriendly with each other, and then when they've made up and become friend again they completly contradict themselves and act like they never said those thing at all. Hart has done this as well, their negative comments are in reality often the result of gossip and trash talking, not remotly anything like the professional critique actors or artists often can give, the wrestling industry is more like the rapper scene with people having constant "beef" with each other, it just not notable and using it would be pretty UNDUE. Adding a bunch of negative stuff to a page where there is a lot of praise is not what neautrality is. Should we go and add a bunch of "I think he's overrated" and "not all of his films were box office hits" info to Daniel Day-Lewis article to "balance it out"? If any of you people could actually summon up a respectable journalistic source that states "Hart has been widely criticised for _____" then maybe you'd have a point, but so far I have seen no one do that.★Trekker (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    • You are not talking to some newbie wrestling fan here, I've been watching since 1989 - it is not fine, it is a total whitewash where anything remotly negative is taken out. I know there are plenty of negative views on Bret - just like there are plenty of positive views. But they are not represented in the article. Argue all you want, but the mere fact that you dismiss anyone with a negative view of Hart as "gossip" or "Undue" helps build the case that the IP was trying to make. Oh and be a lamb and remove anything positive that does not come from a "respectable journalistic source", after all that seems to be the criteria for excluding the negative. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Btw - your argument becomes invalid when 50% or more of the article is comments from other wrestlers etc. saying positive things , which is apparently okay? The fact that you present the argument clearly reveals your personal bias and ownership tendencies of the article.` MPJ-DK (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Back up your claims then if you feel you know the truth, find a reliable source that proves Hart has actually not widely highly regarded within his profession and that those criticism is widely held. So far no one has put in the effort to provided anything that isn't some random YouTube video of other famous wrestlers babeling, which all of them do and all the time about everyone else. And yes, I do feel comfortable dismissing most shoot videos as just trash talking and gossiping, because that is what it is. We could fill an entire entire Wikipedia Projects full of articles with all the random mudslinging wrestlers have done trought the years, its just not noteworthy and possibly violatinos of the BLP guidlines. Bret Hart saying "Ric Flair sucked" (actual quote), doesn't belong in Ric Flair's article either, nor does Brets constant "unsafe worker" jabs at Seth Rollins belong on Rollins article. And the main issue with the IP that the got the page protected is because he edit warred and ignored the sources he didn't like that prove that Hart is regarded as a draw. Saying "why don't you remove that other stuff then" is a bad arugument, I rarely edit Harts article anymore outside of trying to keep vandalism away, it's not my personal responsibilty to police what mainstream positive opinions are worth keeping around compared to others, it's blatantly clare that the very negative ones are fringe and not backed up by anything substantial. Again, should we insert "overrated" comments into every actor or singers article too if they're regarded as some of the best of all time, for the sake of "neautrality".★Trekker (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Read what I wrote - 50% or more in the legacy section is from other wrestlers, all of it positive, none of it negative. Your claim about "only journalistic sources" are clearly disproven in .5 seconds. The fact that there are tens of wrestlers commenting and all positive, nothing even hinting at a diffrent opinion (when such oppions exist) is clearly not neutral. Did I make a claim of him being "widely highly regarded"? No, but reading the article it looks like he is universally regarded as such, which isn't true. I don't want to get drawn into your "is he a draw" side-railing when the NPOV argument goes way beyond that. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
          • I read exactly what you wrote. And again, it's not my personal responsibility to take care of what positive information is valuable in that section (pretty sure there are other people who edit that article more often than me), and it's pretty much OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway. And you also seem incapable of grasping the concept that personal comments that coincide with the mainstream widely accepted point of view are valuable to demonstrating the the sources which back up the claim of it being the widely accepted point of view. When the truth is "DeNiro is widely regarded as one of the best actors of all time", comments from his fellow actors which reinforce that can be valuable in the same way an image can be valuable to an article, they provide an example.★Trekker (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
            • You made the argument for exclusion, but the article contradicts that argument - doesn't help you look neutral in any way. Especially when it is apparently your personal responsibility to exclude the negative (since that's the only thing you take action on). MPJ-DK (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
              • Wow, talk about a laughable misconstruction and twisting of words. It's not my "personal responsibility" to do a single damn thing on that article, I choose to only have the page on my watchlist for vandalism (not "negative stuff") because that's what I feel like doing because that page is CONSTANTLY plagued with vandalism. Wikipedia is a hobby to me, I do what I feel is worth with my time, and being some guardian of a specific section is not appealing to me.★Trekker (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                • So you chose to label any negative opinion as vandalism, while all positive opinions get a pass. Sure that makes sense. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                  • No. Has never hapened. Removing information which is cited in the article (which is what hapened in this case) is disruptive.★Trekker (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
              • Also, why do you ignore the "draw" issue, it was the issue which started this whole thing. It seems rather relevant to me. The IP was the one who decided that apperently journalistic sources were just "marks" and we needed to insert more negative YouTube videos to prove Hart wasn't a draw.★Trekker (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                • And I made no argument about "Draw", I made the argument that the article is crazy one-sided where anything remotely negative has been dismissed as "gossip" etc. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                  • Now you're just confusing argments with each other.★Trekker (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Stop bickering about wrestling! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • NinjaRobotPirate What's your adviced solution as an admin? I don't think anyone would mourn if some admins just stepped in and decided. It's what happened with the "In wrestling" section if I don't missremember.★Trekker (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Nope that was the outcome of a wiki-wide RFC, not an admin action - they don't take action on content disputes. And I for my part is bowing out of this, I feel like I've taken the focus off the original issue - the edit warring that led to the article being protected. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note I contacted the wrestling project to get some more input, because right now it's pretty much just two people here.★Trekker (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell from the opening comment, this is a behaviour issue on behalf of an IP. (unless I've misunderstood?) It does look like a content dispute above. I am all for cleaning up the universe (or reduce the kayfabe) from these items, but that isn't really what is on dispute. The article was RPPed, and been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page. I suggest that as this has come to ANI, that the actual content isn't what should be discussed. We don't need additional comments on this, which should be at either the talk page or WT:PW. (Non-admin comment) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • It seems the IP has been blocked now by an admin not involved here. Not sure what that leaves this section.★Trekker (talk) 18:57, 26 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.

Deliberate well orchestrated tactics to spread pov and fringe theories.

• Dalhoa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Land of Punt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Horn of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I would like to report a group of people who deliberately spread pov and fringe theories to undermine the Encyclopedia. The IP 2601:405:4A00:75F0:AC96:7624:1296:CA55 recently vandalised Wikipedia and I reverted the vandalism but the Land of Punt vandalism was not reverted, this was the second time this happened and editor Doug Weller using it. The tactics are not only vandalism 1 and 2 they also use stalking, threats of report, stonewalling, repeated edits meant to make editing very difficult for others to improve the Encyclopedia and probably others. I would like the committee to revert that vandalism as mainstream scholarship and science locate Punt in the Horn of Africa and do something about their tactics which undermine the improvement of the Encyclopedia. Thank you.Dalhoa (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to the IP who told me about this thread. There's clearly no vandalism here but a content dispute coupled with lack of good faith and personal attacks by User:Dalhoa. When they reverted sourced material at Land of Punt I started a discussion at WP:RSN#Are these apparently reputable Egyptologists used at Land of Punt fringe? where it was agreed that at least some of the material he calls fringe was well sourced. I commented there that I thought this was a POV problem, pointing to two ANI discussions starated by User:Skllagyook.[230] and [231] - note the focus on the Horn of Africa. Dalhoa, although notified and indeed urged to take part in both ANI and RSN discussions did not. I'm pinging User:EdJohnston who tried to get Dalhoa to reply to the ANI discussion and User:Flyer22 Reborn who also participated there. I rose some conduct issues at the 2nd ANI discussion which I'll repeat below:

"I see some conduct issues here. At Talk:Horn of Africa Dalhoa created Talk:Horn of Africa#Jebel Irhoud in Morocco obsession (the title itself is not civil) and accused Skllagyook of promoting/favoring a particular region. They accused User:Nezahaulcoyotl of the same thing although he hasn't edited the article although he did edit Jebel Irhoud in Sept/Oct. here they accuse Skllagyook of bias and lack of objectivity. Then Dalhoa (who I just noted has made only 215 edits) wrote "Your changes are not in good faith, your are mixing deliberately the fossils and spreading inaccurate and erroneous information around. The only reason you wanted to keep that section is because the article mentions Morocco and the dating coincides with your Jebel Irhoud dates, you were not adding it to mention East Africa and South Africa coalescence, the quote I added from your academic paper mentions coalescence of South and East-African source populations but you are not interested in that," and more in the same vein until the thread stopped in November. Dalhoa then started a new thread asking "if there are any Editors/Administrators doing editings in the background?" and then "If there are Admins with their own political agenda using this page as their playground we need to know." This seems to be about an accusation that the history of the article had been tampered with. Admin User:Maile66 tried to explain the protection but their explanation wasn't accepted.

This month there have been similar problems at Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans. Here Dalhoa accuses Skllagyook of stalking and deliberately spreading misinformation. Then here[232] of spreading misinformation and "clearing(which seems to be a typo for "clearly" attempts to inhibit accurate information,". Further examples of this sort of comment followed but I won't bore people with them. ... Doug Weller talk 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If you look at User talk:Dalhoa you'll find continued personal attacks on editors and lack of good faith and at least one more example of him calling an editor vandal when User:Arminden made this edit.[233] Looking at Dalhoa's edit summaries you can see he uses the accusation of vandalism for content disputes several times.[234] Doug Weller talk 10:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The Land of Punt talk page was archived today for the first time for some reason but if you go look at the archive you would find that it is you using the word fringe for Sri Lanka and then it is added as a location along side Arabia, indeed both are fringe and they should not be there, I am not a lawyer, I am just trying to improve the Encyclopedia using mainstream scholarship and science, pov and fringe theories should not be promoted through vandalism or any other tactics to misinforme the users. Dalhoa (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to review how Wikipedia defines vandalism, specifically what is not vandalism. This appears to be a content dispute that others have made attempts to resolve, some ongoing. Throwing around the word "vandalism" when the edits clearly are not vandalism is disruptive in itself. You may also want to read WP:BOOMERANG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

And I've made it clear to him that I'm not particularly concerned about Sri Lanka, but but reliable sources do discuss Arabia, whether or not they think it's the likeliest location is beside the point. But my main point is Dalhoa's personal attacks - his battleground attitude makes it impossible to have a collegial discussion and he seems unwilling to compromise or unable to understand our policies. If this continues I think he'll need a topic ban from articles discussing the Horn of Africa, which seems to be his passion. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug with all due respect I've had a collegial discussion with Skllagyook but it deteriorated with his pov pushing of Jebel Irhoud and even now if you try to make any change in a line in any Wikipedia page around that topic you are hounded down, you are doing the same thing as Skllagyook and pushing a pov not supported by mainstream scholarship and science and please people need to stop making threats and character assassination with boomerang and others, as for Arminden edit, if I had written in the Jebel Irhoud wiki things like For supporters of the concept that Jebel Irhoud represents .... I would have probably gotten a warning on my wiki page. I think people need to accept at certain point mainstream scholarship and science and not pushing pov. If you want to say Punt had trades with Arabia in the Horn of Africa section I have no objection, you can even say they had trade with Sri Lanka or even mention the spice trade but people need to accept mainstream scholarship and science and stop pov pushing Arabia and other places as location. Dalhoa (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There's the problem again, accusing me of pov pushing for suggesting that the various locations that have been suggested in reliable academic sources should be mentioned in the article - not as the definite location, simply as suggestions made in the past. Meeks is a reliable source but looking at it further we need statements such as this quote "Based on the textual evidence, other recent suggestions about the location of the land of Punt include Kenya (Wicker 1998) and Arabia (Meeks 2003), but there are problems with these arguments (see Kitchen 2004: 29—30)." But that depends on Dalhoa dropping the stick. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Again with all due, if everyone uses the reliable source claim to insert a fringe or minority view in articles then it would create a dangerous precedence, it is the reason WP:NPOV has the word significant in it: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Dalhoa (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have warned Dalhoa on their page that they will be blocked if they post any further aspersions and personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC).

@Dalhoa: I don't know what you think "significant" means. Could you explain if, for instance, Meeks' view on the Arabian Peninsula is significant in your eyes and if not, why not? Doug Weller talk 09:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Meeks view is fringe on the topic, the only reason his is kept on the wiki is because there is a bias for the Middle East, Kathryn A. Bard and Rodolfo Fattovicht looked at all the sources including Meeks and they concluded that a location of Punt in southern Arabia seems less probable. If people want to claim his view is significant for Arabia and the Levant they can maybe create a Disambiguation page for a Land of Punt in the Middle East and cite Meeks but when it comes to the topic at hand, mainstream scholarship and science put the Land of Punt in HoA and Kathryn and Rodolfo in their 2018 book Egyptian Seafaring Expeditions and the Land of Punt: Long-distance Trade in the Red Sea during the Middle Kingdom confirm that again as per the consensus. Dalhoa (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone else please explain to this editor that they have misunderstood the word "significant' and that it is not a "bias for the Middle East" that allows the use of a minority (Dalhoa calls that "fringe" viewpoint but its discussion in clearly reliable sources? I agree that we need to include for instance Kitchener's rejection of Meeks and Bard's discussion, but I'm not going to try to add those until Dalhoa agrees to stop removing due to their misunderstanding of NPOV. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's a quick google definition of significant: sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy. I can find many reliable sources on Creationism but if I go to the Human wiki and insist it be mentioned as part of the origin of humans I won't be allowed even though that view is significant, using the reliable source claim is not a carte blanche to insert fringe or minority view. There are other clauses in the NPOV that are being violated here but going through all would drag the issue, the point remains that mainstream scholarship and science locate the Land of Punt in the Horn of Africa, if Arabia had half the evidence HoA has, no other location whether it is Tamraparni,Put,Havilah,Kenya would be mentioned, even the only location that can challenge HoA which is Sumatera would be mentioned.Dalhoa (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A significant difference is that libraries and museums are full of testable evidence for evolution while scientific literature supporting creationism is hard to find. That situation does not apply to conjecture about the location of the Land of Punt. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

HoA has mainstream scholarship and science the conjecture would apply to other places.Dalhoa (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dalhoa: as I guessed, you haven't read enough to know what we mean by significant. Our policy says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Meeks views are mentioned in a number of reliable sources, thus can be briefly mentioned using those sources and making it clear it's a minority view. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "Our" policy, the Encyclopedia belongs to everyone and the Land of Punt wiki is not yours you cannot hold it hostage. Meek is fringe, just because authors mention his fringe view does not mean his view is significant and even in that section Mr Wales says: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. If you want to say Punt was in Arabia or Sri Lanka or Kenya or Havalia by all means like Mr Wales says maybe you need another article but the evidence support HoA and to keep saying Arabia is a location is misleading and outright biased. I have no objection saying Southern Arabia or even Arabia was a trading partner but to give Arabia this much weight against all the evidence is complete wrong. Dalhoa (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Please drop the belligerence. Obviously Doug Weller was quoting from the policy you mentioned, namely WP:NPOV, and "our policy" means "the policy that applies at Wikipedia". Talk about holding an ancient kingdom "hostage" is absurd. Apart from yourself, the editors commenting here are very experienced and know what the policies say. Rather than repeating what "Mr Wales says", it would be better to explain how it is known that Meeks' view is fringe. If authors within the topic area mention that view other than to dismiss it, the view is by definition not fringe. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I am done.Dalhoa (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

---

I am submitting a recent block I made for open review. The blocked editor is questioning whether or not the block is appropriate, so I am seeking further input. On 17 December, Alex Devens was warned for violating the NPA policy, based on comments calling another editor "asshole" here and "creep" here. He acknowledged reading that warning here. Yesterday, he called an editor an insane TDSer. Since he persisted in using personal attacks, despite being warned, I blocked him. Today, he responded, questioning the legitimacy of the block. I will also leave a note for him to put any comments he has about the matter on his own talk page so that I can copy his responses here. I submit here for review the block without further comment. Thank you all. --Jayron32 14:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• If TDSer means what I think it does then he got off lightly. This screed suggests we'd be better off without him altogether. Guy (help!) 14:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Are we supposed to guess what TDSer is? Because I am at a loss. El_C 14:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  This provides some context, as does this. --Jayron32 14:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm familiar with Trump derangement syndrome — I just did not pick up on the Engrish. El_C 14:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  As for the block, seems to be within the parameters of what I, at least, would have done in response to an NPA violation after warning. El_C 14:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  As a non-admin I'm not sure how much my opinion matters but here it is. I think the block was reasonable, perhaps a bit on the long side since it was a first block. I think sometimes the warnings aren't really heard and the block is useful. The question is how long should the warning be to get the message across. I would think a week would have been sufficient in this case as the user might get the message after calming down. Also, I think some people, especially new editors, don't understand the difference between NPA and FOC. If I call another editor an A-hole, that's a pretty clear personal attack. However, I think people may not get that saying, "All of your comments are stupid" or TDS in this case, is still shifting from discussing the content to the editors. That distinction is easier to miss if you are a newer editor or are new to contentious topics. While I see Guy's concern regarding the Gamergate comment, I can see how Wikipedia doesn't always seem to be welcoming POV that are reasonably widely held but often not supported by sources that are readily accepted here. Anyway, I personally think 1 month was long but within the range of reasonable. More importantly would be did the editor really understand the difference between discussing the content vs the editors and can that be explained to them (without wasting too much time)? Springee (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse - clearly appropriate block, but I would have made it indef and let them explain why we should allow someone with such a poor attitude to edit at all. I predict we'll be there before April. That being said, Mercurywoodrose is hosting some clear WP:BLP violations on their user page, and ought to clean it up before someone does it for them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I had not looked that closely, but have now. I concur, and have left a warning for them. --Jayron32 15:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• If it had been a week, I'd have been endorsing. But I'm afraid I do feel a month is too long, in all the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 15:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Just as a response on the length, since a few people have questioned it. I based the length on the frequency of editing, I tend to give shorter blocks for users who are more frequent editors and chose a longer (1 month block) here for this user given that their editing history is more sporadic; a shorter block may have expired without them even noticing it had been placed, given that this editor can go over a week at a time without coming to Wikipedia, I felt 1 month was long enough to get their attention. --Jayron32 15:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Now you've undeniably got his attention, you have the opportunity to consider shortening it.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  And I could. And I am always open to doing so if 1) there is consensus here to do so and/or 2) if the user in question shows that they have the intention and ability to adjust their behavior to match policy and expectation. Seeking that consensus is the purpose and intent of a thread like this. Lets see where it goes. --Jayron32 15:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good block, but it should have been indefinite. A large proportion of this editors contributions have been disruptive: [235][236][237][238][239]. - MrX 🖋 15:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good Block. Agree with MrX that it should be indefinite; the user has shown only that they are here to promote their agenda and will continue to come in conflict with others. --Jorm (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good block – A block for NPA after warning seems like a reasonable preventative measure. Initially I'd have thought a month was long for a first block (I'd expect 24hrs), but I find Jayron's explanation above for the duration to be very persuasive. I hope the blocked editor takes Jayron up on their offer above to shorten it. – Levivich 19:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block I disagree with those suggesting it should have been indefinite. Only very rarely do I support indefinite blocks right off. Beyond that the length of the block generally falls under admin discretion. Neither the block nor its duration strike me as unreasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good block No problem with the length. Miniapolis 00:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good block - Clearly appropriate and, in some sense, the more lenient option. The next time such behavior occurs should be occasion for an indefinite block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Response from Alex Devens

• I am posting the response from Alex Devens below without comment. This was copied from his userpage. --Jayron32 15:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I actually appreciate all your consideration in this. When I left that comment on User:Mercurywoodrose's talk page, I wasn't thinking at all about the previous warnings I had received for personal harassment. In fact, I was barely thinking at all. I just saw his user page and was so taken aback by what I saw that I felt as though I had to say something, although looking back on it, it's clear to me now that I didn't really have to say anything. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and they should be allowed to express those opinions however they please, even if it's in a way that I personally think is over-the-top. That being said, I think there should be consistency regarding what are and aren't personal attacks on Wikipedia. The user page of the person in question included, in particular, a statement strongly implying that all members of the Republican Party (of which I am one) are "idiots." He also explicitly said "FU" to me in response to my message on his talk page, a far less than subtle euphemism of "fuck you." If, however, the powers-that-be at Wikipedia decide that my comment was over the line and his weren't, then I'll just shut up and take the ban for a month. This isn't the outcome I want, but it's certainly the one I expect the most. I can only do so much to defend my character, but I'm just one person (a person with a history of anger-fueled lapses in judgement, no less), and if enough people come to the conclusion that my character is not welcome and my behavior is unacceptable, I will begrudgingly accept those results. Alex Devens (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some kind of essay on Wikipedia, if there isn't already, that basically says "Just because someone else acts like an asshat without being warned, that does not give you the right to act like an asshat." WP:CIV might be a subjective policy but there comes a certain point where one should apply best judgment instead of trying to take a sample of what does and does not cross the line.--WaltCip (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

There is, actually. See Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, specifically the section WP:NOTTHEM. --Jayron32 19:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Also WP:ASSHOLE. Narky Blert (talk) 22:27, 24 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.

User:Neutralhomer off-wiki attacks

On 22 January 2020, in connection with a BLP content dispute, the following incidents transpired. I list them in chronological order.

• Editor Neutralhomer stated at Talk:Pauley Perrette that he was "actively trying to communicate with the asexual community on Twitter right now to help them understand the goings-on here at Wikipedia."

• I cautioned Neutralhomer at his User talk page that such off-wiki activities might be seen as an attempt to influence a Wikipedia community debate by recruiting new or existing users to support his point of view, and reminded him that WP:STEALTH discourages stealth canvassing.

• Neutralhomer acknowledged at his User talk page that he had been "contacting multiple groups on Twitter (along with Ms. Perrette) who are in an uproar over this." He also said he had "outed" his own Wikipedia account on Twitter.

• Neutralhomer then tweeted a public attack against another editor involved in our BLP dispute, Schazjmd. By quoting her comments made at Talk:Pauley Perrette, Neutralhomer left no doubt whom he meant by "people with hard heads and closed minds."

• In response, I warned Neutralhomer at Talk:Pauley Perrette: "Off-wiki personal attacks against another editor are unacceptable and may lead to sanctions against you."

• The next day, Neutralhomer attacked me by name, tweeting: "I believe, by NedFausa's behavior and knowledge of Wikipedia policy and structure, he is likely a sockpuppet of a blocked user."

I request that an administrator admonish Neutralhomer to immediately stop using Twitter or any other off-wiki medium to publicly impugn his fellow Wikipedians. NedFausa (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

First, yet again, nothing I have done has been in "stealth". I have outed my own account here on Wikipedia on my own Twitter account. So, not stealth. I reached out and I have explained how things are done here on Wikipedia to those in the Asexual Community via my Twitter account (as no one else was). I explained on Wikipedia first that I believed that NedFausa was a sock because he has a knowledge of Wikipedia that a two-month old member of the community just wouldn't have. So, if he would like me to follow up on my belief of him being a sock and do an SPI, I can. I was waiting for an admin's response. It's Ned's choice...wait for the admin's response, or I go to SPI. Personally, I'd rather go to bed, I gotta work tomorrow (some of us have real lives). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:10 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

I have started that SPI because 1) I'm tired, 2) I'm not in the mood for this nonsensical bullcrap, and 3) I gotta work tomorrow. Good night. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:21 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

As the IP named in the SPI, I can only concur that 'nonsensical bullcrap' is an appropriate description for it. It seems to be based on no evidence of a link between NedFausa and myself beyond the fact that we both disagree with Neutralhomer's attempts to use ambiguous Twitter statements to justify definitive assertions regarding the sexuality of living persons. I'm not NedFausa. I am apparently on the opposite side of the Atlantic from NedFausa. The only thing we would appear to have in common is a proper understanding of Wikipedia policy. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Given your editing behaviors, your editing styles, and your bias towards Asexual people, I disagree. Plus, I don't know where you live (could be using a VPN) and anyone could say they live anywhere. That's what we have SPIs for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:51 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Your above comment is quite negative. I looked at the SPI, and you can read my comment there, but as of right now this is not going anywhere given the evidence so far provided. It also appears based on the above that your struggling with WP:CIVILITY right now. I would urge you to back-off for a moment and try to gain some perspective, or if that's too much to focus any continued discussion on policy based arguments for inclusion or exclusion of data, IOW comment on the content and not the contributer. I also urge you to keep in mind that it is not vital that Wikipedia contain every new piece of information as soon as it becomes public, there is rarely harm in waiting for things to become more clear, recalling that Wikipedia is not news. If you do have solid behavioral evidence of sockpuppettry, please bring it to the attention of the SPI clerks right now, and confine such claims to the investigation page, elsewise it will appear whether intentional or not, that you are just casting WP:ASPERSIONS, thanks for reading. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is an ANI thread about me and I have been attacked by Ned, FlightTime, and the IP on a couple different threads, so my civility is out the window. Plus, getting them to listen to anything is basically like talking to a wall. You bring anything to their attention and it's like "nope, don't want to talk about it", but they love to sling that "you are repeating yourself" line. Damn right I am, cause no one is listening. A community is watching, they are hurt, upset, a little pissed, and we are ignoring our own policies for reasons I can't even begin to understand....and for what? I don't know. I honestly don't. So, forgive me if I'm not civil, it's gone. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:24 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I do understand, it's just I think you needed a reminder that ultimately that kind of behavior is not going to help your case. We all lose our cool from time to time, it can happen, and when you see yourself doing it I think it's best to recognize that you're not in the best mindset to handle the situation and step away for a moment. I also agree that there has been some incivility all around, without assigning blame to any one actor in particular over any others. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear the above remark should not be taken to imply any incivility specifically on the part of NedFausa as I have not examined the conduct of any one individual editor in any detail, it should only be construed as referencing the larger set of discussions more generally, if anyone feels there is an inappropriately veiled reference to any specific users that a reasonable observer would construe as such, I will strike it upon request. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I get your point and I am considering a step back, but I got a little more fight left in me. I am just trying to get those hardheaded people to understand what I am trying to say. So far I would get better results head-desking. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:26 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Wikipedia is not a battlefield. I notified you of the BLP DS. Please take this as a warning that I will topic ban you if you continue down this path. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Am I wrong to see this new post by Neutralhomer as further battlefield behaviour? [240] 165.120.15.119 (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: at 07:27, 26 Jan 2020, administrator Cullen328 blocked Neutralhomer for 72 hours due to "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy." Four minutes later, Cullen328 notified Neutralhomer at his user talk page, explaining: "Your battleground behavior and personal attacks at Talk:Pauley Perrette are completely unacceptable. You must comply with BLP policy now and in the future, and must refrain from all personal attacks on other editors. This is not negotiable." (Emphasis in original.)

Four and a half hours later, Neutralhomer took to Twitter to announce his being blocked. "Well, ladies, gentlemen, non-binary folks, children of all ages. I responded to Ned earlier—and I was blocked for 72 hours for harrassment [sic]. Of course Ned kept on going, but he didn't get blocked." A minute later, Neutralhomer tweeted: "The IP editor (I believe to be a Ned sock) is blaming me (veiled) for forcing Pauley to remove the 'Ace' from her bio and of course I can't defend myself." Neutralhomer's formal allegation that IP editor 165.120.15.119 is my sockpuppet was filed at 06:18, 24 Jan 2020, and was closed 12 hours later by administrator Bbb23 due to "Insufficient evidence." Nevertheless, Neutralhomer continues to litigate this accusation off-wiki, and in so doing again personally attacks both me and the IP editor.

I request that further administrator sanctions be imposed against Neutralhomer for violating and indeed publicly flouting his existing block. NedFausa (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

IP editor discussed above here. This is getting more ridiculous by the minute. At all times I have made it clear that I don't consider it appropriate to use Twitter as a source at all, and nothing I said can even remotely be construed as a suggestion that Neutralhomer should attempt to contact Ms Perette. That he did so, and then didn't get the response he clearly wanted, is down to him, not me. Furthermore, if Neutralhomer is going to throw around baseless accusations of 'harassment' regarding others (see e.g. the current appeal against the block [241]) it would seem appropriate to ask whether his contacting of Ms Perrete itself constitutes harassment. The whole farrago began with an attempt to use ambiguous Tweets to justify adding assertions regarding Ms Perette's sexuality into the article, and at every point Neutralhomer seems to have shown a callous disregard for the possibility that Ms Perette may not wish such questions to become the subject of public discourse. And faced with evidence that some obviously wished it to be, Ms Perette seems to have made her dissent clear. At which point, in a monumental effort of doubling down, Neutralhomer claims that Ms Perette has been 'forced' into removing the comments that led to the discussion she clearly doesn't consider appropriate. Ms Perrete is of course entitled to say anything about her sexuality, or nothing at all. Either way, it shouldn't be down to Wikipedia contributors to pester them into resolving disputes that with a proper understanding of policy, and a proper respect for individual privacy, shouldn't have arisen in the first place. I can only suggest that Neutralhomer's continuing behaviour has been such that a permanent ban on all topics relating to sexuality, and to biographies of living persons, would be entirely worthy of consideration. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing concerns

Yesterday I happened across Lemieuxn (talk · contribs), whose userpage (revisions in question now speedy deleted) was a blatant self-promo, advertising themselves as "Digital Marketing Expert - SEO - Content Writer - B2B - Inbound & Automation - looking for work". The reason I came across the user was an edit to an article on my watchlist where they inserted an unnecessary reference/link to the National Jewish Book Award website. Their recent edits are largely around this topic, and I am concerned that this is paid editing (either directly, or SEO). They have failed to a respond to a query on their talk page about paid editing (they have edited since the message was left), hence bringing the issue here. Cheers, Number 57 19:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Tonight's episode of the ongoing battle in gender-related articles, what is this, S04E19 I think

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.

---

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.

---

(moved from my userpage ([242]), courtesy ping all participants: @Flyer22 Reborn, WanderingWanda, JBW, SMcCandlish, Crossroads, and Newimpartial:) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I never did personally thank you for what you stated in that ANI thread against me. So thank you. Looking at my response here shows the type of drama and ridiculousness I have to deal with at articles such as Lesbian erasure. It shows what I was speaking of in that ANI thread and here at El C's talk page when noting issues with one editor in particular to El C, you, Johnuniq, Cullen328, and JBW. And while I appreciate the support of editors such as Betty Logan, Girth Summit, Montanabw, FlightTime Phone, John B123 and others who supported me in that ANI thread (and on Wikipedia at large), editing articles like these really takes a toll. Yes, I could just walk away (just like I did with the Feminist views on transgender topics and TERF articles thus far), but that leaves these articles more prone to POV-pushing. I don't just focus on one side when editing articles like these. I look at all sides (unless it's WP:Fringe material that shouldn't be included) and go about implementing WP:Due weight. When I do that, and yet I still get one or two people implying or outright calling me transphobic, it's a stressful matter. And I'm wondering what else I can do except walk away or endure it. For me, being called or implied to be transphobic is worse than being accused of having some type of POV on a sexual topic when I'm simply following the rules appropriately.

Anyway, El C is helpful, but an article like the Lesbian erasure article could probably also do with your moderator skills. If you'd rather not keep an eye on it, I obviously understand. If you'd rather ignore this post, I also understand. I am venting, even though I'm also seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about me I'd appreciate a ping, thanks (talk page watcher). WanderingWanda (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, no! I deal with your nonsense enough! If I had directly named you and wanted another discussion like the one I had on El C's talk page, that would be different. I clearly framed this section as one where I am venting and "seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas." And you can't even let me vent in peace or seek advice in peace. Your claim that you are one of Ivanvector's talk page watchers to escape me referring to WP:HOUND is dubious when your comment above is your first comment on this talk page. I could have emailed Ivanvector about this, but I chose to comment on Ivanvector's talk page and ping others to discuss with. Nothing good happens when the two of us interact with each other. You are on a course for ANI. And if you think nothing will happen, you should think again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, people who often accuse others of dishonesty are often projecting. I have always been scrupulously honest on Wikipedia. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In my experience (on and off Wikipedia), those who go on about their supposed scrupulous honesty are not scrupulously honest. In my experience (on and off Wikipedia), those who continue to try and interact with people who have been clear that they don't want to interact with them (unless necessary) for valid reasons and who continue to try to get a rise out of the people who do not want to interact with them shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. In my experience, those who are only on Wikipedia to push activism shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but it doesn't tolerate editors forcing themselves, or trying to force themselves, on others. It knows that not all editors are going to get along, which is why WP:IBAN exists. It doesn't tolerate the repeated sly or direct aspersions you cast my way. But keep testing the waters. You'll learn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You've cast far more WP:ASPERSIONS my way than the reverse. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I refer people to the aforementioned discussion on El C's talk page. Regardless of whatever supposed aspersions I've cast your way, you keep going and going after me while I keep trying and trying to avoid you. I never go out of my way to respond to you, and certainly not to make a jab at you. That is why Crossroads recently stated, "WanderingWanda, enough with the snipes at Flyer. There appears to be some special grudge there, but I'm feeling left out." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads' joke about "feeling left out" is actually pretty telling about our relationship. :) Crossroads and you are bosom buddies, I have never seen the two of you disagree, about anything, ever, Crossroads backs you up completely whenever you attack me unfairly or accuse me of "activism", you two are always at the same pages together, at the same time, you two openly email back and forth about contentious articles, you two have all the same interests, etc. In fact, for a while I thought he might be another one of those pesky brother accounts (Crossroads even used to have a 1 in his name, just like user:Halo Jerk1.) Ultimately, tho, I lean against that: Crossroads has a pretty different writing style from that most bizarre of brother-sister duos.

Anyway, in spite of the fact that you and Crossroads are basically twins, he doesn't perceive much in the way of animosity between us, and he is correct, I don't really care about Crossroads. It takes a lot for someone to get under my skin, but you have pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and yeah, you got under my skin. Which is probably what you wanted to do. Congratulations, I guess.

In any case, it is not my intent to "hound" you. I'll call you out if you're up to shit on an article I follow, sure, or are pinging a bunch of people to gang up on me behind my back. And sometimes I'm more snarky than I probably should be. I'll try to dial it back and play nicer. Fine. But I haven't, don't, and won't follow you around. I've never once edited an article or a talk page because I saw it on your contributions list. Not a single goddamn time, in spite of your repeated accusations of hounding, which, to me, seem like attempts to claim WP:OWNership over articles.

Anyway, hope you're doing well. I don't mean that sarcastically. Sincerely. Take care. I don't want to keep this back and forth up so this will probably be my last reply unless you really goad me.

(I guess I should ping user:Crossroads since I mentioned him, though pinging him to a discussion that Flyer is involved in is rather redundant.) WanderingWanda (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

More of the same nonsense from you, I see. Once again, you have confronted me to air your imaginary grievances and to make false claims...such as never seeing Crossroads and I "disagree, about anything, ever." Yeah, with the way you watch these articles like a hawk, I'm sure you missed me disagreeing with Crossroads on this matter. And you surely missed this discussion showing Crossroads disagreeing with the inclusion of material I added. Crossroads and I agree most of the time, but we have also disagreed several times. He can point to more examples, because I'm not going to. He is also interested in topics I'm not interested in. I'm usually in agreement with Doc James as well, but I don't see anyone stating that Doc and I are socks or are "basically twins." Sure, Doc and I don't share as many article interests, but still. You have no proof that Crossroads and I "openly email back and forth about contentious articles." And I'm not going to respond to that assertion further since I'm not on trial, even though you keep trying to put me on trial, despite the way the aforementioned ANI thread against me went. A number of people have accused you of activism, and that includes Johnuniq. And not unfairly either. I have "pushed and pushed and pushed" you, you say? Yes, I am aware that I have repeatedly pushed you by adhering to this site's rules and rejecting your activism, and that you consider this ownership on my part.

You stated, "In any case, it is not [your] intent to 'hound' [me]. [You'll] call [me] out if [I'm] up to shit on an article [you] follow, sure, or are pinging a bunch of people to gang up on [you] behind [your] back." Yes, you hound without knowing you are hounding; no one buys that. Yes, I'm "up to shit" on the articles you watch. Appropriate shit, as made clear by several editors in the aforementioned ANI thread. And as for "pinging a bunch of people to gang up on [you] behind [your] back"? To repeat: "I clearly framed this section as one where I am venting and 'seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas.' And you can't even let me vent in peace or seek advice in peace." You unnecessarily showed up here to cause drama, expecting me and others to believe that you just so happened to be watching Ivanvector's talk page. You once again have unnecessarily pinged my brother, as to try to cause more drama. You don't care one bit about "different writing style[s]." If you did, you would accept the fact that, despite my brother having copied my writing style in the past (as he's copied others, as also noted on his user page), several admins and CUs have noticed that my brother writes differently than I do in a number of ways instead of continuing to state or imply that he's my sock. That you keep bringing up my brother to try and sling mud my way and as though it helps your argument or as though you are conducting a WP:SPI is just one aspect of your problematic behavior. That is you trying to get under my skin. And then you act surprised when I type up an "essay" about your problematic behavior.

If you are hoping for a two-way interaction ban between us, I think it is likelier that you get a one-way interaction ban...and in your direction.

You stated that you "never once edited an article or a talk page because [you] saw it on [my] contributions list." I don't believe you. And I never will.

As for hoping I'm doing well and me goading you? More nonsense. And do you expect me to just let your accusations go unchallenged? If you truly did not want "this back and forth," you would not have engaged in your usual antics in this section. And that includes your "anyone with a heart" comment. It boggles my mind that you keep trying to play the victim when you keep going after me the way that you do. Boggles the mind. And whether or not I talk with Ivanvector about this here out in the open or via email, the way I've talked to other admins about your problematic editing and behavior via email, your baiting will be stopped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 24 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.

Conduct issues

@WanderingWanda: Your persistent pestering of Flyer22 Reborn has to stop. You have contributed nothing to this talk page section other than expressing your dislike and distrust of Flyer22 Reborn. Your involvemant here was totally unnecessary; nothing would have been lost had you ignored it and got on with some useful editing instead. However, what turns this from just a few critical comments that weren't really necessary into harassment was your totally gratuitously bringing in your perpetual innuendo about Flyer22 Reborn's brother and Crossroads. Flyer22 Reborn knows all about your thoughts in that area, and your repeatedly bringing it up, even when it is irrelevant to what is being discussed, is a deliberate policy of harassment. Flyer22 Reborn is not always diplomatic, and unfortunately at times she hands you enough ammunition to prevent the problems between the two of you being entirely one-sided, but as time goes on it becomes more and more clear that while her behaviour is not always perfect, she never does anything resembling your gratuitously jumping in and attacking her every time you can see an opportunity for doing so. I wonder how many times you have said things similar to "I don't want to keep this back and forth up so this will probably be my last reply unless you really goad me", as you did above. On this occasion she did not "goad" you: you jumped in when you didn't need to. Having done so you brought up your usual stuff about "those pesky brother accounts" and "that most bizarre of brother-sister duos", despite the fact that they had no relevance at all to anything that had been said. Calling her and her brother "most bizarre" serves no useful or constructive purpose whatever, and amounts to a personal attack. In my opinion both of you would have been better advised in this discussion to just drop the matter and ignore one another, but that does not mean that the situation is totally symmetrical; Flyer should have refused to take your bait, but she would have had no need to do so unless you had baited her. I do not follow either your or Flyer's editing, so the occasions when I do see what is going on between you are fairly infrequent, but even so I have seen enough, and if I see you harassing or baiting her again I am likely to block you from editing. JBW (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Less fortunately (for myself and the community) I have been loosely following this personality conflict for some time, and Flyer is indeed correct above when she says "nothing good happens when the two of us [meaning WanderingWanda] interact with each other". I am more inclined to serve you both a no-fault interaction ban under WP:ARBGG in the interest of allowing other interested editors to edit these topics free of your conflict, one which would permit you to edit the same pages as long as you strictly do not interact with each other, but I tend to dislike broad-topic interaction bans and JBW has given me more to think about. I'm also very busy today, so WanderingWanda, this is your opportunity to disengage. I would anticipate it being very unlikely you will get another. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel myself periodically drawn into these things, by what I watchlist and whose disputes/dramas I run across and what examining them further leads to. I neither disagree all the time with WanderingWanda (even WW says so! [243]) nor agree all the time with Flyer22_Reborn. I've had lengthy discussions with both in e-mail. I don't feel I need to take back what I said in detail in Nov. 2019 about this conflict. I do have to add, though, that a few editors' frequent accusations of "transphobi[a|c]" simply because someone doesn't agree with some particular highly activistic socio-political positions being advocated on Wikipedia (but are instead seeking neutrality in our coverage and our WP:P&G material regardless how they personally feel about such matters in their off-site lives) is continuing to be problematic. In a sense, it's become more problematic because we know this isn't the first time it's been pointed out that it needs to stop. I don't think this is a WanderingWanda and Flyer22_Reborn matter in particular. Rather, there's a "gender-issues and language-reform warrior" camp active on the site, and it's sometimes difficult for people who agree with some or all of its message to avoid getting drawn also into its verbally abusive and character-assassinating tactics. The larger behavior set needs scrutiny.

This subject area is under WP:AC/DS for a reason, and those discretionary sanctions need to be applied judiciously but reasonably until the topic area becomes tolerable again for everyday editors who are here to write balanced coverage of subjects (from the broad topics down to specific bios like Genesis P-Orridge, etc.). I've long opposed the use of indefs and lengthy topic-bans when it comes to such unhelpful behavior in contentious topics, when short-term T-bans (e.g. a month, then escalating to 3 months, then a 6 or a year if really necessary) tend to be effective without costing the project all of an editor's more constructive participation. And that goes for both sides; if one were to, say, cast aspersions about someone's motives because they have a transgender family member, that would be actionable no less than calling someone transphobic because their view of neutral interpretation of the sources differs from one's own.

I'm not going to get into a pile of diffy specifics right now. That's what AE and ANI and RFARB and ARCA are for, and I don't feel that someone in particular needs to be banned/blocked at this point (well, not among this pair). Frankly, there are two flat-out drama mongers who need noticeboard examination more urgently, for entirely unrelated reasons (one is a "style warrior" pushing an obsessive pro-government/bureaucratese PoV, and another is engaging in extreme nationalism, IDHT, and OR about animal breeds, both of them being attacky about it all the time). I'm just making the general point, since a bunch of admins have been pinged to this thread.

While a two-way I-ban of WanderingWanda and Flyer22_Reborn might "conveniently" and situationally reduce a small amount of sporadic drama, it will not address the underlying problem, that this is a highly contentious area with a near poisonous level of strife, and much of that is outright programmatic (from one particular side of it). A two-editor I-ban would verge on scapegoating, and at most would be putting a Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound. So would leaping on one editor or the other for a comment if it's not part of continuing pattern of verbal abuse. At worst, it might actually encourage WP:GAMING by others (less WP:HERE that WW) in that socio-political viewpoint space: entrap opponents in circular, overly-personalized debates until I-banned (but with low risk of oneself being sanctioned beyond that, out of admin fear of being called foo-phobic for going any further); then go right back to working with the rest of one's WP:FACTION to PoV-skew all our topics on lefty subjects with near-impunity, having locked out most criticism). I've been saying for years now that the real threat to WP in the long term isn't vandals, it's "slow-editwar" and "civil PoV-pushing" tactics by email-coordinated camps who are here to enforce an external viewpoint in our content. Much of it even means well. While we may have in front of us two editors in a superficially silly personality conflict, it's rooted in something more serious and it's not about personality but about WP:ENC. I'm well aware that various editors claim there's some kind of far-right putsch to malign the transgendered, to undermine coverage of GLBT+ topics and feminism, and otherwise push right-wing extremism. But there's no evidence this is actually true, and when random Trumperinos pop in and push such agendas they're shut down fast. We do, however, clearly have ongoing mass-scale activism from the far-left, which is mostly unchecked except by neutral/centrist editors with thick skins, and even they get hounded away pretty quickly by censorious "progressive" and "liberal" indoctrinators who aren't really either of those adjectives. The ability of that camp to inspire otherwise awesome editors to slip across some important lines for politicized reasons sometimes is, well, kind of disconcerting. PS: I say all this as a classic-liberal, anti-fascist, sexual-egalitarian, LGBT-positive, sex-positive, center-left, agnostic anti-authoritarian (and former professional civil-liberties activist), who takes few solidly right-wing views on anything but gun control (I grew up mostly in the US Southwest, where shooting ranges and hunting are something you do even as a kid). I'm the furthest thing from a transphobe or a right-wingnut. If even I'm seriously concerned about what the far left are getting away with on WP these days, then we do have a genuine problem.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Just for posterity: in spite of the opinion SMcCandlish expressed above, there is in fact a good deal of evidence that "gender critical" individuals gathered in Reddit (r/gendercritical) and on Twitter have worked in coordination to align trans-related articles to their "external viewpoint", a kind of brigading that progressive/mainstream editors on LGBTQ topics have not engaged in, to my knowledge. I also think it relevant to note that SMcCandlish's views on "gender issues and language reform" have been found, through site-wide discussion on WP, not to reflect site-wide policy-based consensus here. While I respect ideosynctatic individuality as much as anyone, I do find it important to remember who is speaking at all times. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Since Newimpartial has showed up here, I would like to point out to the admins by far the most disturbing comment from that talk page, which was made by Newimpartial: I will be happy when the last self-avowed "homosexual" is dead and buried and only we queers, fags, dykes and non-binary people remain. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't intend to engage in further discussion about myself or Flyer, but I will comment on this. Newimpartial's remark was intemperate, but it's worth putting in context why the word "homosexual" can provoke strong feelings. GLAAD says: Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered. The term has also been co-opted by some hardliner anti-trans activists. Out.com says: By 2018, the TERF Movement had reached its tipping point. In July, a group of lesbians charged the front of the London Pride march with banners reading "Lesbian Erasure" and "Lesbian [equals] Female Homosexual."...In a video posted by a group called "Get The L Out," one woman said, "A man who says he’s a lesbian is a rapist. Transgenderism is destroying lesbians' bodies." WanderingWanda (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One clan of trolls trying to affect our content and failing badly at it because we shut that shit down fast is nothing like an ongoing and tacitly accepted overwhelming dominance of Wikipedia coverage on certain topics by a particular circumscribed set of viewpoints, due to WP's strongly left-leaning demographic agreeing with the content of "the message". (Cf. what I said below in response to Crossroads.) It has to do with actual effects. No one has ever suggested there are no transphobes nor that they never try to PoV-push here. We just don't let them do it. So why do we let the TG/NB and general LGBT crowd do it? Continue to take that route is going to bite our ass right off.

As for that last bit, Newimpartial is blatantly fabricating. What really happened is that a humor essay I wrote primarily about self-aggrandizing, religious, and commercial language manipulation was misinterpreted as "transphobic" by some editors who assume that anything at all ever critical of non-encyclopedic writing that involves pronouns must necessarily be an attack on TG people, which is of course nonsense. At MfD, there was a consensus to keep my userspace essay, but to blank the version that ran in The Signpost since in that house-organ context it was controversial and likely to offend, not because of the intent of it but because it was poorly written enough that the intent wasn't clear. Most importantly, the "leader of the charge" (Fæ) against me and that crappy joke page escaped sanction for false "transphobic" accusations and canvassing of them and against the essay (across multiple WMF sites) only by retracting the accusations with an apology[244], and was nevertheless topic-banned shortly thereafter for more of such aspersion-casting against other editors in the same topic area. If there's any "writing on the wall" to be read from that old episode, I think we know exactly what it is. After the actual (not your imaginary} MfD results and the actions to ban Fæ, and after I've many times made it abundantly clear where I am on TG/NB matters and LBGT+ ones (being under the B in that myself), I have to say it's extremely ill-considered of you to continue implying transphobia on my part, or anyone else's, in a thread leaning strongly toward "final warning" for someone else doing the same thing. When it comes to the actual specifics of my views on TG-related language usage in Wikipedia content (including pronouns), the "site-wide discussion on WP" resulting in "policy-based consensus" reflect exactly the same position as mine, specifically what we've codified at MOS:GENDERID, which I helped write. So thanks for your input, but maybe you need some coffee to wake up before you comment here again. LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC); rev'd. 20:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that any unbiased reader of the discussion about your essay and related conduct would regard my conclusion that SMcCandlish's views on "gender issues and language reform" have been found, through site-wide discussion on WP, not to reflect site-wide policy-based consensus to be fabrication, blatant or otherwise. I would prefer that we all refrain from personal attacks here, especially now that the discussion is at ANI. Also, I hope you don't have a professional interest in producing minutes or summaries, because the account you gave above is a pretty poor summary of the discussion as it actually unfolded, since it basically just restates your position as expressed within the discussion without a modicum of critical reflection or listening. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That's just more creative revisionism. There was no "related conduct" of mine under discussion; you're just making stuff up now. There were two MfDs against two copies of the same essay, one kept in userspace, the other blanked but not deleted because The Signpost was an inappropriate venue for something controversial. Just go read the MfD's, FFS: "There are boundaries of acceptability and user space content that crosses them can be deleted, but the consensus of the discussion is that SMcCandlish hasn't crossed them in this case." And: "... [K]eep the page blanked as it is now. ... [T]he humor page  ... offended many editors. This was not an appropriate page for the Signpost, because the page generated bad will between editors." (plus some additional observation that serious discussion of the underlying subject was needed rather than humor pieces not appropriate for professional-level discourse). It was certainly a mistake to allow Signpost to use that piece, and possibly a mistake to write it, at least without more context (a point CurlyTurkey made in the userspace MfD). That doesn't make me transphobic nor does it mean there is a consensus on WP against my views. The exact opposite is the truth, since my views are MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DOCTCAPS and MOS:TM. The essay did not express my views on GENDERID matters, it made fun of individual and idiosyncratic ["ideosynctatic" isn't a word, BTW] language usages by our subjects being misinterpreted by editors as a requirement that Wikipedia use them in its own voice. To date, not doing so remains the overwhelming consensus on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change, whether the topic in question is a person, a religion, or a commercial enterprise.

But this ANI isn't about me, it's about two editors engaged in a dispute that has underlying broader implications. And you're implicating yourself more and more as you continue in battlegrounding manner to try to paint me as your "enemy" (or as TG people's or as Wikipedia's), not only without evidence but simply fudging the real evidence, which is easy enough for me to just diff to dispel your strange finger-pointing. Please see the first law of holes, which would suggest you stop now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

After defending Newimpartial I'd also like to defend SMc. I agree he's not transphobic or some kind of enemy of trans people (not that Newimpartial said he was). I also, incidentally, don't think there's anything to be gained by talking about the Signpost essay, which has already been discussed, well, quite a bit. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, pro tip: don't pick fights with nice people who have orders of magnitude more experience and goodwill here than you do. See also: WP:AGF Guy (help!) 00:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason I brought up the Signpost fiasco (before the discussion was moved to ANI was that SMcCandlish had offered his overall opinion on the state of "external" interference in LGBTQ article POV (without offering evidence, mind you, just his opinion) and I wanted to point out that his understanding of the state of "public opinion" on this topic has been questionable in the past and remains questionable. The misrepresentations he has made of my posts since the move to ANI, as well as his questionable characterizations of those previous interactions, have only underlined the point I was making initially. Of course I would not accuse him of any kind of "*phobia", but his judgement of these issues has been (and continues to be) dubious despite his best intentions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

But you clearly have no understanding of my understanding of anything. And a user-talk thread isn't an evidentiary venue. If you want evidence of the kind of PoV pushing that's been going on for years, start with this near-endless firehose of ranting, then this other textwall in case you're a glutton for punishment. And there's just so much more, and even more, and that's before getting out of WP-wide forums and into places like knock-down-drag-out battlegrounds at article talk pages, and various wikiproject talk pages, plus numerous ANI and AE and RFARB and ARCA threads. There's a frequent pattern in them of editors suggesting a reasonable and respectful but still encyclopedic and mainstream-English approach (especially with any eye to not confusing readers or rewriting history, and also noting that not all TG/NB people have exactly the same views on these matters), being met with insinuations and outright accusations of transphobia, and a whole pile of doctrinaire venting (mostly from cisgender "allies", not actually TG or NB people). It's mostly in loco parentis noise from various TG-issues and language-reform activists, consisting of lots of strident advocacy of more extreme positions (including from obvious meatpuppets in some of the larger threads), but producing a community response that was very (too) tolerant of it all no matter how far afield it gots in NOTFORUM, NOTSOAPBOX and NOTBATTLEGROUND terms. By contrast, there's nearly zero far-right input in any of these threads (despite alarmist beliefs that there just must be, somewhere, because some twits on SlashDot or 4Chan were up to something at some point). When something even faintly right-leaning rarely pops up, it is shouted down, often in very hostile terms but with no repercussions for the incivility. This is not new. It's been this way for years, and at enough length that even wordy editors like me are exhausted by it. The problem isn't the message being advocated, it's that WP is being used as an advocacy venue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, am I incorrect in my understanding that you believe trans*-related articles are subject to POV-pushing from self-described "liberal" or "progressive" editors, and that WP doesn't notice or respond to this form of POV because too many editors agree? Because that's what I understood you to he saying, and I think you are empirically just wrong about that.

I am well aware of the MOS:IDENTITY disputes, have cited their resolution often and respect your work in trying to bring them to consensus. My concern is with your tone deafness about interacting with other editors on these issues (amply illustrated on the Signpost fiasco) and your claimed asymmetry between what you are calling left- and right-wing editing bias.

The asymmetry that concerns me is almost exactly the opposite of what you perceive. What I have seen on LGBT2Q topics is (1) avowed CANVASSing planned on Reddit and Twitter, intended to move WP articles towards less inclusionary language and (2) frequent attempts on a number of articles to promote FRINGE "gender critical" positions. These positions deny trans existence, reframe gender identity as a ploy or a disorder, construe trans people as a violent, threatening other or - most often - promote FALSEBALANCE between well-informed current understandings of trans* issues and prejudices, old or new.

The "mainstream" is not neutral between these positions. The medical, scientific and linguistic "mainstream" recognizes that trans people exist, that their rights need to he protected, and that their preferences should be protected in everyday language use. There is opposition to each of these, but it represents a social minority - whatever may be the case with other issues, on these topics the WP community reflects social attitudes and does not notably distort them, but organized minorities that disagree with the majoritarian view do repeatedly try to push POV on trans* articles. This tends to rile up those who are most personally invested in these articles, with downstream effects we see here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And Crossroads has inserted my diff quite out of context, it followed this and was responded to in turn by this, both of which comments (by Pyxis Solitary represented rather more "activist" forms of queer erasure than any reasonable interpretation of my intervening comment. Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Then you should be extra-sensitive to what it feels like to have something you've written be implied to mean something it clearly does not, yet you are doing precisely the opposite. I find this intensely ironic, given that your only input at both MfDs was off-topic rambling about me being too poor an ironist for your tastes, in a pretentious and condescending mini-lecture on dialectics [245]. The MfD input combined with your behavior in this thread strongly suggests a goal of "sport debate" to make a WP:POINT, to WP:WIN. With that in mind, I refer you to WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and this classic xkcd cartoon: [246].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, you clearly have not looked hard enough to find where I have disagreed with Flyer. Standing out in my mind was one lengthy discussion (lengthy because the issue was complex and there were other participants, not because of Flyer's comments) about comparing animal and human sexual behavior, and an IP and two accounts that added likely-COI content about it. [247] I've had disgruntled people follow me on that matter before, so none of that. I can think of others which I am not listing. As far as being at the same pages, yes, we have overlapping interests, so what? Editing at the same time - not that much. The "openly" thing is unsupported nonsense, and I have edited several topic areas that Flyer has not, and vice versa. The old "1" in my name was because "Crossroads" was not available when I got an account - I usurped it later. And I never interacted with nor ever heard of Flyer until a year after I got the account. As for often agreeing, well, you'll find that, for example, editors who focus on fringe theories agree on a lot too. In all these cases, it is about representing the relevant scientific consensus and not putting undue weight on personally liked theories. And yes, WanderingWanda does have an activist mentality, as seen most obviously at this discussion, but here's another for good measure.

I hope that any admins participating will look at the discussion at El C's talk page.

WanderingWanda, you also stated above to Flyer, "I'll call you out if you're up to shit on an article I follow..." What "shit" has Flyer been up to? What does this mean?

When I stated I was "feeling left out", I was only half-joking. WanderingWanda does seem to have a special animosity towards Flyer, which is puzzling to me, since many others (like myself) have also opposed the very same proposals. But this stuff at the Lesbian erasure talk page is just unacceptable. The comment "Flyer, who likes to go on wearying five-hundred-billion-word-long off-topic rants" added nothing to the discussion and is a blatant personal attack. And the sermonizing about "What extremist anti-trans groups have to say about trans women is offensive to anyone with a heart." was in response to Flyer's "I toned down the language others would find offensive", obviously trying to imply Flyer 'lacked a heart' for not saying it directly was offensive (but as was noted, we're not supposed to edit on the basis of personal feelings, so why should she say it that way?). And WanderingWanda showing up here was an obvious WP:HOUNDing. As another example of their weird focus on Flyer, here in the 23:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC) comment, you can see that WanderingWanda was cutting out parts of Flyer's comments, for which they were admonished by an ArbCom clerk.

I very much agree with JBW's comment, especially the apt description of "gratuitously jumping in and attacking her every time you can see an opportunity for doing so". I don't think a mutual I-ban would be good, because there is not a symmetry here. I've observed that Flyer has a long history here with a reputation of neutrally representing relevant POVs in the article content, which crucially includes actually writing content. WanderingWanda seems to have too much focus on changing terminology and images so as to right great wrongs.

I humbly suggest the following. I think Flyer should be advised not to take the bait when feeling provoked; I myself advise that if nothing else. I think WanderingWanda should be warned about personal attacks and harassment. As far as a one-way I-ban or a short term block, maybe; that's up to the admins and their experience in these sorts of things. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Another striking difference to me is that (so far as I've observed) Flyer22_Reborn, like me, takes issues with viewpoints being pushed not on the basis of what the views are, but simply because they are viewpoints being pushed, while the TG/NB (and LGBT+ and leftism more broadly) activism cluster are very much taking an issue with the content of the viewpoints they disagree with while doing nothing about, or even directly advocating, views they agree with coming to dominate the content (as well as the WP:P&G material that pertains to the topic). So, this is another thing that's not parallel, though I don't think it's WW in particular, but rather a large and nebulous segment of editors, many of them fairly recent, who manage to peer-pressure editors who really know better to partake in it. I don't mean this to sound like some kind of conspiracy theory; it's just typical human politics and group dynamics at work. We have policies in place to restrain that, but they don't work if admins don't apply them. We really have to take an anthropological, culturally relative view about such matters. The difference between objecting to PoV because of its PoV versus because is is PoV is central to this entire topical range of dispute on Wikipedia. Until that is wrestled with, interpersonal conflicts like this will continue to arise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I don't think I can agree with this, though much of what you said above is wise and good. Or rather, carving out leftist editors for this is wrong. The facts do indeed have a well-known liberal bias. Culture wars fights are about entrenched privilege kicking back about what was tactily tolerated, becoming a right. Maybe I am misreading you. Guy (help!) 00:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot in here already. See my "I say all this as a"... bit above: It's not that I'm against the left side of the matter, is that WP isn't a platform for advancing that or any other agenda, yet the community is being excessively tolerant of left-wing agenda pushing, specifically because such a majority of our editors are firmly on the left. The far-right PoV pushing ranters are already dealt with swiftly. The culture war needs to happen out there, while we bite our tongues (and maybe our nails) and neutrally report on the results of those external societal conflicts. That's going to be a slow-moving target (but definitely a moving one), which will never at any moment satisfy everyone at once, even to the point that some of them will be outraged, on all sides, no matter what. Given this reality-of-the-matter condition, it's upon us to try to restrain the excesses of bringing the culture war to WP content and talk pages and policy venues, and push the war back outside when the guns are blazing in WP itself. We need to not be falsely accused of X-phobia every time we object to PoV-pushing from certain quarters on certain topics. Fortunately, I think this is remediable in most cases (because our editors are largely intelligent and capable of separating emotion from facts, distinguishing taking positions from coverage of positions. The one case I thought someone badly needed to be indefinitely topic banned, that's already happened (and even then it was reinstatement of an old T-ban from years ago).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the only editors I've seen who feel that "the majority of our editors are firmly on the left" seem to be U.S.-ian, with the random Australian. And just as clearly, none of the editors I've read on the topic who are on the actual left (U.S.-based or otherwise) see any "leftist" majority here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I agree with this, and it's one reason why I push to remove unreliable left wing sources like Occupy, Alternet and the Daily Kos - and even more mainstream leftist sources like Daily Beast. One problem of course is that left/right position is subject to the Overton window. The "radical far-left Democrat" policies are largely indistinguishable from Reagan-era Republicanism, whereas "conservative" policies are way to the right of what was considered far too radical when proposed by Pat Buchanan. Guy (help!) 10:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI opened

• This all belongs at ANI and now it is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) My inclination here is to topic ban everyone under WP:ARBGG for repeatedly and gratuitiously disrupting this topic with their POV wars: whether you're editing in good faith or not, your behaviour (all of you) is disruptive to other editors who just want to edit and not participate in your character assassination war. But I've also been pinged and got an email notification 38 times about this (one ping and one email for each edit on my talk page about it), all since 1am my time and many of them coming while I was sitting in a fairly important business meeting (my own fault I suppose for not setting my phone on silent), all of those ignoring my page notice and talk page edit notice saying basically "I'm not here, don't come to me with urgent problems". So perhaps I'm not in the best frame of mind to be moderating things today. So y'all can deal with this, and I'm going home to where the beer is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you got caught in the crossfire like that. All I ask is that outside participants review each person's behavior as individuals, as justice requires, rather than the whole crowd getting condemned. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm exhausted and am off to bed with little time tomorrow, although I'll take another look in the morning. But I definitely think it would be a bad idea to treat them all the same. Doug Weller talk 21:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Somewhere along the line I was pinged to this debate and am rather late to the party. My take is that there needs to be an admonition that hounding and making personalized remarks is not the way to manage a dispute over article content. IMHO, i-bans and t-bans are pretty useless. Doing the “both of you are equally at fault” is a bit lazy, and punishes both the perpetrator and the victim, where the 25% contribution of the victim is considered equal to the 75% contribution of the perpetrator. Here, Flyer was seeking some third party input, was followed to that page by WW, who made a personalized attack, and then we are off to the races. As the tl;dr above indicates, there are many highly contentious topics on WP, and none of them are improved by a toxic editing environment that starts going after individual editors. I suggest WW be admonished to stop hounding, stop baiting, and stop casting aspersions. Flyer needs to be reminded that they are a highly experienced editor who knows better than to rise to the bait. Everyone else needs to work on making articles as NPOV as possible, and where NPOV is difficult, then to accurately and fairly present each of the major positions or factions, with extensive sourcing, and to factor in due and undue weight based on objective, third party criteria (professional polls can be useful, where they exist). Focus on content, not agendas. Montanabw^(talk) 21:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The trouble with "WW be admonished" is simply that if that were going to work it would have worked long ago. JBW (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Everyone else needs to work on making articles as NPOV as possible, and where NPOV is difficult, then to accurately and fairly present each of the major positions or factions, with extensive sourcing, and to factor in due and undue weight based on objective, third party criteria (professional polls can be useful, where they exist). Focus on content, not agendas.

I strongly agree with all of this, and it's what I try to do (and if I ever don't succeed, and I'm sure that I don't always, I ask folks to remember that even if I try and act like a seasoned old-timer, I'm not: I've only been active here about a year, and just have a few thousand edits. In addition, the areas I've been working in are sensitive ones where tempers often run high. I ask for help and patience, things I try to give to others when I can).

I do take slight issue with this statement: Flyer was seeking some third party input, was followed to that page by WW. Perhaps it's an academic point, and perhaps (probably) I shouldn't have commented, but I do want to reiterate that I was there because Ivanvector's page happens to be on my watchlist. I don't recall why it is, but I follow a lot of people for quasi-random reasons (which of course is a bit silly, it just means my wachlist gets spammed with newsletter announcements and stuff). I might've followed him because he weighed in on the last ANI I was involved with. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• My proposal:

1. All parties take a deep breath. Maybe it's not personal?
2. WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Reborn warned that the first to fire in any subsequent exchange of shots will be blocked.
3. WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Reborn warned that continued personalisation of disputes will lead to one-way or two-way IBANs depending on how obviously each can demonstrate that they are not the problem.

WP:AGF is a thing. Operate on the assumption that if $EDITOR looks like an angry idiot, it's because you haven't understood what they are trying to say and why. A polite exploration of differences fixes many issues, an exchange that is polite on one side and not the other makes it easy for us to identify the source of the problem. Guy (help!) 00:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I laughed at your statement about us knocking six bells out of each other. For my part, I can't promise to forgive her for some of the things she's said to me, but I can promise to not personalize things between us on any article talk page again. I'll stick to the content, and I'll be a hardliner about that. If I have a problem, I'll take it to ANI, or another appropriate venue. I hope Flyer will do the same in the future. I also think, incidentally, it would be helpful if she gave me permission to post on her talk page again, as I think it makes it harder to cooperate without communication. But that's up to her. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, that's the way. Assume good faith and chill. Guy (help!) 00:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Conditional support I think Guy (JzG) is on the right track here, but if Montanabw's 25/75% distinction is correct, then that should somehow be taken into account. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that breakdown, at least if you look at our interactions overall. Ever since this thread was moved to ANI, I've tried to help de-escalate this situation by focusing on self-criticism and what I plan to do going forward, but I could go into detail about our history together if it would be helpful. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, the law of holes applies here. Guy (help!) 23:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support warning WanderingWanda per Guy's proposal, but not convinced that a warning is necessary for Flyer. I was pinged way back in this thread (before it moved to ANI), and have taken some time to read through several old (and lengthy) conversations. From what I've seen, the worst Flyer has done is accuse WW of POV pushing a POV in articles, and maybe lost her rag a bit when she's been baited. That's not ideal, but contrasted with accusations of being anti-trans, aspersions and generally weird comments about her brother, and editing practices that could easily give someone the impression of being hounding, I think it's WW who needs to be warned to back off. If WW stops poking Flyer with pointed sticks, I'm confident that there will be no more drama. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support warning WanderingWanda per Guy's proposal and User:Girth Summit. I've been trying to get onto Wikipedia for a while (and I know I'm not the only one) - if I'd been able to access it before Girth I would have made the same points. ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I am involved so I guess what I say here should be taken with a grain of salt. I have Lesbian erasure on my watchlist, but it has become too much of a wall of text for me to follow or muster up the energy to engage with. I also have Flyers talk page on my watchlist and her [latest edit worried me and eventually led me here. What we have is an experienced editor that has proven herself competent at editing some very difficult topics; topics that attract a lot of single purpose accounts looking to push a point of view in many different directions. I am actually impressed that she manages to keep as calm as she does and was genuinely happy when I saw her at this topic area. Since then she has been driven away from two of the most controversial articles in this area [248][249]. Now it looks like the same is happening at the Lesbian Erasure article, where Flyer was present first and had contributed alot to the article. I know we like to keep things even with warnings and it is easy to just tar everyone, but I tend to agree this is not a case of both editors being equally guilty. AIRcorn (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support warning Wanda. I haven't followed what has happened, and there's no easy way at this stage to disentangle it. All I can say is that, whenever I've noticed Wanda interact with Flyer, it has seemed to me that Wanda has followed her somewhere. Flyer does good work on Wikipedia keeping activist issues at arm's length in sexuality articles. These are articles that a lot of editors don't want to edit, so Flyer is worth her weight in gold because she's willing to read about the issues and apply the policies. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support warning WanderingWanda Activists use Wikipedia all the time to promote their world outlook and that applies double in the areas monitored by Flyer who should be thanked for her work. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support warning WanderingWanda: I said it before and I'll say it again: "the editor that goaded and shit-stirred is the editor that should take a break from gender-related articles". Since we're not at the edge of an T-ban, the appropriate action in this matter is to issue a warning to WanderingWanda. There is absolutely no excuse for the insults and constant baiting. And I don't believe the "I've tried to help de-escalate this situation by focusing on self-criticism". There have been many incidents and none of them have resulted in self-criticism because this behavior keeps repeating itself. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:50, 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.

User:NormanGear

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.

---

• NormanGear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ANI1: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#Edits by Spanish user sockpuppet ‘NormanGear’
• ANI2: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#Harassment/Personal attacks belligerent and disruptive continued conduct by user:NormanGear
• ANI3: NormanGear continues reverting Portuguese_people and Spaniards and causing vandalism on Portuguese people page. Also violating 3RR rules. Tried Talk, no improvement. As per previous notices, third party neutral input desirable.

Melroross (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I refer to previous incidents of edit wars and harassment namely on Spaniards and again on Portuguese people reported here. User continues to systematically revert my edits invoking “repetition” on Lead which is untrue. Despite efforts to TALK, the user keeps engaging on Edit Wars: WP:ANI#User:NormanGear = Continues to delete my entries and denotes partiality and personal opinion contrary to wikipedia:Five_pillars, namely WP:5P2, WP:5P4 which I feel has escalated to personal harassment by this User:NormanGear. Also the WP:LEAD 3 reversals per day, may have been violated by the user who has for the past 2 months ignored Talkpage efforts to reach reasonable consensus. Thank you for your neutral and fair intervention. User has been notified of incident report Melroross (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Please use dispute resolution to resolve content disputes. If someone is edit warring, you need to post evidence in the form of diffs at WP:ANEW. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Haven't you two been told several times before to stop starting discussions at WP:ANI to resolve content disputes? Just use the link provided by NinjaRobotPirate, which itself links to other possible procedures that do not involve administrators. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Phil Bridger, have tried to reach a compromise. Unfortunately the user appears not to understand the WP:5P despite numerous attempts to Talk and resolve in a collaborative way. Also violating 3RR rule. Third party neutral intervention desired. Thanks, Melroross (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• You have been told several times that the way to ask for third-party neutral intervention about a content issue is not to come here, but to follow the link provided by NinjaRobotPirate above. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 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.

Djtmac558 reported by JlACEer

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.

---

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Djtmac558 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple unsourced edits to various Disney-related pages. Too many for me to try to undo. User has a long history of unsourced edits and warnings (see talk page).—JlACEer (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Notes:

• Djtmac558 has never edited a talk nor user talk page to discuss with other users.
• Djtmac558 has been blocked twice in the past (48 hours; 1 week).

Courtesy ping: NJA has described similar behavior in the block log; this might be a persistent issue.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. I’ve blocked the user as WP:NOTHERE, N.J.A. | talk 02:41, 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.

The Banner and his fallacious 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.

---

The Banner has repeatedly made bad faith edits on the WW1 casualties article. As a note, we have discussed issues like the 1917 dutch riots, and have reached compromises on that, so it is possible he can be constructive. But he has repeatedly been adding Balkan War losses to the WW1 page, even though the Balkan Wars were before WW1. I have tried to tell him that on his talk page, but he has so far been dogged in his pursuit of vandalizing the page, perhaps because we had a lengthy spat on the Easter Rising talk page, in which his side of the argument won out and I resigned. When I tried to explain to him that I had been trying to keep an IP from vandalizing the page by adding Balkan War losses, he acted as if I was the one who was vandalizing. In addition, I suspect bad faith because his edits were not thorough. For example, he erroneously altered Serbian losses numbers to include the Balkan Wars, but he did not bother to change the numbers for the Total Allied section or Total Losses section. It seems to me he is stalking this page due to some animus towards me. And in addition, he falsely stated that I asserted that Liberia was neutral during WW1, even though I was the one that added Liberia to the WW1 casualties page because I knew it had entered the war at a later date. The Banner also attempted to vandalize the Central Asian revolt of 1916 page much earlier by asserting falsely that it wasn't part of WW1. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

A few quick points... First, cite diffs when commenting on specific edits. In this case you did not include a single link, leaving everybody to have to dig around on their own. Secondly, take a very deep breath before accusing someone of bad faith editing, especially well established editors. Usually it is not the case. Third, this looks like a content dispute. Your comments in the talk page discussion do not lend themselves well to your cause. And I am being polite there. I suggest reading my thoughts on ANI. You may then wish to step back from this before it starts attracting a lot of attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 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.

Block, please

[250], please block that IP pdq. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see this message. It took me a little time to find the words. I don't think I did.  Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam

SharabSalam continues to remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam, most recently Muhammad in the Quran. This user has been mentioned at WikiProject Islam and has been warned multiple times about obvious POV pushing. I've tried to be civil with this user, I've never reported anyone at ANI before, but I feel this is the only way to prevent further disruption. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please use DIFFS to support each of your claims. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not attempt to discuss the dispute on the article talk page, instead of bringing your content dispute to ANI? El_C 17:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss this and other issues on the user's talk page. This is not a simple content dispute. This user persistently attempts to remove potentially negative information from Wikipedia articles. This user is trying to paint their own picture on Wikipedia. This user also recently marked a large removal as a minor edit. I will provide diffs soon. I apologize that I do not know how to link diffs. I will try to figure it out. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool and El_C, this [edit] is the most recent one that I was talking about. I will provide more. The page is now fully protected, and the information that this user removed has not been restored. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

He rollbacks you, you rvv him — it does not inspire confidence. I know it's protected — I'm the one who protected it. El_C 17:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This link [[251]] is the page WikiProject Islam. On point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out. GrammarDamner (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

With this edit [[252]]], the user removed a large amount of information. In the edit summary, the user said that it's not what the source said, but it's actually exactly what the source said. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

With this edit [[253]], the user removed information regarding human rights abuses. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. With an edit summary explaining why. And I think the reason given (WP:BLP concerns when citing a webpage that is discussing Kuwait rather then the individual) is at least sufficient to justify discussing the matter on the talk page (or on WP:BLPN). On its own, without any attempt to discuss, it doesn't appear to me to be worthy of raising at WP:ANI. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Usedtobecool, El_C, here are the diffs and what exactly happened, this started when an IP editor removed a content without explaining why, I reverted but I investigated one of the sources which I saw was so uninformed about what its talking about. I did some research about the source and I found that it is famously anti-Muslim. I went to WP:RSN and discussed this there and JzG later removed the whole paragraph because it is sourced to apologists who are not experts in the topic. Here, where GrammarDamner came and reverted JzG saying "not sure why this was removed". I then reverted him and told him the reason why this was removed. He added the content again (with undo edit filter) but with a different source which is also an op-ed by a non-expert person and on top of that, does not source the whole content. I reverted again and said that the content is an op-ed written by a non-expert. He reverted me saying "well, yes, it's mentioning criticism, so it's fine. Thanks!" The source literally says that author personally "don't believe Muhammad's revelations were divine, nor those of any other prophet or religion for that matter." Another issue is that how is this even criticism. I let the content in the article and went to his talk page then an editor posted stuff about me and I didnt want to continue. After 6 days an IP editor removed the content, Drmies reverted the IP but then Drmies probably noticed the source is an op-ed and self-reverted, then Grammar reverted Drmies while making an edit summary about the IP. After 7 days I reverted Grammar and here we are.
• About the post in Islam or Quran wikiproject. There is an editor named Koreangauteng who is probably trolling and also following me during any dispute I am having with any editor he posts a message in their talk page, as a matter of fact, he posted in El_C's talk page and when this dispute happened he posted in GrammarDamner's talk page. He said in a post that because I am a Yemeni, my native language is Arabic, I love my religion, prophet, etc that I have WP:COI. And GrammarDamner also said that I have WP:COI because I am a Muslim. He posted this after a similar issue happened between me and him in Taqiya article, he added some content that doesnt IMO make any sense using a book from LuLu a self-publishing company, I reverted citing WP:SPS and he reverted with a new book that it is again sourced to a christian apologist who is so biased and not expert in any of what he is talking about, the book even shows how biased it is at the beginning saying While there may be millions of peaceful and tolerant Muslims, many of them our neighbors, Islam itself is hardly peaceful and tolerant..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• The source literally says that author personally "don't believe Muhammad's revelations were divine, nor those of any other prophet or religion for that matter." — so? That's a prefectly valid scholarly position. And GrammarDamner also said that I have WP:COI because I am a Muslim — diff? El_C 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  El C, he is not a scholar! and Grammar above that I have a COI just above and cited what that editor said:

  • With respect, for a Wiki Editor self-describing as a "Yemeni !", "with a native language of العربية (Arabic)", having a "Muslim" religion, who "loves Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم very much", who "is impressed by Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم" and edits as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Baqarah&diff=932969817&oldid=932950799

  - suggest he/she should consider WP:COI

  --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  And not to mention that the editor has said that my edit is vandalism and yet saying that it is hard for him to be civil.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• SharabSalam, please just keep it simple: El C, that ridiculous COI diff, it's this--a really shortsighted remark by Koreangauteng, whose contributions may need further scrutiny, and who shot themselves in the foot with this odd claim. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The removal by SharabSalam of the first section linked by GrammarDamner looks entirely justified to me. It cites a Guardian 'comment is free' piece (questionable in of itself as WP:RS) for quotations which do not appear in the piece being cited, and for other statements not supported by the source. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source, cited in many other Wikipedia articles. And just because an editor disagrees with you multiple times does not mean that they are "probably trolling". GrammarDamner (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source, and yet we still do not accept opinion pieces, unascribed, for this kind of content. The IP is absolutely correct and you, GrammarDamner, are wrong. I have not read the Guardian comment, but it seems the IP has and I'll take their word for it. And let me add that in all the cases where you provided diffs, SharabSalam was correct. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

All of those were correct? Is it correct to mark removal of content as a minor edit? Is it correct to mention that a source doesn't say something (when it in fact does and is directly quoted) in the edit summary? Is it correct to remove negative content? Or should Wikipedia articles present both sides of an issue for balance and neutrality? GrammarDamner (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The words in quotation marks in this passage [254] beginning with the words "Why must he..." do not appear in the Guardian opinion piece cited. Or are you suggesting that the material is in fact a quotation from the Quran? 86.134.74.102 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I was not suggesting that the material is in fact a quotation from the Quran. When I mentioned quotes, I was talking about this edit [[255]] where SharabSalam removed content and in the edit summary (falsely) said that it was not what the source says. GrammarDamner (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As I previously stated, I was referring to the first edit you linked [256] in the article your raised in your first post (Muhammad in the Quran), after being requested to provide a diff. It contains a 'quotation' not in the source. Accordingly, the deletion was valid, contrary to your claim in your original post that SharabSalam had removed "properly sourced information". 86.134.74.102 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, wait.. what? how is that even related to this issue? Have you even edited in there? I dont recall seeing you there. Are you searching for an excuse for this ? I have removed the duplicated content and readded it because it was suggesting that the UN report has been released but the source says that the UN report has not been released to public and that it was only seen by Reuters, I did add it to the article with the accurate description from the source and removed the duplicated content. You are obviously trying to change the subject of this thread. This is an obvious case of WP:Boomerang.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that was the subject of this thread. I reported that you continue to remove information that should not be removed. I was asked to provide diffs, so I did. GrammarDamner (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, you are desperately searching for an excuse for this embarrassing, failed attempt to report me, you even made it more embarrassing by searching through my edits trying to find something to report me for. I did add the content as accurately described by the Reuters exclusive report. How is this related to what you reported me for and I quote remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam, most recently Muhammad in the Quran. How is an op-ed/commentisfree and LuLu.com are "properly sourced information"? .--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, according to that diff, you only added some of the content. And as I've pointed out, your edit summary said that the content was not in the source, but it was. As for the op-ed, we're talking about criticism of something, which by definition will often be in an op-ed or opinion piece. Should the Guardian have published a second article stating "Some people feel that..."? GrammarDamner (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't add content in Wikipedia about how some ordinary people feel per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, we only add experts criticism. Also, for the Abqiaq thing the Reuters report says that the report was seen by Reuters, the content in the infobox was suggest that the report has been released. I have contributed in that article. Almost all of the content in that article is written by me. Again this is not related to Islam, you said "remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam". I need evidence for this accusation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Expert is a loosely defined term, and I respectfully disagree. I feel that it is not undue. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If a dispute about article content comes down to what you (or anyone else) 'feels', such discussion should take place on the relevant article talk page. It isn't a matter for WP:ANI. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: still waiting for that diff to that COI passage... You are unclear as to its origins. Also, asking GrammarDamner Did you join Wikipedia yesterday?^[257] was not your finest moment, I challenge. El_C 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, see it now? Look up. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I see it, thanks. But I got the impression from SharabSalam that it was GrammarDamner who made that COI claim. Perhaps I misread, then. That's why having diffs from the outset is really helpful. El_C 18:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, I know, and I thought the same thing initially. SharabShalam is not an L1 speaker of English, I think, but hey, we found it, and that was indeed a crappy put-down. If that constitutes a COI, then we should all stop editing what we're editing. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, totally ridiculous. El_C 18:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C the comment was made by that editor who has also posted a comment on your talk page just mins after I had with you some conversation, I linked it above in my long comment, also this editor has referenced the COI in this thread saying "On point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out". I said that because the editor is ignoring what other editors are saying and editwarring. The editor has reverted a removal of content that was removed by JzG after we discussed this in WP:RSN, saying that he is not sure why the content was removed. Do you think that is true? Nonsense, JzG was absolutely clear in the edit summary when he said that the sources are from apologists not experts. Then when I reverted him, he undo my edit but changed the source with a similar source, an op-ed or commentisfree, from a person who is not an expert.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I can't help but wonder who GrammerDamner is, and why they make so many edits to change a few little things, all marked as "grammar" when, certainly in this case, none of them are actually grammatical. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with that edit? GrammarDamner (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • It's ten edits, and it's not about grammar. That's all. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Drmies which edits? The edit you highlighted is just a few grammar fixes. Also, I wasn't being rhetorical with my questions above. I'm actually wondering are all those things correct? Please answer when you get a chance. Thank you. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
        • None of those edits were grammatical. All the diffs I looked at, SharabSalam was correct, particularly the one sourced to that comment in The Guardian. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Drmies, with all due respect, you must be mistaken. In those edits, I added a comma, removed an erroneous word, added a comma, changed a verb tense, added a preposition, corrected capitalization, added a comma, added a comma, added a comma, changed a conjunction (edit summary "wording"), and added a comma. How are those not grammatical? I'm genuinely confused. GrammarDamner (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
            • GrammarDamner, commas aren't a matter of grammar but of style. Changing a conjunction (from "but" to "and") is a matter of semantics. You didn't change any verb tenses or "correct" capitalization. (Capitalization also is not a grammatical matter.) I think your confusion is between grammar and style. Your comma after "22", for instance, is typically mandatory for US students but not in other varieties of English. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
              • Drmies, with all due respect, all of those are matters of grammar. Yes, some of them fall under other categories as well, but they are all grammar issues. GrammarDamner (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

A question for GrammarDamner

In your second post above,[258] you state that you "attempted to discuss this and other issues on the user's talk page". Can you provide a link to the relevant posts? Because all I can locate from you in the history for User talk:SharabSalam is a section entitled 'Persistent vandalism' [259] followed by an ANI notification for this thread. [260] Are you suggesting that these posts constitute adequate 'discussion' by you, or has there been such discussion somewhere else? 86.134.74.102 (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It was also discussed on my talk page. Given SharabSalam's history of edit warring and personal attacks, I felt it was time to bring it here. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If the 'discussion' you are referring to is the one here [261], I suggest that you immediately request that this discussion be closed, before a WP:BOOMERANG appears. That does not even remotely constitute an attempt by you to discuss anything. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I see some tit-for-tat; but nothing I would call discussion – which should have occurred on the article TP. Someone should have brought this up at WP:AN3. But, I think it was a mistake for you to bring this here considering you were both warring. As for Koreangauteng, someone needs to inform them that their COI comment was way out of line. (Or, as I worship of beef bourguignon, I’ll need to remove my edits in that article). O3000 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I brought this to the wrong place. I'm not even sure what AN3 is, but I will look it up now. I'm still relatively new to all of this. As for "my warring", I thought I was doing everything right, not violating 3RR, trying to restore the article. Perhaps I forgot to mention SharabSalam's personal attacks in my first post, but that was part of the reason I brought it here. GrammarDamner (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You have repeatedly referred to supposed 'personal attacks' by SharabSalam. As far as I can see, you haven't however provided links to any of them. I suggest you do so, because repeatedly accusing someone of making such attacks, without providing evidence, may itself constitute a personal attack. And while SharabSalam's "Did you join Wikipedia yesterday?" [262] wasn't exactly polite, I don't think that on its own is going to justify sanctions against him. Better phrased, it might even have passed as a fair comment, I'd have to suggest, given your apparent lack of understanding of several key Wikipedia policies. Policies such as discussing disputed content on article talk pages, as was suggested in that very post. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was the personal attack against me by SharabSalam. You can also look at SharabSalam's block log to see the user being blocked for personal attacks before. I'm sorry that I don't know how to post a link to a user's block log. I'm not asking for any sanctions against SharabSalam. I was hoping that someone else could help explain that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, meaning the articles should include relevant information, even if it's negative. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, Where is the personal attack? huh? I personally attacked you because I was blocked for personal attack? The content I removed is not negative or positive, it was a mix and I am not the one who firstly removed it, it was removed an admin first and you added it again. Also you edited warred, two admins and me removed that content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The personal attack was when you posted "Did you join Wikipedia yesterday?" on my talk page. GrammarDamner (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, What? thats a personal attack? I told you that because you were obviously not informed about reliable sourced and editwarring as well. Thats not a personal attack. That is saying that you are not informed about the wikipedia policies.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm too much of a softie (wouldn't be the first time someone has said that about me, haha), but I felt offended. GrammarDamner (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What you did was like a new editor. You removed the content saying not sure why it was removed, yet there is an edit summary by JzG saying why he removed the content, you re-added the content using a source from commentisfree source in the Guardian, all 3 months old editors know that content like that, that make criticism should be sourced to experts per WP:FRINGE. We dont just add what an ordinary man said. We would have 1 million MBs if we are going to just write what a random person says. Also, you said that the there is a COI, right? Above you said [o]n point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out. Do you still think that there is a COI issues with me?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thats not even assuming bad faith. You assumed bad faith and called my edit WP:vandalism at first I thought it is a typo when you said rvv but you went to the talk page said that I am vandalising, wow.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. You want to widen the discussion, not narrow it by limiting it to the two editors in dispute. Bring some outside input to the matter under contention. That's what the article talk page is for — and if that somehow stalls, there's dispute resolution and its accompanying requests. El_C 23:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C, I should have thought of that, even though SharabSalam first brought it to my talk page with a personal attack. I have commented on the article's talk page, and I hope others will too. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

An issue regarding any Wikipedia editor with (any) strong personal belief

I first raised the issue of a possible COI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles

On 2 January 2020 I made an unreserved apology for the use any descriptor other than a belief system. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam&diff=933696430&oldid=933606413

I believe (note, that is my 'belief') it is not unreasonable to raise potential COI Wikipedia editor issues for any editor with any strong, self-identified belief system. Koreangauteng (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that it is ever 'reasonable' to use the talk page of a Wikiproject to make COI accusations concerning a named Wikipedia contributor in the manner that you did. There is an appropriate place for such discussions (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard), and unless there are very good reasons not to, the individual concerned should be notified.

As for your interpretation of WP:COI policy, I strongly believe that the Earth is (approximately) spherical. Do I have a COI if I edit an article on our home planet? I assume not. But in any case, this isn't the place to discuss the limits of WP:COI policy, and Wikipedia certainly isn't going to ban people from editing articles on subject matter they have beliefs about. 86.134.74.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, what about this editor Koreangauteng who is adding sources like memri and stuff like that to Islam related articles and also following me in every dispute or conversation posting a link to his post which says that I have a COI. This is absolutely unacceptable. I told this editor before that it does not constitute as WP:COI if I love my prophet peace be upon him. Also, now the discussion that it is opened in the talk page of Talk:Muhammad in the Quran is about that link!--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have an issue with Koreangauteng's behaviour, and you can't resolve it by discussing it with him/her (have you tried?), then maybe it should be raised here, but I really wouldn't recommend trying to find a resolution in this particular discussion. It is a disjointed mess already, and I doubt anyone will want to see it develop into a three-way dispute. Hopefully though, Koreangauteng will have realised that naming you in that way on the Wikiproject page was wrong, and won't do it again. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

well, I have told him that it is not a COI to be a Muslim and that his comment is polemic. After that I just ignored him although he is still following me. Also, I know that he is still adding poorly sourced content and using primary sources in his edits but I dont really want to bother right now.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm on it. As for Koreangauteng consistently adding poorly-sourced content to Islamic articles out of righting great wrongs or whatever impetus, that is something which they may be sanctioned for. But the evidentiary basis for that disruption has to exist (be compiled in a cogent format) first. El_C 02:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Koreangauteng's understanding of our RS policy is fairly flawed.

E.g. [263] where they re-added a self-published (Lulu.com) source called "A 15 Minute Tactical Guide to Islam" by an apparently non notable author (I don't just mean because we have no article, but a search for this author only finds stuff like they also self-published "Islam: Y Tho?"). And used the argument below 'you have to be able to show that they're breaching other core policies because of their bias for it to be actionable' even though it was removed as an unreliable source, so by definition, an argument of a breach of a core policy was made.

They used the same argument when re-adding this [264]. At least that time it was not selfpublished (Thomas Nelson (publisher)) and the author is apparently notable Hank Hanegraaff. Still a quick read of the author's wikipedia article suggests there's no reason to think they has any particular expertise on Islam or the Quran. Anyway at least the argument for reinstatement made a little more sense there since it was in response to the removal reason 'The source is not reliable it is written by a Christian apologists'. But of course the point they seem to be missing is there's a big difference between an editor having a COI, and a RS having one. Although the big issue here isn't so much the COI, but as I said, there's no reason to think that work should be consider an RS for Islam or the Quran.

This case where they used FrontPage Magazine also caught my eye [265] although it's a complicated case since it's someone's reply to criticism of their work. In any event, they're still fairly new, so KoreanGauteng should be given the opportunity to learn about our RS policy before any action.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• No, religious beliefs themselves are never sufficient to constitute a COI (holding a formal position like a priest theoretically could, but I suspect it would generally only apply to things directly related to the religious hierarchy for that religion rather than the faith as a whole.) This is spelled out on WP:COI: Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. The pope's personal aide cannot edit Pope or other pages directly related to the papacy due to personal relationships, but ordinary Catholics can. Imagine if we, for instance, banned every Christian from editing articles related to Christianity - it would not be tenable. As WP:COINOTBIAS says, of course, such editors can still be biased and can get in trouble if they end up consistently falling afoul of WP:ADVOCACY, but note that that is fairly specific itself - Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view, ie. you have to be able to show that they're breaching other core policies because of their bias for it to be actionable, you can't just wave your hands at their strong beliefs and assume it. This is because in many cases (especially when it comes to religion) the most knowledgeable editors and the ones with the most interest in the topic are also going to have biases; we wouldn't want to just ban them all at once. Instead, the important question is whether they can edit constructively and evenhandedly despite their bias. --Aquillion (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion Thank you. Koreangauteng (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Humans are inherently biased towards humans. Let's ban humans from editing any article related to humanity. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 04:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Ms96 issues with User:SharabSalam

To be concise, I summarize two issues I'm having with him:

1. Persistent teasing: This user keeps teasing others. regarding me: explaining CC for me, explaining the difference between AN and ANI for me. regarding others: Did you join Wikipedia yesterday?. I think common sense is the only thing needed to categorize this teasing behavior out of good faith boundaries.

Also see this edit: "not surprised after seeing their comment about "the enemy"". WP:LIBEL

1. Reverting this edit of mine.

• I believe "weight training in local gyms", "practicing Karate", and "being a fitness trainer" are irrelevant issues regarding Soleimani.
• "He was described as having a calm presence and as carrying himself "inconspicuously and rarely rais[ing] his voice", exhibiting understated charisma", and "he usually did not appear in his official military clothing" are WP:PROPAGANDA, especially when sourced to a blog in one case.
• Regarding that poll survey, I refer to our conversation on his talk page here (Please read carefully). He says "that doesnt count as a dispute about the content but with the source", well I previously expressed my concerns also about the content as well here.
• He insists that Iranians view Soleimani as a "selfless hero" and love him here and doesn't even compromise on "mixed view" of him among Iranians despite these: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f). Iranian protesters have actually called him a murderer and tore up his pictures [266], [267], [268], [269], [270]. I can take tens of other sources. MS 会話 16:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Is anybody else going to weigh in on this? I apologize for my apparent misuse of the term COI, but it now appears we have a clear case of WP:Advocacy. I feel like I should ping the other editors who were discussing this before, but perhaps it is best for Ms96 to start a new thread, since this is a separate incident. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner Thanks, already done. MS 会話 04:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)