Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1034

User:PlanetAakash and User:BenJulio87

Very suspicious of these 2 accounts, they have been gaming the system, there might be more sockpuppet accounts associated with it, which they use to write paid articles, the recent one is of Karan Jani. He didn't achieve any substantial prize note-worthy -> the one which he received worthy is Breakthrough Prize which was shared with 1012 contributors, here is the link -> https://breakthroughprize.org/News/32, and other awards are just local university awards which he got at his university he studied. He doesn't pass the Notability criteria for academics. Also, PlanetAakash has done paid articles before, you can check on his talk page, and BenJulio87(his supposedly uncle who is an Australian by birth(Indian Government Official lol!) created a Draft:Aakash Gautam(who is PlanetAakash). 2405:201:C808:F33:B171:3312:D05B:621E (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan and User:Davefelmer

I noticed a few issues a while back and again this morning, it started out on the article Birds of Prey (2020 film) with a kind of edit-war and KyleJoan has raise an SPI against Davefelmer about creating multiple accounts to get his agenda across. I think there is a lot here to go through on the Birds of Prey article history and talk page. I really think admins intervention is needed now. Govvy (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The main issue is that Davefelmer repeatedly adds disputed materials to the lead section of Birds of Prey (2020 film) while an RfC discussing said disputed materials is ongoing. In relation, they summarize/justify their additions by falsely claiming that they have obtained consensus for them. I'd also like to state that many of Davefelmer's recent edits of film articles' lead sections have been reverted by other users; some examples include Iron Man 2 per this diff, Charlie's Angels (2019 film) per this diff, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker per this diff, and Birds of Prey (2020 film) per this diff. KyleJoan^talk 10:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article talk page in question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birds_of_Prey_(2020_film). Said disputes have come from this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birds_of_Prey_(2020_film)#BoP_a_box_office_dissapointment which is NOT ongoing as there has been one comment made to it since March 17 with 3/4 editors involved siding with the inclusion of the relevant information, and this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birds_of_Prey_(2020_film)#RfC_about_relation_to_DCEU_Universe_and_break-even_point which is the RfC in question. Two different points were raised by user KyleJoan, one of which has not been touched but another in which again 3/4 editors have sided with inclusion of information KyleJoan went against. There's been one comment made to the page in the last 13 days so I would say that that debate is not ongoing either, except for the fact that yesterday KyleJoan went and opened an SPI investigation into one of the users that sided with inclusion as my sockpuppet, which is the SPI linked by Govvy above, and anyone that looks through it will see the absurdity of what we are dealing with here (he's claiming evidence of SPI tampering because two replies by different users in a movie article talkpage happened to share the words "picture" and "balance"...I mean what's next, demanding any two users who happen to use the words "set" or "happy" automatically be sockpuppets? What about "budget" and "good"?). It's simply an embarrassing reach to delay a consensus being formed that he does not like.

And with due respect, his random pointing out of some edits in movie articles I've made in the past being reverted means absolutely nothing. Any Wikipedia editor will see some of his edits reverted and discussed, that's the nature of the project. If you look back at my recent history, you'll also see edits made on movie articles which were not reverted and have stood too, but that is similarly neither here nor there. None of the highlighted edits generated any significant disputes with other editors and the pages have not been touched for a while. It appears these inclusions with no relevance to the RfC and BoP talkpage this noticeboard is about have been included for no other reason than to try and plant small seeds of negativity in the perception of me as an editor to whoever will review this, which I urge said people not to fall for as if I were to do likewise for KyleJoan, there would be a pretty extensive pool of information to draw on and add to my response with. Davefelmer (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolyvansky, edit warring, IDHT, screeds

Kolyvansky (talk · contribs) Editwarring in Canada Drugs, a long screed in Regulatory capture, WP:IDHT on my talk page, a TP full of warnings. I fear the problem is intractable. Please advice. Kleuske (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, no edits since the last warning, but this could go direct to WP:ANEW if he repeats it. No opinion on the merits of the content, but this is straight up edit warring. Guy (help!) 20:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by UserNumber

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.

---

UserNumber is frequently showing aggressive ownership of Talk:Bakarkhani, by closing the RfC even after being deeply involved in the content dispute and edit warring everybody who has reverted him.[1][2]

He is also removing any further comments on talk page.[3] He has been already told by admin El_C to stop it,[4] but he won't and he is threatening that he will "report you guys if you don't stop misbehaving",[5] if anyone reverted him again.Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 10 April 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:Gizapink continues to make personal attacks against other editors after having been blocked for doing so already.

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.

---

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

The user in question after having been previously blocked for violations of WP:NPA just left a message passive aggressively asking User:CaradhrasAiguo if he was "working for the Chinese state" [6]. See Blocklog for "Gizapink" . It's pretty inflammatory behaviour especially considering Gizapink has a history of making these sorts of personal attacks. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Gizapink reverted CA to put it back on CA's talk page and claimed that CA has an OBVIOUS agenda twice at WP:ANEW (1, 2). — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

As Chess alludes to, the previous block was for this passive aggressive (surprise!) remark. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 07:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For reference, I'm pretty sure this is the diff that led to Gizapink being blocked for the first time in March. A topic ban from COVID-19 related topics or another block might be appropriate here. I'm not going to pretend that I don't have a "history" with CaradhrasAiguo so to speak (feel free to see their talk page) and in the interests of full disclosure I'm not an uninvolved editor. But this was really blatant, really uncivil, and is something that needs to be dealt with. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week, and, to be honest, I am afraid that we are spending too much time for an editor who has made 140 edits and already got blocked twice.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at the Teahouse

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:Suprach made a legal threat here. I told them there and on their talk page that they must retract that before doing anything else, but instead they posted this. --bonadea contributions talk 07:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the user--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 10 April 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.

HD 182681

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 User:Reskin keeps on adding the name (in one form or another, either redirect or page name changes) of Yonmara for the star [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]]. I have been unable to find any reference to this claim, not have they tried to add one (despite CN tags). Also may be a COI as well, and thus promotional content [[11]]. In fact this all they seem to have done for the last couple of months.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

And still as it [[12]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This may explain it. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Slatersteven, that website you linked appears to be for a video game or something (and states the year of discovery as being about two centuries out). I doubt COI, though I won't rule out fiction. creffett (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I created the article about this real star and did the scientific research and citations December 4, 2019. The common name has been in use for almost 2 decades. If you don't want the content please delete the article in it's entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reskin (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have deleted the Yonmara stuff, reinstated the original redirect, and culled a bunch of spam links from Rise: The Vieneo Province. Rusken, you are this close to a WP:NOTHERE block, you understand? Please don't bring that BS in here, about having developed this or that. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

They think they do [[13]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do, this is getting tedious and a waste of everyone's time now. Its clear they are just trying to establish this as the official name, even though no other source other than a page they wrote uses it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I am saying I am rescinding the use of the information I submitted in December. Reskin (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You do not own the article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

And edit Waring now [[14]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• And, they are officially WP:NOTHERE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you Jauerback. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 10 April 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:Meganr314 and edit summaries

I'd appreciate another set of eyes on newly-registered user Meganr314. Many of these edits appear to be unnecessarily stylistic or wording changes, some of which are not useful, suggesting that the user is gaming the system to become autoconfirmed. Also, the edit summaries provided have included a hashtag, which may be some sort of promotion. I have warned the user about the edit summaries in particular, but the behavior has continued, so I have brought this here. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Danielagamez. It seems related to the Gaines Fellowship, whatever that is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's some information about the Gaines Fellowships. I have no idea why they are hashtagging Wikipedia edit summaries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the other editor and the program itself. I'm wondering if this is supposed to be some sort of course- or thesis-related editing that isn't being fully disclosed. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial claims

Requesting action or advice regarding persistent insertion of poorly sourced or unsourced controversial claims at Velike Lašče and other articles. The user (User talk:Starangel19) has been repeatedly advised to read WP:WPINARS, and multiple editors have requested that the user stop inserting controversial claims without reliable sources. Thank you. Doremo (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is this one editor's side of the story anyway. In the past I have admitedly made some editorial mistakes. But one important thing has to be mentioned here; the editors of the articles involved are repeatedly and persistently disregarding significant information with regards to the political affiliation of the WW2 "victims" in Slovenia that they are so fond of writing about on an English version of wikipedia of numerous Slovenian towns. They purposefully don't mention that many of these victims were in fact collaborationists of either Italian Fascists or German Nazis, which have both occupied the territory of Slovenia during WW2.These editors do this even when this type of information is known to them in the sources they themselves are quoting (example Daniel Siter on Rogaška Slatina wiki-page) or when another author of a wikipedia page (example Prostovoljna protikomunistična milica) has emphasized their political affiliation to the occupiers. These editors are trying to cover up collaboration of the "victims" with the occupiers of Slovenia-the Nazis and the Fascists- and are in fact trying to practice historical revisionism by purposefully keeping reader in the dark. In these articles on Mass Graves in Slovenia they repeatedly mention victims as being Croatian and Serbian. What they purposefully fail to mention is the fact that these were disarmed military units of Croatian collaborationists Ustashe and Serbian collaborationists Četniki, which were retreating through the territory of Slovenia on their journey towards the West, where they hoped that they would escape their punishment. I am extremely bothered by the fact that a group of Nazi/Fascist apologists are trying to re-write the history by keeping crucial details away from the reader. Wikipedia should not become a forum for Neo-Nazism and Neo- Fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

WP is driven by verifyability of material in reliable sources, not by claims made at random, as you are stating in your diffs and here. If there are such connections, simply provide a reliable source to show that, but understand that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. As these are extremely controversial claims and in an area covered by various discretionary sanctions, you could find yourself blocked if you fail to follow such advice. --Masem (t) 17:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would add to what Masem said by saying that it is the very importance of this topic, which you acknowledge, that means that we have to be careful only to say anything that can be verified in reliable sources. We are not in the business of making general claims about such collaboration without specific reliable historical sources to support them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

These are really not claims made at random but basic primary school-level of history in Slovenia. There is nothing extremely controversial about what I am saying except perhaps for someone, who is completely in the dark about Slovenian history. For one such source you can read MA thesis by Daniel Siter on Rogaška Slatina *a famous spa town* during WW2 (pdf link among the listed sources on WP page of Rogaška Slatina under Mass graves). You can read and verify yourself what the author Siter wrote in his thesis in the quoted/listed pages and what the WP editor is writing and what he purposefully fails to acknowledge. Siter specifically states that the number/nationality of the victims is presumed/supposed as none of the graves have so far been exhumed. He also states that the military units of Ustashe have been terrorizing the local population well after the end of WW2. In fact he mentions Ustashe (slov. Ustaši) 41 times. He writes that Ustashe commander Ante Pavelić and his entire cabinet if ministers spent some time in Rogaška Slatina *a famous spa town* on their way to the West. I may be an inexperienced WP editor, but at least I am not using my experience for falsification of history and promoting a very dubious agenda of historical revisionism, which is giving rise to Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism. I am sure you can find something to read about historical revisionism in Croatia, where it is becoming extremely problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If these facts are so well-known then it will be easy to find independent reliable sources for them, which is all that people are asking. But something better than a masters thesis (from which Wikipedia editing is a displacement activity for me) is needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec)If this is "basic primary school-level of history in Slovenia" information, then it should be easy to provide books and other well published reliable sources (not college/masters-level theses) to document these. Random masters' theses are not usable as sources --Masem (t) 17:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor of Rogaška Slatina is himself quoting MA thesis by Daniel Siter, I only took the time to read and verify the parts that the author is MIS-quoting to further his own apologist agenda. He is only using the MA thesis by Siter to give credibility to his own claims, which cannot be actually found in the mentioned thesis. In Europe an in-depth analysis of a town during a certain time period can provide for a reliable academic source as the author's research is guided by the professors at the university, in this case University of Ljubljana. Perhaps it is different in the Anglo-saxon world and the quality is much lower. It seems very controversial to bash MA thesis as a reliable source, but approve it being quoted anyway. I am not sure we can have a constructive debate in regards to this; it seems to me you are not familiar with Slovenian history and you don't speak Slovenian, so you are limited to giving me a sweeping general advice, without actually contributing anything specific or constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If MA thesis are so insignificant then why are people doing them? Rogaška Slatina is a town of 5000 inhabitants, it is not the focal point of academic research in Slovenia. In eventual absence of PhDs done on the subject of R.S. during the war, what should one do? I see the academic bar of WP has (suddenly) become impossibly high when people start to hide their lack of knowledge on a subject behind their academic "superiority".

People are doing them for the simple reason of qualifying for an M.A. degree. M.A. theses are not considered reliable sources because they do no undergo the fact-checking and peer review that PhD theses or papers published in academic journals do. This goes for any topic, not just your pet topic. And it applies whether you or your opponents are citing such a thesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well for that matter, if high school essays are so insignificant then why are people doing them, either? (Hint: not so they can be cited in WP articles.) By your reasoning we could use my nephew's fourth-grade homework as a source. EEng 02:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, my opponent is quoting an MA thesis as if the latter is proving the editor's claims, which it does not. Nobody objected or stopped him from doing so and nobody (but me) went and verified the quoted information. Instead of being listened to and perhaps wisely advised, I am being questioned, taunted, patronized and threatened to be blocked from WP. I guess this is what happens when you start to rattle people's cages and they get their knickers in a twist. I wonder what would have happened if the editor mentioned used and MIS-quoted a doctoral dissertation on the subject of war-time Rogaška Slatina? Similarly, you would probably rally around him to cover up your own ignorance on the subject and do nothing of a substance to improve the quality of WP. Oh yes, you would attack ME for alerting you to it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please just familiarize yourself on our standards for verifiability and reliable sources. If you have questions, you can ask at the teahouse, or for more complex questions or dispute about the reliability of specific sources, you can start a discussion at WP:RSN. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well the good news here is that Starangel19 has shown a pronounced interest in nations that fall under the greater umbrella of Eastern Europe, which means that the Arbitration Committee's ruling on the matter come into play full force. The editor has now been informed of the sanctions here, and henceforth further disruption will allow us to take faster action. Advise given above will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, I'd give it month before we get an indef block and/or page protection. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:2001:56A:774D:8F00::/64

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.

---

• 2001:56A:774D:8F00::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I can't figure out what this user is up to, but building an encyclopedia ain't it. I'm not reporting at AIV, because I don't think they're intending to cause harm. But nearly every one of their more than 100 edits is time-wasting nonsense. (Diffs? Pick one at random.) Is it time for a WP:CIR block? The IP is so dynamic it's unlikely they've seen a single talk page message, but at least the block will get their attention. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months for disruptive editing. I have a high degree of confidence that this is deliberate. The range has also been previously blocked by Bishonen. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 12 April 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.

@Ad Orientem: they might need talk access revoked also, see User talk:2001:56A:774D:8F00:9193:7CED:BB28:E2F2. Home Lander (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious behaviour at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019

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 article Coronavirus disease 2019 and its talk page are subject to general sanctions. These have proven necessary to contain the rapid changes to content in articles related to COVID-19.

RTG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added content containing biomedical claims to the article, which was sourced to a YouTube video. The video is a self-published source and is well short of the standard required by WP:MEDRS for a biomedical claim. Not only that, but the author describes himself as "World's #1 Weight Loss Surgeon", and the text description for the video is a piece of naked advertising for his weight-loss practice. For a self-published source to meet even WP:RS (let alone MEDRS), it would have to meet the WP:SPS requirement as a minimum: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. There is absolutely no way that the YouTube's author meets that standard.

The content was removed by Moksha88 - edit summary: Youtube is not WP:RSMED.

It was restored soon after by RTG - edit summary: That is on a case by case basis. There is nothing on this in the article. This is the most valuable mode of information which can be added about this event at this time. Please do not remove it without replacing it. Please improve it...".

I removed it once more - edit summary: biomedical claims need a reliable source as required by WP:MEDRS as a clear violation of our sourcing guidelines. I then issued a general sanctions alert to RTG and warned them about their breaches of sourcing policies.

On the article talk page, Moksha88 had opened a discussion. In both that discussion and on his talk page, RTG has continued to argue: that their content is not a biomedical claim; that the YouTube video is a secondary source; that despite the lack of reliable sourcing, their content should be included; that YouTube should be usable (including the incredible assertion that "there is basically 3 type of sources. Primary, Secondary and external resource.); and that surgeons are more expert in the pathophysiology of a virus than virologists.

I have patiently explained and quoted our guidelines on WP:MEDRS and WP:SPS as clearly as I can, but I am met with tendentious repetition of the same untenable arguments, which has now spilled over to repeated personal attacks: twice telling me "You don't know what you are talking about."

Permalink to RTG's talk page

Permalink to article talk page discussion

The failure to observe sourcing requirements, edit-warring, and tendentious editing are significant breaches of the expected standards from editors on pages subject to general sanctions. If I hadn't been the target of personal attacks by RTG, I would have sanctioned them for the other offences, but I now feel too involved. I therefore request an uninvolved admin to apply sanctions to RTG to curb their present behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Use the general sanctions to enforce adherence to MEDRS, is what I would do. I've gone ahead and issued the user a warning. El_C 21:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That source would not be acceptable even if we were not talking about bio/health content. And … there is what seems to be a deceptive link to the CDC on the YouTube. It appears misleading, as if there is a claim that it is a CDC video, rather than his personal video. Perhaps I am reading that wrong? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about is a personal attack? Catch yourself on. Even the main SARS article, once mistaken for a featured article, does not describe the activities of the virus and how they translate into disease. RexxS told me that I should have a source from a virologist, which is not true. That we are not going to rely on an expert in basic lung function to describe the pathology of this disease, which is exactly the expert of the field in question to describe that aspect of the disease. So I'd better apologise a second time if I said it twice, RexxS, you don't know what you are talking about as towards what constitutes an expert in that topic. Was there something else? Oh yes there was. An article with a severe deficiency. What is your input? Oh, that expert information is not expert enough for me... You've been editing Wikipedia since 12 years. I have made but two edits to the article, one edit and one revert. Stop trying to provoke me. You aren't collaborating on a way forward as all the others have in the discussion. If you aren't going to accept there isn't a problem with my suggestion, you are trying to create one, and this will be the appropriate place. ~ R.T.G 21:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That is not helpful, RTG. Just make sure your sources comply with MEDRS standards. That's what this is really about. El_C 21:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"...edit warring"? It's not true. I agree the source is totally not high quality published resource, but there is a negative space on the internet where this should be. I'm not trying to force anything, but I am trying to argue that in the face of such a deficiency, it may be appropriate to use a source which is unlikely to be fanciful. There should be no hiding place from Wikipedia, is my view in this case. Where is this stuff, that should be common enough knowledge by now that it doesn't even require a source. Honestly, watch the video and learn what it means. It's simple stuff. ~ R.T.G 21:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No, thanks. You seem to be under the misapprehension that this is optional. It is not. You need to edit by the rules. Simple as that. El_C 21:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"...In the face of such a deficiency, it may be appropriate to use a source which is unlikely to be fanciful." No, it is not, nor is it ever, appropriate to use such a source for medical information on Wikipedia. Find a source compliant with MEDRS or do not add the information. That is the problem with your suggestion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I repeat, we can leave WP:MEDRS out of this; that source does not even rise to the level of WP:SPS for a plain 'ole RS. And the apparently deceptive link to the CDC is troubling, making viewers think it's a CDC video. When I first saw this post here, I assumed we were talking about a new editor mistake; sadly, we are not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems to me the "deceptive link to the CDC" is added by Youtube; for me it's a "deceptive link" to Health Canada. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia as well as El C and Ivanvector. A youtube video by "Dr. Duc Vuong, World's #1 Weight Loss Surgeon, Author of 13 books, explains how coronavirus kills its victims." should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of decent source. We need to simple use them. Youtube is not a decent source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@RTG: Sources need to comply with policy ... all the rest is just ... sound and fury, signifying nothing. Paul August ☎ 22:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No Doc, none readily available, so if you can, please do. I for one will get what I want... ~ R.T.G 22:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, according to WP:MEDRS, which is not the same as WP:RS, a primary source is self published experience. That's not what this is. A secondary source is a summarisation of the topic, and overview of current understanding, etc. That is exactly what this is. This is not synthesised material. This is an overview of the current understanding of how coronavirus causes SARS, which Wikipedia otherwise lacks (along with the rest of the internet apparently). So if you are closed to being in error, because of some hangup about YouTube in general, well, what can be done. Let's not have an understanding of the virus coming from Wikipedia. Let's have an expert topic that is so expert that only experts can understand it. It will not require any new action on anybodies part to achieve that. ~ R.T.G 22:09, 11 April 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:SwissArmyGuy keeps asking for my social media accounts and refuses to tell me why

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 got an email today from a user I have never talked to, yet alone knew existed. User:SwissArmyGuy sent me a Wikipedia email asking if I could review the coronavirus pandemic in Norway. After I replied, saying that I didn't know what he meant by this, since I am not trained in medicine and diseases and such. A bit later, he sent me another email, but not as a Wikipedia email. He asked if I have any social media accounts, like Facebook and Twitter. After I said that I only use Discord and asked why he wanted these accounts, he did not give me a concrete answer. Afterwards, he sent me yet another email, asking if I have an Instagram account. I said I do, but I only let people I know follow me. He sent me a follow request on Instagram, which I haven't accepted yet, and don't know if I should. This is creepy, so I decided to make this post.

Evidence: [redacted] --Эрик (トークページ) 14:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Kingerikthesecond, reminder that you have to notify other editors when you're reporting them on AN/I, I'll do that for you now but please remember to do so in the future. creffett (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, but I am not sure how to do that. --Эрик (トークページ) 14:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Nvm just saw the red box on this page. I now know how to notify. --Эрик (トークページ) 14:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Kingerikthesecond, before I go any further, two things: a. please do NOT post such links anymore here. b. I do not see how your user name is in any way represented in your signature. As far as I am concerned, it is not cool to use that kind of a disguise. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, my Cyrillic's a bit nonexistent, but I think that Эрик transliterates to Erik/Eric. Not great, but we've definitely seen worse. creffett (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't know why it shouldn't be okay as long as it links to my profile? --KingErikII (トークページ) 14:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Kingerikthesecond, I cannot read Cyrillic. (Creffett, it is only because of your comment that I now realize the name "Erik" is in there.) This is the English wiki. When I look over reports here, I am not going to hover over every link to see what links where. Please change that signature. I see you changed it now: good, thank you. As for evidence, you violated WP:OUTING. If you have private evidence, you can always email ArbCom, or contact an administrator. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I am terribly sorry for my mistakes, and will make sure to remember this for the future. I have also changed my signature. --KingErikII (トークページ) 15:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SwissArmyGuy, can you explain what was going on? Drmies (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, how should I present evidence of my claims? As for my signature, I can change it if you want. --Эрик (トークページ) 14:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not WP:HARASS user when I emailed account for suggesting coronavirus articles, then I asked for social media, when he only used Discord, while he's inactive on YouTube and Instagram. When I ask him to follow on Instagram, specifically do not. I'm so sorry about my incident while ago. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The social media accounts I use the most are Discord, Reddit and Youtube. I do have an Instagram account, but it's not very active. You did not give me a reason why you want my social media accounts. I do not know you, and I have never talked to you before. Why did you want to follow me on Intagram? --KingErikII (トークページ) 15:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

SwissArmyGuy, we are not a social media site. I do not understand why you'd think it's OK to start hitting up someone you don't know, or barely know. If the user tells you they don't want to hear from you, and then they continue to hear from you, that's harassment, and that's also abuse of your email system. It's that simple. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you then, so I'll contact the Arbitration Committee, and see what I done. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

One last thing, I already emailed to the Arbitration Committee, and the Wikimedia's Trust and Safety. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where to take this thread right now. --KingErikII (トークページ) 15:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel I entered the Twilight Zone: SwissArmyGuy, I don't know why you would contact ArbCom. What I need you to do is say something like "I understand that I messed up, I understand how I messed up, and I won't do it again." I also don't understand why you'd email Trust and Safety: you were the one falling foul of privacy policy. User:Kingerikthesecond, there is nothing you need to do. I saw the evidence and I am waiting on SwissArmyGuy to give some kind of coherent explanation. Or maybe ArbCom, if indeed they have received an email, will choose to step in. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the cooperation. --KingErikII (トークページ) 15:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I made my responsibility for contacting Wikimedia Foundation's Legal Team, who someone endanger minors and/or someone else. If you want to follow this guide, see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand any of this post, SwissArmyGuy, it is not really coherent English. You say on your user page you are a native speaker of English. Is that actually accurate? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately I'm multilingual. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm multilingual, but I fluently speaking English, you know. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

How does you being multilingual explain the gibberish above, did you learn English using a Hungarian phrase book?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

My noticeboard is full of eels! creffett (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm just staring at that sentence and waiting for it to make sense. Let's start over. SwissArmyGuy, please explain (clearly and in detail) why you asked Kingerikthesecond for their social media information and why you have said you are contacting ArbCom, Trust and Safety, and now the Wikimedia legal team. This will require a fair amount of explanation from you. creffett (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll explain that tomorrow then. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking a precautionary block is in order the behavior is not ordinary and while AGF is one of our pillers the block only need last as long as it takes for them to explain themselves. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If you mean SwissArmyGuy I agree, this reads like someone who has pointed themselves Wikipedia Holmes. Who having identified an problem will now pursue it both here and off wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I do, I just feel like it crosses the line. Disputes here should stay here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked SwissArmyGuy out of an abundance of caution. Sorry, but their explanation just do not make sense to me. The potential harassment of minors on the project is too serious to ignore, so I think the incident calls for this action at this time. El_C 16:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess this thread should be closed now. --KingErikII (Talk page) 16:38, 10 April 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.

Jaywardhan009 reported by GargAvinash

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) 17:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Jaywardhan009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Mukesh Sahani:. User has the autopatrolled right. He is not creating articles with good styles and adding just external links as references. His created articles must be reviewed and fixed by reviewers. I have fixed many articles but there is a lot to fix and he is creating articles very frequently. GargAvinash (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Borivali - Surat MEMU had completely irrelevant sources; even the name of the subject was not mentioned in any sources. GargAvinash (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say they need to stop creating articles and attend to the issues that their (dozens of) existing ones have. An article that says, in total, "Jagdish Choudhary is an Indian politician. He was elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from Darbhanga Rural in the 1977 and 1980 as a member of the Janata Party than in 1990 Bihar Legislative Assembly election as a member of the Janata Dal." is frankly incomprehensible even if they're notable. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite, and would argue that someone who literally creates a stub with the {{blp sources}} template already as a part of it should not be creating such stubs or have the autopatrolled flag. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have left them a warning, though I am not convinced that they will engage considering that they've only edited the user_talk namespace 26 times in 29,000 edits. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I see that Jaywardhan009 was granted autopatrolled in 2017 by Kudpung, so pinging him. I've looked at some of the articles, and I have to disagree that they are in the main any more incoherent than is regrettably common in biographies of Indian subjects; in addition to sentence construction (missing words, etc.), there tend to be clumps of linked proper names and events whose significance is not apparent to those not familiar with Indian politics and so forth. Of the three examples you highlighted at the editor's talk page, I think I understand Mukesh Sahani quite well, but it needs copyediting and has a redlinked category; Upendra Prasad is in more seriously fractured English but I can make a guess at the problem, however I agree with Kinu's statement that creating a BLP with the BLP sources tag already attached indicates a serious problem with their article creation; and Jagdish Choudhary again, I think I understand it adequately although it needs copyediting, but of the three I find it the most concerning because the reference that is now first, and was originally last, plainly says the person has died (and gives the date of death), yet we are presenting him as a living person. I don't know whether Jaywardhan009 is also using sources misleadingly as stated in the OP's post, but I do think their autopatrolled right should be pulled at this point; their articles need to be checked. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Team, I'm stoping all the activities on Wikipedia henceforth no need to worry. Please remove all relevant articles from the site. Jaywardhan009 (talk) 09:28, April 12, 2020 (IST)

@Jaywardhan009: What do you actually mean by "Please remove all relevant articles from the site" ? GargAvinash (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Since User:Jaywardhan009 has given no substantive response to the concerns, there is now a case for removing their Autopatrolled right. Article creators who won't do a proper job place an unreasonable burden on the reviewers. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 12 April 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.

Elkrivermr reported by ElSnakeoBwb

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) 18:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Elkrivermr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I suspect religiously motivated edits. I am a new user who only registered for Wikipedia because I had a discussion about Jeffrey Lundgren, and I noticed that his page was edited around the same time someone referenced that page. So I reverted the change, And this ended up in an Edit War. I will stop reverting changes now as I don't want to get banned for trying to do the right thing and leave it up to the judgment of an administrator on what the correct course of action is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElSnakeoBwb (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I reported both of them at ANEW, for obvious reasons. Kleuske (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the source for the changes made: https://murderpedia.org/male.L/l1/lundgren-jeffrey-don.htm "Lundgren and about two dozen followers had broken away from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," changes were appropriate and correct, cease the edit war immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elkrivermr (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Murderpedia is user-generated content and, as such, not a reliable source. Kleuske (talk) 19:05, 12 April 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.

Request to suppress my last two edit summaries

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 pasted the wrong buffer here and here Facepalm . Would some kind admin please oversight those edit summaries? Toddst1 (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Mavi Gözlü Kel

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.

---

• Mavi Gözlü Kel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Mavi Gözlü Kel (talk · contribs) attempts to use Turkish wikipedia links as sources[15], has repeatedly reinstated reverted edits, which has been reverted with explanation[16][17] and instead writes insults on my talks page[18] --Havsjö (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours for personal attacks and disruption. El_C 10:59, 12 April 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.

Persistent racist and disruptive edits by Belgian IP 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.

---

For nearly a year there has been persistent disruptive editing and some blatantly racist vandalism from IPV6 2A02:1811:8415:CA00::/64. There are also a few IPV4s, with e.g. 109.129.103.46 active today and 178.118.223.172 a couple of days ago. All edits appear to have come from the same person, with obvious patterns. Though they sometimes try to make helpful edits, they are almost never so, and they seem unable to work collaboratively. Most concerning is a history of racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic disruption and vandalism. They have received many warnings about vandalism, personal attacks, edit-warring, etc., for example: [19], and several short blocks.

The IPV6 range is fresh off a two-week block for disruptive editing in the Antwerp article. They immediately went back to making the same edits again. These particular edits may have some degree of merit, but despite me explaining that they need to use the talk page (User talk:IamNotU#Antwerp and Berlin trolling), they refused, and stated they would continue to edit-war ([20]), which they have done today, with other editors.

In addition to the examples below, the user can be identified by a large proportion of edits repeatedly and disruptively changing country names, in lists of "sister cities", demographics infoboxes and pie charts, etc., including changing "South Korea" to "Korea", "China" to "Mainland China", and several other typical changes, e.g. here: [21], [22], [23], [24] and in dozens of other articles.

Examples of blatantly racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic disruption and vandalism include:

• [25] (IPV6), [26] (109.129.103.46, blocked for disruption on 5 March) - racist vandalism to Zozibini Tunzi.
• [27] - homophobic personal attack from 109.129.103.46.
• [28], also from 91.181.93.16, blatant racist vandalism to country names, changing Surinam to "Black Pete Country", etc.
• [29]] - replacing flags of Morocco and Turkey with ISIS flags. Same edit the next day from 81.246.215.59: [30].
• In Moroccans in Belgium, IPV6 changing "Notable people" to "Notable terrorists" [31], and "Notable drug gangs" by 109.129.103.46.
• [32] - IPV6, in addition to the blatant vandalism to "Pakistan" is the change of Sunni/Shia/etc. Islam to Salafism, the intention being to imply that all Pakistanis are extremists. This is a common pattern in other articles too.
• [33], [34] - IPV6 also adding Salafism, implying that all Moroccans in Belgium/Netherlands are extremists - note the edit summaries, e.g. their real identity; how Moroccan Salafis treat Europeans; and from 109.129.103.46: [35] Added their religion of the drugged Berber Dutchies, and again today: [36].
• [37], [38], [39], 91.181.93.16 (blocked for disruptive editing in December) repeatedly changing Sunni to Salafism in Religion in Morocco, then the same edit from the IPV6: [40].

--IamNotU (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Range blocked one month. El_C 05:47, 12 April 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:112.213.208.70

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.

---

Anonymous user repeatedly violating WP:NOTFORUM on talk pages for articles concerning coronavirus in certain countries:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=947622142
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=948120402
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=948334331
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=948846455
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=949231245
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=949255498
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Algeria&diff=prev&oldid=950088931
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_North_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=950324555

Clearly, deleting these misplaced remarks has no effect. And I feel that warning this user on their talk page won't have any effect either.

Obviously it would be wrong for me to make any comment on this user's state of mind or background, but I'm pretty sure the same rules apply to them as they do to everyone else. Klondike53226 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like WP:DUCK block evasion of user User:Monster_Return; same level of communication, other socks of that user share an interest in Coronavirus counts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure if he is a sock or not, but obviously not here to be helpful. Blocked one month. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:05, 13 April 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.

A most unexpected block, and the correspondence that followed

Last night I was mad as a wet hen over this block by Swarm [41] My intention isn't to relitigate it here, but rather, to ask if I have really been so obtuse as suggested, and whether the blocking administrator acted appropriately. I attempted, over and over, to be truthful in my explanation: I saw a disruptive discussion on a user's talk page [42] and reported it here, to ANI. Eventually both parties were blocked, but before that resolved I followed some of RheieWater2005 (talk · contribs)'s edits, and mistook this edit [43] for vandalism. I attempted to revert it several times, was prevented from doing so by a bot, and left it be. Some hours later I was blocked, for a week's duration. The sentence was commuted by Drmies.

What I was incredulous about was the blocking administrator's certainty that I was acting as a sock. That probably could have been checked. I don't think my edit history was reviewed for a moment; in fact, an administrator who was familiar with my edit history came to my defense and was advised And, I will note to @ToBeFree:, a newer admin, that being an anti-vandalism IP and being an illegitimate sock are not mutually exclusive. So I'm not convinced this blind defense based on "anti-vandalism" are mutually exclusive. They also noted that The duck rule would seem to imply that this was either the sock fucking around, or a typical "false flag" reproduction of sock behavior, which is in itself a well-known LTA sock behavior. At this point, it became clear to me--and subsequent conversation confirmed this--that there was nothing I could say that would resolve the block in my favor. I asked that admin several times not continue at my talk page, to no avail. I solicited the assistance of a few admins who know me; one of them knows who I am in 'real' life, and that made the accusation that I was engaging in something underhanded sting more. It was humiliating, and I finally made a request to unblock, the first time I've been compelled to do that in over fifteen years here. The block held overnight.

As I suggested, I'm not posting this to open a lengthy discussion, or a contentious one. But this bothered the hell out of me. I don't think the block was right, I don't think the length was right, and I sure (as hell) don't think the discussion was right. If I'm off base, please close this swiftly. Thank you. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't really have much to add beyond what I said at the IP's talk page. An IP was flagged at AIV for repeatedly triggering an edit filter. The edit they made was reinstating an edit made by a sock at their SPI page. The edit itself was nonsensical, adding an inapplicable container category to the SPI page. It struck me as obviously suspicious disruptive editing, either from the sock themselves or the type of "false flag" pseudo-socking behavior that we see. Once the IP told me that it was a mistake, I went out of my way to make sure they knew that if the block was in error, then I would be happy to unblock them. I merely articulated the specific things that struck me as suspicious behavior, and asked for their explanation. As you can see from their talk page, I repeatedly stated that I would unblock them if they would simply answer these points of confusion that they alleged were erroneous, and they repeatedly refused to do so, to the point of "banning" me from their talk page. As you can see from my replies, I was flabbergasted at their refusal to simply explain the situation. I was not unreasonable, aggressive or harsh with them, I simply asked for them to explain why the things that I found suspicious had a reasonable explanation. They never answered my simple questions. Eventually Drmies simply unblocked them, taking their innocence at face value, and my questions were never answered. That's fine, another admin did not share my concerns, no big deal. Even if the IP feels that I gave them too hard of a time, I'm hard pressed to understand why they could simply not answer my concerns. Perhaps they were angry with me, which is understandable from a blocked user. Regardless, I don't feel I did anything wrong, I simply explained what led to the block and asked for their side of the story, rather than "blindly" unblocking. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah I'm sorry, it got a bit late for me, and I was surprised to see you still blocked the next morning. A week-long block without a warning for a few attempts that were filtered out, after a ton of obviously positive edits, that's a bit strict, yes. Swarm, I think the part that you are not getting is that this editor has been around maybe as long as you and I, and that obviously their pride was seriously hurt. In other words, that you wanted them to explain what seemed obvious to them, that didn't help. As for your question, I think it was answered, and I've known this editor for, what, five or six years? so yeah I take them at their word, plus what happened to me seemed quite clear. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• FWIW, from a quick review of the IP's talk page:
  • I'm kind of puzzled why Swarm thought the IP hadn't already answered his question already. It seemed pretty clear to me that he had.
  • I'm kind of puzzled why the IP didn't just re-state the answer to the question (that he'd already given), instead of repeatedly saying "I've already told you why".

Example No. 34,5124 of how two good faith editors can misunderstand and get their backs up a bit over this imperfect communication medium. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Floquenbeam. I completely understand the initial block, but I thought the IP gave a fairly reasonable explanation. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• To address these points, I acknowledge that the IP provided an "explanation", but I found the explanation to be incomplete, and I replied to it with the specified questions that I had in spite of their explanation. The IP apparently thought that their initial explanation was satisfactory, I did not, and sought an additional explanation, presenting the specific questions that were unanswered by the initial explanation. The IP refused to answer these additional questions. I do not think my additional questions were unreasonable, or that they were answered by the initial explanation provided. If this was perceived as ignoring their explanation, I apologize, however it was quite the opposite. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not here to hammer anyone for mistakes which we all make from time to time, and I'm involved obviously, but the explanation was perfectly lucid to me from just a skim. Rereading now, I'm still not sure what more should've been said. Perhaps now fully understanding the situation Swarm would be willing to lay out how they feel this could've been better communicated? Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I simply would have liked my specific questions to have been answered. The explanation was incomplete, by my understanding, as it left me with questions, which I then asked. I don't think a simple followup explanation due to specific unresolved questions is an unreasonable request. Whether or not you feel I should have had questions, I did, and I asked them in good faith. There's really no reason to refuse to answer them and terminate communication over that. I was simply communicating in good faith, and the user refused to return the favor. I don't see how that makes me in the wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I definitely think both of you were definitely acting in good faith here, which is why it seemed odd that the discussion on the IP's talk page was so lengthy. Having said that, I'm not really sure what this ANI thread is supposed to accomplish now? In the end, no one did anything wrong here and no actions are going to be taken. I think this can be closed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Reasonable people of good-will acting in good-faith toward the same goals can disagree, and I'm not saying you were necessarily in the wrong. The way things appeared to me when I looked was that you seemed to ask questions that had already been answered, which was met with fully comprehensible frustration. I guess what I was looking for earlier was for you to try to put the shoe on the other foot. Pretend the roles were reversed for a moment and provide the answer you would have given in those circumstances to the questions you asked. That is helpful because it facilitates better communication in the future and not just between the two of you. However, I understand that might be lengthy/time-consuming, and might also be more appropriate on a user talk page rather than here. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• For those of us without admin goggles, how many times did the edit filter get triggered and how much time elapsed between the edit filter getting triggered and the block? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Anyone can see that: link. For some reason, only CheckUsers can see the edit filter results for an IP range, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks NRP. Looks like the IP triggered the edit filter 3 times, and was blocked 10 hours later. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I've never heard that WP:NOBAN does not apply to unregistered talk pages either, fwiw. ——SN54129 13:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Serial Number 54129, thank you. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Tyranny of New page reviewers: a cry for help

Despite having performed many valuable and worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia, in the last couple of years a new category of New page reviewers has arisen. These days when I try to create an article it is relentlessly assaulted (see below). I cannot contribute to Wikipedia very well, under these conditions. With over ten-thousand edits and dozens of new articles my contributions have been worthy and deserve to be supported. I have mostly quietly worked in the area of Chinese poetry and Chinese mythology, although at one point I also overhauled the Japanese poetry article section. Nevertheless, in regard to certain New page reviewers:

• I am considered worthy of insults and threats for daring to create a new article; for example, see Talk:Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology.
• I am told that Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing is impermissible and against policy, and that I have to use Ref tags instead, even though this is not the best practice for certain types of articles (more academic and specialized ones, that is), and which instead makes such articles more difficult to edit (at least for those of us actually doing the editing), and they are less satisfactory as a result.
• Despite WP:Stub, and Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing these New page reviewers insist that I have "no references", and insist that they should proclaim this with a major template transclusion, above even the article lead (which is certainly of no service to the end-users, which is what we are supposed to be all about).
• It is insisted that: WP:CITE does not mean that: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article."

Instead the New page reviewers insist that I write the article at their direction, using their preferred reference citation style. For example, see Talk:Trees in Chinese mythology.

• These New page reviewers are ignorant of the subject area about which I am writing (such as, Chinese language or Chinese culture), and they contribute nothing positive towards expanding the article: merely they create a very disruptive and very discouraging atmosphere, and frustrate my and other editors' attempts to improve Wikipedia.
• Chinese to English is treated as something demanding unknowable reference citations, when it is a case of mere dictionary and not encyclopedic understanding.
• The three revert rule is gamed so that the New page reviewers have the advantage.

Is there any way in which this tyranny of New page reviewers can be mitigated? It's a waste of time when I have to spend so much time trying to reason about articles with people that don't really care about the content or actually working on the articles, when I am only attempting to work on the articles without being gratuitously disrupted. This new page review situation is really harming Wikipedia in a very significant way. Is there at least a way in which I can contribute to Wikipedia, using parenthetic referencing and not be constantly disrupted in ways which seem not at all in accord with concensus guidelines? Dcattell (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've had overeager editors come to an article that I created, attempt to fix things that weren't broken, and make a mess of it. Some of what you're describing would fall under that, such as unilaterally changing citation style. New page reviewers shouldn't do that, and they can be blocked if they edit war to do so. However, asking for citations and removing unsourced content aren't disruptive (unless there's already a citation there, of course). If the article has sources, but they're not cited in a way that a new page reviewer prefers, they'll just have to deal with it and move on to the next article. One thing you might like, by the way, is {{sfn}}. It's the high-tech version of parenthetical referencing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Frankly, limited sympathy. If it is unclear for the readers (of which the New Page Reviewer is one) whether a section of text is referenced because you neglected to provide inline citations, then that reader is justified in asking for concrete attribution. Why not just provide it? If you can't or won't, then treating the material as unsourced is not an unreasonable proposition. The point here is to provide clearly attributed summaries for the reader, with personal preferences of the author running a distant second. - Re parenthetical referencing, you are correct in that there is no requirement for using templates (although I wish there was) and the reviewer ought to have left well enough alone, but what happened at Trees in Chinese mythology hardly strikes me as traumatizing or even edit-warring. Is this melodramatic screed really necessary? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• WP:NPP is the place for this, but it's true: "You Will Respect Mah Authoritay!" is the attitude much too often.
  My suggestion is {{r}}, with its page= parameter. It's low-tech, lightweight, easy to use, not fragile like {sfn}, and much less intrusive than parenthetical referencing. EEng 00:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Dude in your only alleged diff/complaint you accused the NPR of having a "fixation on this article". That's a personal attack. They're just doing the job, and you accuse them of being some insane person with some sort of "fixation". That's ridiculous. Someone's just doing their job, and then you lash out at them with an insane accusation. NPRs are meant to push article writers to fix their articles as needed. Not seeing the problem. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Dcattell, as a coordinator of New Page Patrol, I'm sorry you have had some unpleasant experiences with new page reviewers. Creating content is hard and I would hope that all reviewers would be respectful of the work creators do. Even when that work has problems. At Talk:Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology I see a reviewer attempt to say what they see as the issue and attempt to do so in a sensitive matter. It's clear you became agitated but I don't, as others have indicated above, think they became fixated on the article. Further one issue for me, as I know it is for many content creators, is striking the right balance between shepherding an article and crossing over into ownership. I hope the suggestions Eeng gave you above are helpful as you continue your content work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Barkeep49, as you are the coordinator of new page patrol (I hate the word "patrol" with its implications of militarism, but I suppose we're stuck with it) I'm addressing this to you. All too often I find that people who review new pages have far less knowledge of what a good encyclopedia article is than the people who are doing the constructive work of actually creating content. Do you recognise that this is a problem, and are you doing anything about it or just sticking your head in the sand? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, as with all of our volunteer efforts some volunteers for NPP (your discomfort is why I almost always refer to it that way) are better than other volunteers. This is true for any of our efforts - even in purely administrative realms. We certainly make efforts at reviewer quality. For instance I have added to NPP School a "graduate school" which we call NPP Mentorship for people to get help who have the NPP permission. I also tried a "peer review" cohort which didn't have great success. The people who enrolled were mostly those who were the ones who are generally considered to be doing the highest quality work. We also work to create a real sense of community at WT:NPR - if you go there now you can see reviewers ask for help from each other.

  The other way to ensure reviewer quality is to be selective in who we grant the permission to. Rosguill who is an active NPP is the primary person who has been handling WP:PERM/NPR but I can tell you that in general the approach Ros and I take is to give new reviewers a time limited grant of the PERM. In this way when they come back (hopefully) we can offer feedback at that time as well. But this speaks to an issue, just as we don't want to discourage content creators (who are at the heart of the encyclopedia in my estimation) we don't want to discourage NPP who are on the frontlines of protecting the reputation our content creators have built by keeping out non-notable people, limiting spam, and otherwise ensuring articles comply with policies and guidelines.

  Hopefully this shows you the ways that we're not sticking our heads in the sand (a comment, btw, that felt unnecessarily pointy). Please feel free to follow-up with other questions/concerns/ideas you have. And if you observe an issue with a reviewer one of the things I agreed to when becoming coordinator is having "difficult conversations" so you can feel free to let me know of concerns you might have either on my talk page or via email. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger As someone who is active(ish - far less so than some) in NPP myself, I'd add that we would dearly love more help from the active content-creation community. I agree with you that prolific writers who are familiar with policy, sourcing, and all the little things that new editors don't know about, would probably make excellent reviewers. I'd encourage anyone with a decent amount of experience to get involved and help with the sizable backlog. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  The problem with that has always been that editors who try to do NPP properly, including actually looking at sources, which takes some time, get preempted by people who see it as a race and so get their sloppy patrolling in first. The whole way that the process is set up rewards speed over accuracy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, I hear what you're saying. I go slow myself - the days when I review more than three are few and far between, as each one takes me at least ten minutes, maybe more. The backlog is a beast that is always hungry though - there aren't enough hands on deck to deal with the number of articles that are created, and to do a perfect job each time. This thread is about reviewers being too strict; I've also seen good-faith reviewers berated for allowing through poorly-sourced guff because they weren't strict enough. It's not easy for a small group of people to strike the right balance every time, when there is a time pressure involved. Again - many hands make light work. If you find the front ent of the queue to be annoyingly fast-paced, work on the back end, or the middle. Set an example, show how it should be done. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree some NPP are motivated by speed rather than by accuracy. This has always been discouraged. I would like to point out that in the incidents that sparked this discussion two NPP who were checking sources and who did edit articles. This is not to say that "drive by" checks don't happen; they do. We have tried to emphasize that accuracy over speed mentality. It's my own concern about this that explains why I've resisted calls, despite the backlog creeping ever higher, to do a backlog drive. I think such drives do incentive, in a way we don't normally, speed. If you have ideas Phil on how we could further that idea of accuracy as truly important I would welcome hearing them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  [44]--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I am supposed to reply here. Anyway the software said I was supposed to put my reply at the bottom of the page. So I did. Thanks. Dcattell (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

There was no need to that; let's keep everything in one place. I've combined the two sections.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Dcattell, one possible fix for you personally would be to create the articles in Draft namespace then move them to mainspace after you've completed your initial round of edits. Guy (help!) 11:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Long version of concerns by Dcattell

Thank you all for the timely responses to my request for help, altogether they are most helpful. I also apologize for being excessively verbose and for allowing my emotions to bleed into my prose style. I also apologize to New page reviewers in general for not being clear that New page reviewers generally perform an invaluable service on Wikipedia: just not at all in the case of the last few article which I have started, and in fact the opposite. I also would like to point out that I have been editing for about a dozen years and it seems to me that what I am encountering is something new or on a new order; and also that I think that I have done due diligence on researching policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, including and following them (although not to the point of seeking dispute resolution). I think that I am due some reasonable respect for knowledge of and for following Wikipedia guidelines as well as specific project guidelines. I have read WP: Dispute resolution, but it not reasonable to go through this process for each and every new article: it interferes with improving the article. I would like to focus on a major problem which has been addressed here, but not resolved; and which is really what I should have said to begin with if I had been more clear in my mind. That said: Is it too much to ask that New page reviewers actually read the new articles and check the references cited before applying article curation tags, disputing content, or deleting content? I know for a fact that this was not done in the case of the last several articles or stubs which I started (the challenges to the article appeared within a minute or a few minutes at the most of first posting the article: it is humanly impossible to have read this amount of material that quickly, much less evaluated the article by that means. Robots are are not an excuse and a quick glance at the new article or stub is not an excuse to challenge articles which are actually cited with reliable reference sources. I ask that Wikipedia develop a policy or guideline for new articles and article stubs, at least for veteran editors working in the somewhat academic and specialized area of sinological topics, that New page reviewers actually read the articles, consult the cited references, and only afterwards begin an article curation process or the process of deleting reputably sourced material. I also think it is a contradiction to Wikipedia policy and guidelines to place article curation tags in article space: they clearly belong on editorial talk pages. Challenging an article's content and posting an erroneous tag claiming that an article has no cited references is just wrong, and counter productive, when the article does have cited references. Adding a tag that an article could or would be improved by the use more references when an article is less than a day old and has adequate references for what start level content appears is just disrespectful to the editor starting the article and to editors wishing to collaborate on the article. Is it to be presumed that we don't know that other than perhaps GA level articles that articles can be improved by expanding the content and adding more references. Not only that, but it discourages us from working on an article when reference material is being challenged and removed. How am I supposed to improve an article when the reference material that I have already added is being challenged and removed faster than I can add to it? This is not a pet peeve, requesting a kitchen sink, or engaging in content dispute with any individual editors (other than demanding that my reliably referenced material not be removed on spurious grounds of "original research" "or "unreferenced): I am flagging a major problem. I am not complaining because I am a little "annoyed", and I would follow my usual practice of just plowing ahead and working in by my generally correct editorial style (as can be seen in my record). Why I placed a request for help is because the situation is such that the burden of starting and developing an new article has reached an unreasonable level. The bar for starting a new article, at least of the specialized sort which I am working on has become too high. Maybe the New page review process could assign reviewers based on the WikiProjects for which the articles are tagged on the Talk page? If it is WP:China and WP:Mythology maybe we could get someone interested in Chines mythology, and we could get a reviewer actually interested in the article content, reading the citations, and perhaps contributing towards the content, rather that focusing on presumptive pretexts to challenge and remove material. Perhaps New article reviewers could be encouraged to hand the review off to a specialist if the task of evaluating the article and its references seems to call for someone with knowledge of a specialized area or the use of various methods of inline footnotes? Might it be reasonable to provide a new, start level article or stub meeting the referencing and other a few days or a week before subjecting to an intensive article review process? Does it seem reasonable that New page reviewing should always it seems threaten to remove challenged material in the guise of suggesting improvements to the article? Pretty much every veteran editor know that unreferenced material can be challenged and removed: is it necessary to broadly template articles with this threat, and say it is a suggestion for improvement? Wouldn't it be better to read the article, consult the references, and then address specific concerns point by point? and other If this is not the place for it, please let me know where to address my concerns. CASE STUDY: 03:09, 24 June 2019, I began Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology with a list of 8 reliable reference sources and at least 12 inline citations. Not the top importance article, but critical to reducing the burden of the somewhat over-burdened and top importance Chinese mythology article, and continued to work on the article. 14:28, 25 June 2019 New article reviewer User:Hzh claims the article is unreferenced and threatens to challenge and remove material. I then continued to improve the article, including the referencing. Hzh again falsely challenges article. I begin a dialog with Hzh who then makes unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims about the article including as to the references, original research and so on. A few minor parts of the article were awaiting references, but these challenges were made just on general grounds, without any specifics (since indeed such arguments would have failed by simply consulting the references and the citations given), and threatens to have me blocked for allegedly violating these policies and and groundlessly dismissing the references. 11:26, 27 June 2019 User:Hzh removes referenced material, specifically a table with about half of the entries easily checked as indicated in Birrell, Anne (1993). Chinese Mythology. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins). ISBN 0-8018-6183-7, as indicated in the article. The other half I was working on, as well as improving the Birrell references; but I never got a chance to. I basically stopped working on the article, general improvements, adding content, adding references and improving references. The environment in which I am expected to edit is toxic. It is too hard to develop articles when every step of the way is being relentlessly challenged, the challenges generally lack substance and could easily be put to rest through minor improvements or by actually consulting the references. PLEASE! May the refernces be consulted. I have put reliable references in there! They support the article! I belive Hzh also objected to including Chinese translations for swords in the article. To to so would be against WP:China policy and Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. The most recent threat from Hzh was on my talk page, also threatening the article Trees in Chinese mythology for which Hzh was not hte new page reviewer for but never5theless chooses to threaten to remove the material, thus likely the aricle on spurious grounds of Original research (this can be easily shown be checking the provided referenece to De Groot, J.J.M. (1910 [2003]). The Religious System of China. Vol. IV. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7661-3354-9. Available online: De Groot, J.J.M. (1910/2003). The Religious System of China. Vol. IV. ISBN 978-0-7661-3354-9. Accessed on Google Books 7 April 2020. Is Hzh my new permanent new page patroller, patrolling every new article I create, premptivley challenging all content on the broadest possible terms without regard to the actual article or the references cited in the article (which Hzh refuses to acknowledge. It is overly burdensome for me to have to write or edit under these conditions. I would like generally to have some improvement in Wikipedia New page reviewer policy, and I am sure eventually these points will be addressed, not necessarily because I was an early editor to bring them up. Specifically, I would some assurance that Hzh stop threatening to remove and actually removing referenced, non-originally researched material. Also, it is unreasonable to have Hzh follow me around each new article I create and to gratuitously threaten them on my talk page. One or two of Hzh's criticisms resulted in some positive article changes, but under the guise of "being helpful" Hzh actually chllenged each section of the article, on one spurious ground or the other. Judging by User talk:Hzh, this user delights in pushing policy to and beyond reasonable limits. I don't want a personal dispute, I just think I should not be subject5 to this disruptive editing, where everything I do in the article is challenged on spurious general policy grounds and the challenger never deals in specific. If my articles aren't referenced, why are there references? If my articles aren't cited, why do they have citations? If the citations don't say what the article says they say, then why aren't specifics dealt with? It's is too easy for Hzh or anyone else too say something is original research when they refuse to pay any attention to the research. At no time has Hzh cited any references to back up claims about the article. At no point did Hzh challenge reference material or any content whatsoever, check the reference cited, and find that the reference failed to support a point in the article. All criticisms of my articles cr8iticized Hzh boil down to the article says something Hzh doesn't like, so Hzh demands that the article be rewritten according to Hzh's pronouncements, Hzh the invokes of the name of some Wikipedia policy to literally bully the editor into complying. Hzh can simply shutdown work on an article by saying Wikipedia:Citing sources, WP:OR, and so on; putting me or another editor in an awkward position, then Hzh or another editor can and has ignored all specifics to the contrary, and continue to continuously threaten to remove and actually remove referenced and WR:OP compliant material. Hzh should not be appointed by others or self-appointed as personal and permanent New page editor, what do I have to do for relief?. Thank you in advance for carefully considering the main points I have raised here. If I could have said it in less words I would have. If I did not objec5tively think that some of my suggestions might go on to help Wikipedia I would not have worked so hard on them. Dcattell (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Dcattell, we are all volunteers. You need to learn to condense. El_C 18:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, however divided by twelve years of editing it is not all that much. So here's the condensed version:

• I have been editing Wikipedia, I guess going on my twelfth year. I think the contributions which I used to make, and am willing to continue to make, can no longer continue under the current environment of new article creation. Contributions include numerous articles and overall organization of Chinese poetry, Japanese poetry, and a start on Chinese mythology topics. I am asking for help because for the first time I really need it, and I am ignorant of most Wikipedia functionality other than reading or editing articles.

• I have specifically been subjected to bullying by User:Hzh, and would like some sort of support and help in this regard. Hzh refuses to engage with the references and seems to engage in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The articles that I have been attempting to work on are objectively the worse for it, Hzh does not positively contribute to the articles, and I do not see any useful purpose towards attempting to work on articles given this situation. This is not a content dispute, Hzh is not engaging in content, especially any referenced content, in any constructive sense of the term. Perhaps Hzh could find something else to do. I certainly could, however this would be at the detriment of the development of encyclopedic content on Wikipedia.
• I would like to see some valuable reforms in the New article review process. As an experienced editor in the area of new articles, I would like to contribute in a positive manner towards this. I think it would be useful to Wikipedia for me to share or discuss this in the appropriate forum or fora (although what these would be, I have no idea). However, if Wikipedia will not listen and respond to the issues of its editors, it is likely to stagnate. I would hate to see that. I have enjoyed editing Wikipedia, sometimes, and feel it has been a contribution toward making the world a better place.

Thanks, Dcattell (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The important point here is that you considered a demand for verification using valid sources to be tendentious and disruptive editing. For example, the table you mentioned here - [45], you regarded as valid a Chinese Wikipedia category page on famous swords as a source for mythological swords. I didn't agree, and asked for sources, which you refused to provide. You are now arguing after 10 months that half of the entries are in the Birrell book after all, why didn't you just put it in there as asked so that I can actually check? What about the other half of the entries? Hzh (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Word. If attribution of a text segment (e.g. a table) is missing but can be provided, then it should. If no attribution can be provided, then the table should not be in the article. Hzh's insistence on implementing one of these options is not disruptive, and the article is objectively the better for following through on either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I get a CliffsNotes version of Hadrian's Essay above? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 19:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I replied to this on the relevant user talk page, since it seemed like a personal request. But, if anyone wants to read it... Dcattell (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have notified Hzh of this discussion, as required. Dcattell, please be sure to do this next time. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for hinting to me of this requirement, and fulfilling this task. Would you be so kind as to provide a link toward relevant information? Sorry, I am clueless. Is it because I mentioned a specific user? Also, I hope there is not a next time. Dcattell (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dcattell: Yes, that's correct. When you edit this page, a yellow notice box should be visible at the top instructing users to that

"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. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates {{Pagelinks}} (for pages) and {{Userlinks}} (for editors) may be helpful."

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The learning curve is a bit steep here however. A lot to process. The relevant articles are Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology and especially the associated Talk page and to a lesser extentTrees in Chinese mythology and cultural symbology (as moved to a new title). As far as diffs go, I have less than a complete understanding of them, and getting up to speed will unavoidably and regrettably take me some time. However, the page histories involved are short, and have a limited number of diffs. Thanks and apologies, Dcattell (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to reply here, given that I appear to have been accused of things I did not do. I did not remove referenced material, specifically a table with about half of the entries easily checked; I removed a table, but I see no references in the table before I removed it - [46] apart from a link to a Chinese Wiki category on famous swords . Legendary or famous swords are not the same as swords in mythology, to suggest that they are without sources would be OR, and that was the reason it was removed, there was no references for any of the sword being mythological. I also did not issue threat on his talk page, merely saying that what's written in Trees in Chinese mythology appear to be OR after I got pinged by Yunshui when DCattell complained about another reviewer. DCattell seems to agree with what I said (symbols are not the same as mythology) because they changed the title of the article to Trees in Chinese mythology and cultural symbology. It seems that the editor has confused mythology with other things not mythological. I also did not object to including Chinese translations for swords in the article; if I understand what the editor is referring to, it is that article should not use a Chinese category page as a citation (the category does not work as a citation anyway, since it is not about mythological sword). If there is anything in the confusing accusations above that needs answering, do let me know. Hzh (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am still confused. Unless there's something else going on that they are not linking to, Dcattell's complaint is regarding a New Article Review that Hzh performed nearly a year ago, in which Hzh raised some concerns about sourcing in good faith. Dcattell quickly degenerated into personally attacking Hzh, and is now accusing them of "tyranny", "nitpicking", "ignorance", "disruption", "tendentious editing", and much more. There is no evidence presented of actual wrongdoing, just the perceived insult of...being subjected to the NPR process, and not being exempted from criticism. This appears to be a strange lashing-out over long-held grudges. As we should all know, our NPR system is comically broken. The few Reviewers who actually put in the work are oftentimes subjected to endless complaints and abuse for doing the job. New candidates are subjected to incredible scrutiny and usually given only "temporary" grants at WP:PERM even if they're autopatrolled article creators with tens of thousands of edits. I only just recently had a promising new Reviewer resign from his position over the perception of "grief and abuse" that the task had brought him. And yet here we're humoring some guy who's attacking a Reviewer for apparently doing their job, almost a year later, with no evidence of wrongdoing. I'm strongly inclined to boomerang this report as frivolous. This is ridiculous. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Dcattell: I have read through your entire extended content now. I think you raise some interesting general points about NPP and offer some suggestions that in an ideal world we would implement. The fact is that we are short on volunteers in NPP just like we are short on volunteers in many areas of the wiki. Reviewers hopefully stick to areas they think they can competently review - e.g. I will review FOOTY articles which many reviewers will skip over while I skip over a lot of topics that rely on Chinese language sources because I know that there are other reviewers better equipped to do those reviews. I could write a lot more about those ideas but let's actually dive into your specific case study: Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology. I'm going to collapse myself but again I get why the experience might have frustrated you (you are right about parenthetical citation) but also I think Hzh was basically following all policies and procedures. I also think he was respectful of you throughout even when it is clear you'd become upset.

Barkeep's detailed analysis of the case study directed to Dcattell

When Hzh first tagged the article, it was on June 21 or 93 days after you'd created it. So, at least in this case study, it was not an article that hadn't had time to be developed properly when it was tagged. If you have an example like that I would like to see it. The tag that was placed was citing a lick of in-line references. That's a different tag than if there had been no references. That is Template:unreferenced if you'd like to see what that one looks like. When that tag was placed there were indeed some in-line citations using parenthetical reference. EEng up above gave some tips about how to make those into references that are linked. There were also whole sections without any references at all. I get why the tag bothered you - strictly speaking parenthetical references are acceptable if not very common. It might have been better for Hzh to send a message to you rather than placing the tag. At the end of a series of edits around specific issues he saw I see Hzh initiate conversation with you. That feels exactly what I would hope to see from an NPP and shows, in the comments, him grappling with what the sources are saying. This was not some driveby work. This is an editor doing exactly what you wanted - careful examination of content. I think it's important to underline here that Hzh has just as much right to edit this article as anyone else. Over the next couple of days conversation continues as do your efforts to improve the article. This seems like the normal editing process - I can get it might not have felt good to have someone question your work (I've bristled more than once when someone has done so to me) but it's also part of Wikipedia. I accept that the tradeoff for having my work read by thousands is that sometimes it doesn't get to end up exactly as I want it or I have to work a bit harder than I might like to get it to the way that I want. The real flashpoint seems to be over the table. Before Hzh removed the table (which wasn't present when he first reviewed the article but was added later) this is what it looked like. That table does not use any citations that I can see. And I also see why Hzh had OR concerns. In retrospect do you understand this or should I explain it more? I just can't get my mind to Hzh harassing you or otherwise behaving wrong at all. I can understand why you decided to stop editing that article. But Hzh didn't follow you around to other articles. He didn't lord his being a new page reviewer over you - I don't see him mention it until days into the discussion. I can get why it felt like he had power over you, which would be the prerequisite to be bullied but in reality NPP don't have any special privileges over any other editor other than one button they can press. So I'm not doubting like you felt like there was a power imbalance but I promise you from Hzh's perspective he felt like it was a discussion among equals. I know that won't make it feel better but I does hope it gives you some insight into where he as coming from. And hopefully now you know that NPP don't have special right or authority over how an article is edited so you won't feel that way if you get into a discussion with an NPP in the future. You were the first to throw out the idea of a behavior problem - suggesting Hzh was engaging in disruptive editing. Maybe this was an attempt to equal what you seemed to have perceived as the power imbalance but I see Hzh respond respectfully to you despite what was a pretty aggressive message. Hzh does mention blocking a couple days later but does so in a pretty soft manner and while, on the whole, attempting to be respectful while maintaining policies. This is exactly what I would hope all of us NPP would do.

• So those are my extended thoughts. Even though you are technically right on the parenthetical citations I really do hope you take Eeng's advice on how to use the more widely linked citations while still maintaining your basic citation style. It feels like a small change that could save you a lot of frustration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• The analysis provided by Barkeep49 is reasonable and objective: it also provides quite a bit of perspective from the viewpoint of new page reviewers/patrollers. I still think that being told "You also write in such an odd way" (Talk:Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology) is a bit over-personal and somewhat insulting. Then being told what wording that I should have used instead is also not helpful: why not copy edit the article instead of telling me to do it and how? The timeline between being notified that the page was being subject to a new page review and actually having material deleted was six days, and still seems to me unreasonably short (and no, I don't have JSTOR). The accusations of original research based on whether some idea is mythology, legend, or folklore seems to me to be unwarranted; although it is true that it wasn't clear (even to myself) what I was trying to do with the article, or how it would develop depending on what sources I could locate: really, the appropriate scope of the article would seem to be just about weapons and armor in Chinese culture that are not actual weapons and armor (there are existing articles about these). I did move "Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology" to Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology, legend, cultural symbology, and fiction (although apparently not allowed to move the accompanying editnotice as instructed, on account of a lack of privilege level). In retrospect, I see that I somewhat over-reacted to this new page review/patrol; still, this is the first time I have encountered such an intense level of article scrutiny outside of one or two GA reviews which I was slightly involved with. I sincerely hope everyone involved with this can learn something from it, I know I have (and I hope that we can make Wikipedia a better place together). Someday I'll try Eeng's advice on the referencing. I was unaware of this method, but it looks promising. And best wishes for the sysops and new page reviewers, these look like hard jobs and ones which require a special person. Dcattell (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

From my perspective (I have not looked at your experience) it will because I am looking at and and thinking "what the hell are they trying to say", and trying to say that politely. Often an article will be so badly written it almost impossible to determine what is being said. This is especially bad if its highly specialised, as they will not even know what more specialised terms might mean or how to use them in context. In one respect this is good, we are not writing for experts but for laymen and so our articles should be easy to understand without special or prior knowledge.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Crveni5

• Crveni5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At the risk of making a mountain out of a molehill this editor is either determined to ignore convention and consensus or is incapable uof understanding these concepts. The issue relates to List of the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men where Crveni5 insists on, sparodically moving living entries out of chronological order (this being the conventional order for deceased cases and living cases when moved by every other editor who edits the article). The history of this is as follows:

1. 2 March 2020 [47] Reverted their edit informing them of the correct order
2. 3 March 2020 [48] Reverted again using "Rvv" to denote that the edit appears intentionally disruptive as it followed an update by the user who regularly does the updates (and therefore knows the correct order).
3. 10 March 2020 [49] Reverted again.
4. 19 March 2020 [50] Reverted another edit made shortly after the regular user had updated the article. Gave the user a level 3 warning. User explained that their edits were not vandalism and they were free to edit how ever they wished (an argument they have used previously).
5. 25 March 2020 [51] After reverting yet another similar edit I explained to the user that they were editing against convention.
6. 2 April 2020 [52] Reverted another edit made after the article had been correctly updated. At this point I was beginning to wonder if the editor was actually doing this deliberately of just had no idea what they were doing. Attempted to resolve this with the edit by displaying the results of their edits versus the correct edits. As per their usual habit they failed to respond, then desisted from editing until returning to do the same thing again:
7. 8 April 2020 [53].

This user has been warned previously for multiple issues all of which suggest that they are not here to edit cooperatively. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

DerbyCountyinNZ, @Crveni5: My thoughts here are to recommend y'all go to Dispute resolution noticeboard. Opening a case, and being guided by a volunteer should work to solve your issue in a structured environment. You will have to play nice and follow the rules, failing to do so will land this back here, which will be an unpleasant experience. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• DS. EEng 02:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

An unevolved editor

A univalved editor

EEng, good point - as an unevolved uninvolved editor, I'll give everyone involved a DS-longevity notice as a friendly reminder. creffett (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Both parties have been notified - they both have received DS-longevity notices in the past, but it has been 3-4 years since their last notices (more than the minimum required year). creffett (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

36.82.120.76 and 118.136.116.158

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

Truthfully, I'm not sure if this belongs here or on WP:ANEW, but I have noticed that this IP has been reverting edits by others, especially those by the other IP, as seen here, here, and here, to name a few. In addition to using their all-caps edit summaries, 36.82 seems to pretend that this is not their problem, and that it is 118.136's problem, as they remove my warnings from their talk page and move them to 118.136's. I'm not even sure if they are breaking WP:3RR, but their edits nonetheless seem to be disruptive. SemiHypercube 15:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

SemiHypercube, I just came across one of their edit summaries while patrolling. The reverts seemed pointless - they seemed to be warring over which image to use - but they weren't over 3RR. The rude, shouty edit summaries seemed like the biggest issue here - if you've warned them, and they're ignoring and continuing with it, I'd suggest a short block with a note about CIV. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Both accounts are triggering the edit filter. For example, 38.82.120.76. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

They don't look like they're vandalising, I think it's some genuine content disputes between two people who don't quite know how things work yet. I've left them some non-templated messages, maybe that'll get their attention. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube and Girth Summit: FWIW, these things have being going on for months in Indonesia-related pages, and both IPs appear like familiar block evasions to me. 118.136 seems to be linked to sockmaster User:Muhammad Farrel D, whose sole ambition seems to be to add the word "Indonesia" to as many articles as possible, including by means of templates, categories and short descriptions. They usually focus on geography, heritage, martial arts and food stuff–plus changing pictures in pages about Indonesian provinces. 36.82 appears to be linked to sockmaster User:Deanarthurl, and behaves very similar to the sock User:Pierre Nguyen, who appears to loathe "traditional" images of Indonesia and prefers a more glamorous and modern image (which somehow goes along well with their love for actresses and beauty contests). I have many Indonesia-related pages on my watchlist, so after some time one can motice the pattern (and get utterly annoyed by it). –Austronesier (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment IP 36.82.120.76 clearly knows what a wiki admin is via their shouting edit summaries. I agree that the IP is possibly a sock, but I don’t know who. Jerm (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier, socksniffing isn't really my area of expertise; both IPs appear to have stopped editing for now, but a trip to SPI might be warranted if you're confident about the masters (unless there are a checkuser wanders past who wants to investigate?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girth Summit (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

CheckUsers will not, barring extreme abuse, peg IPs to user accounts in accordance with the priv-pol. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 20:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Side note, This IP seems to be another one of 36.82. SemiHypercube 20:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Troubling range

I don't really have time to investigate this at this time, but Special:Contributions/2601:204:E37F:FFF1:D5DE:7A76:A8A1:2C44/64 seems like it may be a potential problem. They came to my talk page and wrote this (their talk page), which I took as them playing games. But their many, many contributions elsewhere, range-wise, all seem to be somewhat similar. Not a single source added to any of their edits that I've encountered so far (from a cursory glance, mind you). El_C 23:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Harassment and legal threats from User:AvtarSinghGurjar

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.

---

AvtarSinghGurjar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made this harassing post on an IP editor's talk page, and has threatened legal action (against the Wikipedia community at large, not against me personally) on my user talk page. I believe this needs adminstrator attention. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor also appears to be editing while logged out at Sabalgarh.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I blocked based on User talk:2409:4043:182:D6D7:B74D:40B5:C02:8DB2 (admin eyes only). Am looking into other matters. Oversighters may have seen a link to a Facebook page complaining about Wikipedia--in other words, there may be, or maybe there will be, off-site collusion and further disruption over...well God knows over what. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, I'd like to ask you to run CU on the editor and figure out what the connection is (well, maybe it's obvious to you) with the range you blocked. For the sake of redundancy, there may be a link between Sabalgarh and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhanwar singh vaish; Nigel Ish, I can't say much but I can say that for me there is no obvious connection between the user I just blocked and the recent edits at the article which, I agree, warrant scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No relation I can tell between my range block and this editor. It looks like I used to know what I was talking about with respect to Bhanwar singh vaish, but I don't remember that case any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 13 April 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.

Continued cut-paste moves

Princessruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had recently been making cut-paste page moves — in an attempt to be the page creator of articles (based on their past behaviour of editing), despite reverts and warnings against doing so. User has also refused to acknowledge their talk page warnings, and, instead, simply reverts the warnings and continues on with their editing practices on a daily accord. User has long-standing history of not interacting on their talk pages, in an attempt to work together as a community. User also — as it appears — has begun editing outside of their account — as a way of editing to their own point of view, at 156.159.39.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User is clearly not here to edit constructively to the encyclopedia.

• First notice of cut-paste moves
• Second notice of cut-paste moves livelikemusic talk! 12:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted the junk history at Nina Reeves and protected the redirect. These aren't strictly speaking c&p moves because they're copying a section of an article into a new article. It's still not ideal, but I'm not seeing evidence of bad faith or intent to disrupt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Link them to WP:Communication is required and if they won't respond and still do it, a block is in order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Will do! And thank you to HJ Mitchell for removing the junk history at the Nina Reeves page. livelikemusic talk! 01:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Boil-in-the-Bag is not here to improve the encyclopedia

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 quick perusal of Boil-in-the-Bag (talk · contribs)'s contributions indicate that they are not here to improve the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocked indefinitely, per WP:NOTTHERE. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by user:HalMartin

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 recently been told I'm "pretty abhorrent", that I'm "subtly taunting someone" and that it "looks pathetic, dude (or dudette)" here [54]. this was over an old discussion with a now indefinitely blocked user that HalMartin had nothing to do with, seems like a wanton and rather over the top personal attack to me. Seriously "abhorrent", you'd think I just drowned a litter of kittens. They also seem to have form in regards to defamatory content and personal attacks including telling another editor to go and hang themselves "It must be worth ur dignity. Shame the truth got us Brexit you fucking stooge. Go hang urself" [55] I don't think they are here to build an encyclopedia. Bacondrum (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I did call your behaviour "pretty abhorrent" because it was such. I also think you were subtly trying to gaslight the user you were talking to, which is bad form. You also did look pretty pathetic while doing it. Is that all?--HalMartin (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Focus on content, not other editors. Bacondrum (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

"Focus on content, not other editors." No I will not, because your behaviour on the linked talk page is a clear violation of wikipedia's policies on harrassment. I'll admit I've made edits that I wish I could take back. They were juvenile but not policy-breaking, btw.--HalMartin (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This editor is clearly here to abuse other editors rather than contribute constructively. Bacondrum (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And your evidence for this is what? I have made numerous high-quality edits, and contributed constructively. All the things I have said about your abhorrent behaviour are true. Please address the lies.--HalMartin (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Can an admin close this discussion now? No fair-minded person would say anything Bacondrum thinks is a violation of wikipedia policies is actually a violation of wikipedia policies. I'm trying to protect Bacondrum from himself, here. Opening frivolous ANIs, probably with the intent to drive people off the wikipedia project that Bacondrum probably takes personal issue with is ironically the only breach of wikipedia policy displayed by either of us.--HalMartin (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

HalMartin seems to pop up every so often to make a disruptive edit: Special:Diff/811328340, Special:Diff/838349607, Special:Diff/903317055, Special:Diff/903473857. I'm surprised this editor hasn't been indefinitely blocked yet. These edits are kind of old, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I was busy gathering diffs to make the point that their visiting a four-month-old discussion they hadn't participated in to attack one of the participants, and then going to that editor's talk page to gloat when they got upset about it, was indistinguishable from trolling, but I see you've blocked them already, so I'll just endorse your block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Urging another editor to go hang themselves should have received an indef block. Most the other acts of vandalism like calling the subject of an article a "fat pig" surely warranted some kind of sanction, also. I personally feel like their recent hyperbolic attacks on me should be seen in the context of their generally abusive overall behavior and warrant some kind of sanction, if not an indef block. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather surreptitiously insult and abuse. Bacondrum (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

After looking further through HalMartin's edits, I'm pretty sure this is a sock of Equivocasmannus (talk · contribs). But, yeah, regardless of that, there's a long history of trolling here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've now had the original insults affirmed a number of times, an absolute refusal to focus on content, rather than other editors as well as adding accusations that I'm a liar and I have been wikilawyering [56] to the list of personal attacks. Bacondrum (talk) 23:06, 13 April 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.

Enforcement of RfC result at Republican Party (United States)

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 recent RfC at Republican Party (United States) was closed by S Marshall with a decision not to make any immediate changes to the status quo version in the article. Following the close, I reached out to S Marshall seeking permission to make two minor tweaks to improve clarity and remedy a MOS issue, and they affirmed that my changes would be consistent with their close. I implemented the changes, but two editors who regularly patrol the article (and argued for the removal or modification of the sentence in question during the RfC), Springee and Toa Nidhiki05, have, without notifying or receiving approval from the closer, been further modifying the sentence and reverting to their preferred version. Your attention to this matter and assistance enforcing the RfC result would be appreciated. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Close as malformed. Sdkb made good faith, BOLD changes in support of what they felt was the correct edits based on a RfC closing. Other editors, myself included, disagreed. The next, correct course of action, one Sdkb has not taken, is to turn to start a discussion on the article talk page. Coming here instead suggests that anyone who didn't agree with your BOLD change was either acting in bad faith or in opposition to a hypothetical closing that provided a simple and obvious action. In this case the actual closing was well done, offered a direction but also said people need to continue to discuss possible changes first. Springee (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A change that has been affirmed as consistent with the close of an RfC by the admin closer is hardly a bold one. "Take it to talk" is a fine response when an issue has not yet been discussed, but it is not appropriate when there has already been an RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You’ve reverted two editors to try and force your change in. What’s your objection to discussing on the talk, per WP:BRD? Toa Nidhiki05 18:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb made an edit to try to implement the consensus of an RfC. Neither Springee nor Toa Nidhiki05 reverted that edit. One of the things Sdkb did was to change the piped text in the existing link to Southern strategy. Then Springee removed that link (the link itself, not the language used to describe the link), replacing it with a link to southern states. In other words, and entirely separate edit that removes the very subject of the RfC. It was that that was the subject of the edit war. The rest of this is plain misrepresentation, and why I reverted to the article as it existed this morning. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say the link in question was always problematic WP:EASTEREGG. I suspect if the link location had been known vs what it appeared to be it would have been reverted a long time ago. We have a primary article Southern United States. The stabled linked text is "Southern states". If you put that into the search bar you get [[57]]. None of those links goes to Southern Strategy. Additionally such a link is neither supported by the body of the article nor the RfC closing. I'm OK saying we will rewind to the last consensus version and work from there. Springee (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The point -- for this venue anyway -- is that you and Toa Nidhiki05 have made it sound like Sdkb made a bold edit and was trying to force it. To the contrary, it was your removal of a link that Sdkb did not add which was the subject of the edit war. Trying to then characterize it as someone else trying to force their own preferred version isn't great. All of that said, my comments here shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of bringing this to ANI. Only commenting because I was involved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I made one change. I didn't edit war anything since it was a single change and corrected something per WP:EASTEREGG. Still, the correct place for all of this is to restore to previous consensus and talk. Sdkb's opening an ANI before even opening a talk page discussion does nothing other than poison the well. Springee (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Following up quickly to note that there have been no admin comments in response to this so far — everyone commenting above and at the article talk page is an involved participant. Some assistance closing the discussion and resolving the matter would be much appreciated from any admin inclined to help out. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering that less than 24 hours have passed since you posted the above, & that Admins do have a life away from Wikipedia (& that some of us admins do other things than patrol WP:AN/I when we are on Wikipedia, such as improve articles & other content), I'd suggest you show a bit of patience towards your fellow volunteers. -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Llywrch: Of course. I did not mean the above as a "hurry up", just as a "please don't glance at the section and assume that the presence of a bunch of comments means it's getting handled". As this is the first issue I've had to bring to this noticeboard, I'm not sure how long posts here tend to stick around before being addressed (or archived), but I'll take your comment to mean that I needn't have been concerned. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• I see that closure and the links given show that you you were advised that tweaking the article could be problematic because "Others might have valid objections that I haven't thought of" (very prophetic of S Marshall). In this case, while closing the RFC, the most important part, label #5, was absent from the summary: Any attempt to add should be phrased and discussed on the talk page so that consensus for the wording and its place in the article could be hammered out peacefully. At present then while you have consensus to move forward you do not have consensus as to what forward looks like or where it should go, and that is the issue. I'd recommend this be referred to the talk page in line with WP:BRD for now, as it looks rather much like a content dispute at this time. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for weighing in, TomStar81. It was certainly foreseeable that those on the losing side of the RfC would have objections to any attempt to implement it, but the issue is that their objections so far, by their own admission, have been relitigating issues already raised and settled in the RfC, and if post-RfC discussions are allowed to do that, that pretty much makes RfC closes meaningless. Do you know of any way to facilitate discussion that also makes it clear that comments relitigating the definitively settled parts of the RfC are strictly out of bounds? (That's a genuine question; if that exists, it's exactly what's needed.)

  Any discussion without such guardrails is pretty much guaranteed to gridlock, requiring another RfC on "is this a valid way to enact the result of the previous RfC?" Given that the edit in question (changing the span of a wikilink to remedy an MOS:EGG issue) would have been marked as minor under the strictest definition of that term if the result of the RfC could only have been taken as the starting point, the subsequent RfC would inevitably break down exactly the same way as the just-closed one. That path seems like it would be a colossal waste of editors' energies. S Marshall, if you have any perspectives or advice, I would be curious to hear from you. I don't want to drag you into the mud, but for your closing to have any consequence, you may need to give it some teeth. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

US politics is so fraught that it's very hard to make progress. Given what others are saying here you probably do need a new RFC on what the specific wording should be. Make it clear in the RFC question what we've already decided and note that the "easter egg" link is the status quo. Editors will try to relitigate the previous question but you can safely disregard any such behaviour. Nobody who's got any business closing an RFC would give that any weight.—S Marshall T/C 09:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately by assuming bad faith and bringing a content dispute here vs to the talk page Sdkb has burned a lot of good will that might have made it easier to discuss a consensus text. As for the EGG, I agree it is in the default version but we should be careful about assuming it has consensus support. It's a misleading link and many, myself included, who read the sentence may not realize where it goes. I only knew it was in the article when an editor tried, unsuccessfully, to change the text to support the link. Additionally, my reading of the closing doesn't compel inclusion of a mention of or link to The Southern Strategy. As I've said, I'm OK with the plain text meaning of the sentence but neither the original nor Sdkb's altered blue support the link target. At this point I would suggest, if Sdkb wants to move forward that they make a good faith effort to use the talk page to propose lead changes that address current issues. Springee (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment on process only An admin closing an RfC doesn't become the arbitrator of content. Just because the closing admin doesn't feel the edit violates the close doesn't mean the edit is immune from WP:BRD. Process requires the editor proposing the change open a discussion.--v/r - TP 17:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• But again, this is irrelevant as nobody has actually challenged the edit ostensibly in question. The edit war was over a link that had already existed but which was then claimed to be Sdkb's edit (which it wasn't). This should be closed and discussed from the version I reverted to (before either Sdkb or Springee altered the status quo version). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• We should probably just move this discussion to the article talk page. I agree the deceptive link already existed but "correcting" it with a new, almost as deceptive link isn't the answer. Your reversion to the long standing version is a good place to start the discussion. We should close this and move on. Springee (talk) 11:54, 11 April 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.

Aspersions by anonymous editor on record label article; no discussion

• 86.184.90.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spinnin' Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The anonymous user above has since April 6 continued to reverse repeated trimming of non-notable sub labels of the subject of the above article, from both myself and Binksternet. Every time the list was restored, no reliable WP:SECONDARY sources were presented. WP:ASPERSIONS applies here as the editor has claimed all removals were either vandalism or bad faith. A recent attempt to bring the editor into an existing discussion at Talk:Spinnin' Records#Sublabels has failed. It appears this will continue to be the anon's agenda with no effort to discuss when reverted, and they are cutting very close to WP:3RR with their actions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted. Let's see what happens. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• According to the protection log this ain't the first time the article's had invigorating edits, so lets see if a little semi-protection opens a dialogue. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Drmies' second year of gymnasium

-EEng

• • OK, TomStar81, I'll start. Is that 81 in your name a road, or maybe your birth year? I was in the second year of gymnasium in 1981. Maybe around that time I started getting interested in languages. OK your turn! Drmies (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I was still in the planning stages in 81, blueprints and construction on me didn't start until a few years later :) As for the 81, as noted on my talk page, I had a site registration that required a two digit number and 77 was taken so I picked 81 on the grounds that 8-1=7, and thats how I got my number ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible violation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES at Genghis Khan

Qiufushang recently created an ethnic gallery at the Genghis Khan article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&diff=950234466&oldid=950234342

This was his edit summary:

Undid revision 950234342 by Hunan201p (talk) if the subject is talking about red haired Mongols, it would make sense to have pictures of red haired Mongols - it seems facetious to say that it is not warranted in the article

I removed the gallery, which Qiufushang reinstated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&oldid=950235576

Qiufushang gave the following edit summary. I have boldfaced the text where he plainly states he created an ethnic gallery:

after checking source, my position stands, if you are going to include a section on a controversial opinion on red haired Mongols, it is imperative that you give obvious existing images portraying them, otherwise why include that section at all? furthermore I do not see what is POV about this, it is simply offering more information to the reader - furthermore they are even images from the source of the controversial statement itself

I then informed him that this gallery was a violation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, and removed it. However, he immediately reinstated it, but without the "gallery" section title:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&oldid=950237845#Physical_appearance

I removed that gallery a second time and he reinstated it, suggesting that the MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES rule "only" applies to ethnicity articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&diff=950240179&oldid=950239597

He may well be correct, although his removal of the "gallery" section title prior to stating that opinion indicates he previously didn't believe that.

I would like to get the insight from ANI whether or not Qiufushang's placement of ~100 Mongols as a gallery in the section of the Genghis Khan constitutes a violation of NOETHNICGALLERIES, as well as whether or not this constitutes excessive POV, as none of the images are of Genghis Khan. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that the while starting a discussion about me, Hunan201p did not notify me on my talk page as of this time. Qiushufang (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Now he has. Qiushufang (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Er, no, the date on your talk page clearly indicates that I notified you on 00:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC), three minutes before you left your first accusation and two minutes after I posted this report. I would like to note that Qiufushang has been excessively moody and difficult to work with over the last hour or so. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No need to argue about the gallery. Those pictures and Hunan201p edits should be removed. I suggest remove Hunan201p edits because he sourced Rashid-al-Din from a journal Lkhagvasuren (2016 study), the study people who made that study themselves admit they making many unsure assumptions.

May I ask where are the physical description ( a quote ?) for Genghis Khan by Rashid-al-Din in his “Jami’s al-tawarikh” written at the start of the 14th century?

The only real life physical description of Genghis Khan According to biographer Paul Rachtnevsky https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SQWW7QgUH4gC&pg=PA433&dq=Zhao+Hong+genghis+khan+Paul+Ratchnevsky+tall+long+beard&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDi_Ge_dDoAhVRQEEAHYlvCQ8Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Zhao Hong genghis khan Paul Ratchnevsky tall long beard&f=false}}

The Chinese, Zhao Hong, writes: “The ruler of the Tatars [sic], Temuchin, is of tall and majestic stature, his brow is broad and his beard is long. His courage and strength are extraordinary. :

" Juzjani comments that, according to the evidence of witnesses who saw him during the fighting Khorasan of witness who saw him during the fighting in Khorasan [in northwest Persia, in 1220, when he was in his late fifties] Genghis Khan was distinguished by his height, his powerful build, strong constition, his lack of grey hair and his cat's eyes. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenplz (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not one to cast aspersions, but a newly-registered editor who happens to find this discussion does raise some red flags. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kinu: A meatpuppetry investigation now exists for Qiufushang at SPI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang#11_April_2020 - Hunan201p (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute, rather than a behavioral thing. The talk page and WP:DR are more suitable for this. If it’s edit-warring, then that is what [[WP:ANEW] is for. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE DO CHECK. I'm completely new to wikipedia, I not a sockuppet or whatever. Hunan201p accuses me of being the same as Qiushufang. I suggested removal of the gallery edited by Qiushufang and removal of the description by Hunan201p. How am the same person as Qiushugang ? Both of them are wrong.

I've seen the physical appearance section of Genghis Khan and I'm wondering where is the descriptiption given for this nonsense like---> Persian historian Rashid al-Din stated in his Jami' al-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) that Genghis Khan and his male-line ancestors were tall, and red-haired. He also said that they had blue-green eyes, and that they had long beards. Where are the historical quotes for this ?

He used a 2016 study with full of asumptions.

Despription of Rashid Al Din of Genghis Khan is like this, nothing about red hair, blue eyes. “It so happened that two months prior to Mögä’s [the son of Kublai’s nurse] birth, Qubilai Qa’an [Kublai Khan] was born, and when Genghis Khan’s gaze fell upon him he said, “Our [Chinggis Khan’s] sons are all of a ruddy complexion, but this boy [Kublai] is swarthy, just like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqaghtani Beki [Kublai’s mother] to give him to a good nurse to be brought up by.”” -Rashid al-Din/Thackston translation, 415.

“It chanced that he was born 2 months before Möge, and when Chingiz-Khan’s eye fell upon him he said: “all our children are of a ruddy complexion, but this child is swarthy like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqoqtani Beki to give him to a good nurse to be reared.”” -Rashid al-Din/Boyle translation, 241. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenplz (talk • contribs) 03:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

To facilitate the resolution of this editing dispute, I restored the pre-war state and fully protected the article for 3 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Best drop undue gallery of that nature WP:GALLERY , WP:DUE ...plus the gallery is just a problem on its own MOS:ACCIM.....need good reason to cause potential accessibility problems for some.--Moxy 🍁 08:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Eliboy258

• Eliboy258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They created User:Eliboy258 (disambiguation) -- it's in User space I can't do anything but don't even know what it is so dropping a note here just in case. -- GreenC 16:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

They seem to be copy/pasting NBA articles into various places - see User:Eliboy258. They also messed with GreenCbot here. I don't know whether it is WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR but they bear watching. MarnetteD|Talk 17:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleted the lot and warned them about the copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:MountainTraveler

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

Has a history of adding unsourced content and original research.[58]

Also has been changing content to what the source does not say. And when this was brought to their attention replied "I don't care. They're wrong."[59]

As such I am not sure they can positively contribute to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No I haven't. The ketamine one was the only example you have. The other times I referenced sources that were already there or added new ones. You can continue to misinform people about ketamine. I don't care because it's not a page that interests me anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountainTraveler (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing on ketamine seems like a really bad idea. See WP:WINING.

-EEng

@MountainTraveler: Then you'll stop your disruptive editing on ketamine? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Warning issued on the user's talk page, but to reiterate it here — sources cannot be misrepresented. Failure to adhere to that rule, may result in sanctions. El_C 22:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This issue stretches beyond that page though. Here they are adding unreferenced details to nutmeg.[60]

And here they refuse to use sources.[61] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

MountainTraveler, any medical information that you add needs to have MEDRS-quality sources attached for attribution. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits simply will not do. El_C 22:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Since Casliber is the resident mushroom guru-FA writer/medical editor/physician, perhaps he will review all of this editor's history on mushroom articles and psychedelics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You're all spending far too much time trying to help an editor that has just been blowing you off.--v/r - TP 22:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but I am concerned that Cas might want to remove some edits to mushroom topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's more about making sure they don't continue to add unsourced or poorly-sourced content in the future, as well as removing past additions where they already have. El_C 22:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Sunday morning here and have to do some chores, so might be a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikihounding

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:Eagles247, who is an administrator, has been wikihounding me now for several days. Every edit I make, all legitimate and good, minor or major, Eagles247 is undoing as seen here, here here, hereand here just for some examples. He also then goes on my talk page and leaves personal attacks, as seen here. I am not goint to speak for him and try and guess his motivation. But the evidence of wikihounding is overwhelming. (See also WP:DAPE). Editor940 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, what are you doing on your user page? If it triggers edit filters, of course someone will come looking. And the conclusion that you are trying to game your edit count does suggest itself. Seems like Eagles247 is less "hounding" you than has cottoned on to the low quality of your edits and possibly doubtful motivation, and is keeping a commendably watchful eye on you. Since you started off by copying his user page including admin-specific userboxes, you shouldn't be surprised you have his attention... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I am WP:Involved a bit here but I will say Editor940 is also seeking out Eagles247 as seen here where they target a page specifically protected by Eagles247 and then remove the comment. I will also add that you were not personally attacked but it is clear you have a vendetta.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: I don't know if you are trolling or are actually being serious, because the things you linked to prove nothing. Requesting the Jason Garrett page for less protection because it hadn't been edited since February 7 is proof I am out to get him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)

Please, dude. It warmed my cold, dead heart to see you overcome your block so quickly and so humbly. I don't want to see it end like this. —{ CrypticCanadian } 02:12, 14 April 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.

Violation of userspace

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.

---

It's not, and this is massive. (non-admin closure) ——SN54129 13:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I request to review and change the created/expanded section from Did you know... that India's Ladakh Marathon, held at 11,500 feet (3,500 m), is the highest in the world? (9 October 2015) Did you know... that 20th-century Indian Islamic scholar Asaf Ali Asghar Fyzee advocated the need to incorporate modern reforms in Islamic law without compromising on the "essential spirit of Islam"? (16 October 2015) (1238 views) Did you know... that social activist Natwar Thakkar, who has been working in the Indian state of Nagaland since 1955, is known as "Nagaland's Gandhi"? (20 October 2015) Did you know... that, according to the Financial Times, in 2015 India surpassed China and the U.S. to become top destination for Foreign Direct Investment? (23 October 2015) Did you know... that Marathwada did not become part of India until it was liberated on 17 September 1948, 13 months after Indian independence? (26 October 2015) Did you know... that Indian Urdu poet Ale Ahmad Suroor was honoured by Presidents of both India and Pakistan? (14 November 2015) Did you know... that Barbara Oakley's book Pathological Altruism explores negative aspects of altruism and empathy? (19 November 2015) Did you know... that prices of spirits in Indonesia were raised by 154.4% from 2009 to 2014? (22 November 2015) Did you know... that Sovereignty Day in Slovenia is a state holiday but not a work-free day? (23 November 2015) Did you know... that bilateral trade between India and Laos increased by a factor of 17 from 2008 to 2013? (24 November 2015) Did you know... that the cultivation of the ancient grain amaranth (pictured) was banned by Spanish colonial authorities due to its religious significance to the Aztecs? (27 November 2015) Did you know... that the Colombo Marathon is Sri Lanka's oldest marathon? (30 November 2015) Did you know... that UNESCO recently declared an emergency action plan to protect cultural sites in Yemen from destruction? (03 December 2015) Did you know... that Cambodia's Angkor Wat International Half Marathon was introduced in 1996 by the Japanese Olympian Yuko Arimori? (03 December 2015) Did you know... that tourism in Iraq is in danger because of the ongoing war against ISIS? (04 December 2015) Did you know... that in the 2014 edition of Indonesia's Jakarta Marathon, a limited number of African athletes were invited because of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Africa? (14 December 2015) Did you know... that people from 19 countries can visit Kazakhstan without a visa? (16 December 2015) Did you know... that India is celebrating 26 November as Constitution Day as part of the 125th birth anniversary celebrations for Dr. B. R. Ambedkar? (20 December 2015) Did you know... that the 2015 Bangkok Half Marathon was called the "world's longest half marathon"? (04 January 2016) Did you know... that the Manav Vikas Mission of the Government of Maharashtra provides free bus service for village girls from their native village to their schools? (05 January 2016) Did you know... that by 2013, the revenue of the Syrian tourist industry had decreased by 94 percent since the start of the Syrian Civil War in 2011? (05 January 2016) Did you know... that Afghanistan's vineyards cover an area larger than do Austria's despite alcohol being officially forbidden? (10 January 2016) Did you know... that in 2015, the Indian whiskey Officer's Choice became the world's largest selling spirit brand? (15 January 2016) (15th Birthday of Wikipedia) Did you know... that to promote athletics in India, only Indian nationals are eligible for the prize money in the Kolkata Marathon? (27 January 2016) Did you know... that the Indian whisky Royal Stag is Pernod Ricard's biggest-selling brand? (02 February 2016) Did you know... that South Sudan has the world's second largest animal migration, but there are no tourists to see it? (04 February 2016) Did you know... that the Stone Hall in Nashville was once a private house of the Cantrell family but is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places? (11 February 2016) Did you know... that the auxiliary nurse midwife is a village-level female health worker in India who acts as the first contact person between the community and the health services? (15 February 2016) to Did you know... that India's Ladakh Marathon, held at 11,500 feet (3,500 m), is the highest in the world? (9 October 2015) Did you know... that Marathwada did not become part of India until it was liberated on 17 September 1948, 13 months after Indian independence? (26 October 2015) Did you know... that Indian Urdu poet Ale Ahmad Suroor was honoured by Presidents of both India and Pakistan? (14 November 2015) Did you know... that Barbara Oakley's book Pathological Altruism explores negative aspects of altruism and empathy? (19 November 2015) Did you know... that prices of spirits in Indonesia were raised by 154.4% from 2009 to 2014? (22 November 2015) Did you know... that Sovereignty Day in Slovenia is a state holiday but not a work-free day? (23 November 2015) Did you know... that bilateral trade between India and Laos increased by a factor of 17 from 2008 to 2013? (24 November 2015) Did you know... that the cultivation of the ancient grain amaranth (pictured) was banned by Spanish colonial authorities due to its religious significance to the Aztecs? (27 November 2015) Did you know... that the Colombo Marathon is Sri Lanka's oldest marathon? (30 November 2015) Did you know... that UNESCO recently declared an emergency action plan to protect cultural sites in Yemen from destruction? (03 December 2015) Did you know... that Cambodia's Angkor Wat International Half Marathon was introduced in 1996 by the Japanese Olympian Yuko Arimori? (03 December 2015) Did you know... that tourism in Iraq is in danger because of the ongoing war against ISIS? (04 December 2015) Did you know... that in the 2014 edition of Indonesia's Jakarta Marathon, a limited number of African athletes were invited because of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Africa? (14 December 2015) Did you know... that people from 19 countries can visit Kazakhstan without a visa? (16 December 2015) Did you know... that the 2015 Bangkok Half Marathon was called the "world's longest half marathon"? (04 January 2016) Did you know... that the Manav Vikas Mission of the Government of Maharashtra provides free bus service for village girls from their native village to their schools? (05 January 2016) Did you know... that by 2013, the revenue of the Syrian tourist industry had decreased by 94 percent since the start of the Syrian Civil War in 2011? (05 January 2016) Did you know... that Afghanistan's vineyards cover an area larger than do Austria's despite alcohol being officially forbidden? (10 January 2016) Did you know... that to promote athletics in India, only Indian nationals are eligible for the prize money in the Kolkata Marathon? (27 January 2016) Did you know... that South Sudan has the world's second largest animal migration, but there are no tourists to see it? (04 February 2016) Did you know... that the Stone Hall in Nashville was once a private house of the Cantrell family but is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places? (11 February 2016) Did you know... that the auxiliary nurse midwife is a village-level female health worker in India who acts as the first contact person between the community and the health services? (15 February 2016)

as the violation of WP:SOAP and WP:UP#PROMO and change User:HumanAyesha from

Hi, this is an alternative account of Human3015 created on Valentine's day of 2016 in memory of one of his girlfriend.

to

Hi, this is an alternative account of Human3015.

as the violation of WP:NOTFORUM. 119.160.64.23 (talk) 13:05, 14 April 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.

Anti-supportive reverts and edits by Francis Schonken

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.

---

• Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WikiAviator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, today I've reviewed Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir and tagged it for problems. He reverted my tag without discussion on the talk page nor pinged me for me to have an opportunity for discussion (see diff). I calmly responded by adding a thread on his talk page explaining why. However, he did not open up himself for discussion, directly reverting the edit (diff). For the sake of restarting discussion, I undone the edit, because I feel redundant of opening a new thread and wish my original message to be displayed to facilitate further discussion (diff). I explained why I reverted and asked him not to revert what he disagrees with without discussion since he has a track record of doing this (diff 1, diff 2).Then he again, reverted back and accused me of edit warring and said he doesn't welcome me on his talk page, asking me to use the talk page of the article instead, which is not relevant since I'm talking about his revert, not the article. His behavior is not supportive and his behavior of reverting edits without discussion is inappropriate and disruptive. Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator, the thing was badly handled by you. When it pertains to the content of an article (and you're not making a behavioural remark on my part), the issue has to be raised on the article's talk page, not my user's talk page. When I remove such message, with a clear explanation in the edit summary, it's up to you not to re-revert, which is a WP:BRD failure (my revert was the revert step, which makes your re-revert BRR instead of BRD). So I had a behavioural remark regarding your re-revert, which I posted on your user talk page.

My user talk page has attracted unhealthy attention in the past, that's why I try to keep it clean from messages that don't really belong there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Francis provided a clear rationale for the removal of the tag; conversely, you should have opened a talkpage discussion when first placing the tag. Moreover, Francis is right--this is a discussion about the article, so the discussion belongs on the article talkpage; your claim that asking me to use the talk page of the article instead, which is not relevant since I'm talking about his revert, not the article is incorrect. Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Tagging does not require a talk page discussion since the tag is pretty much self-explanatory, I hope you're clear about that. However, reversion not related to vandalism or copyvio or any conduct problems should be discussed. As he is the one reverting and the one creating the article, I wish to bring this to his talk page because I want him to explain his revert, but the article talk page is reserved for how to improve the page, which he could have voiced out why my tag is redundant. Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The tag was not self-explanatory at all. What content was there that was unsourced? If you don't add incorrect tags you won't be reverted, but if you are reverted then the place to go is the article talk page. Your actions were wrong here on several counts, and Francis Schonken's were perfectly correct. This is just one more example where people who know what they are doing are disrupted by busybody-patrollers who don't have a clue. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@WikiAviator: You originally tagged this article for being unsourced. That was addressed by Francis adding sourcing, with a clear edit summary that everything was now sourced. You then almost immediately added another tag saying better sources were needed. That requires talkpage discussion; I hope you're clear about that. Everything else you've said is equally just as wrong. If you want to discuss an article, do it on that article's talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

What Phil Bridger said. WikiAviator, only one person is at fault here and everyone except you can see who it is. ‑ Iridescent 15:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, tagging by WikiAviator is clearly problematic, as their talk page attests. I myself noticed several days ago that they nominated for CSD an article which was clearly not eligible, but they never responded to my comment and I do not think they have taken it onboard. If they continue, a topic ban would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can only blame WikiAviator here. The underlying problem is that we grant the "new page patrol" right to just about anyone who asks for it, leading to the situation where we get the work of good editors being marked by those who don't have a clue what belongs in Wikipedia, and don't even read and understand the tags that they put on articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but there isn't much that can be done. The official guidelines for granting the right are a 90 day tenure and 500 edits to mainspace. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

See also point #2 under Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Guidelines for revocation, "the editor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages.." EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, WikiAviator has apologised on their user talkpage, and I accepted the apology, inasmuch as it is up to me to accept it. As far as I'm concerned this incident can be closed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 15 April 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.

Request for block review

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

---

Can someone uninvolved review this block of mine, which in turn stems from this SPI. To me this is an absolutely clear-cut WP:DUCK case—I find it inconceivable that two unrelated people would share not only all the same eccentric verbal and formatting tics, but the same extremely obscure set of interests ranging from Demographics of Taiwan to Montelukast, to List of One Piece characters to Kaohsiung—but this one appears to want to argue. In the unlikely event that anyone does feel the block was inappropriate, you have my explicit consent to overturn it without consulting me. ‑ Iridescent 12:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Reviewed and looks like a good block to me. I've declined their unblock request. Number 57 12:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Endorsed the CU request on the SPI. Cabayi (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Duckier than Ducky McDuckface and all her little ducklings. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is my (Non-administrator comment) but I have a fairly good set of spider senses when it comes to socking. Having followed a number of history diffs for the various accounts and seen their participation in various discussions, what my spider senses experience is not so much a tingle as a klaxon. Certainly a good block. --bonadea contributions talk 12:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm taking a look and will report at the SPI in a bit, but so far it's looking spot on. Close this? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Copyvio on Central Talent Booking

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 someone to revdel some copyvio on Central Talent Booking. The edits containing copyvio were done by User:Clareb2020 and were taken from here. Thanks. Posting on multiple avenues so that this can be dealt with as this is a copyvio. Tknifton (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Ymblanter. ~ mazca ^talk 16:35, 14 April 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.

Mubashirsyed014

Mubashirsyed014 (contributions) is deceptively marking his/her edits as minor and using misleading edit summaries. He/she has been warned about this twice - see User talk:Mubashirsyed014#April 2020; he/she agreed to stop doing it on 9 April, but continues to do it.

• 09:02, 11 April 2020 m (Added a link.)
• 03:04, 11 April 2020 m (Added a link.)
• 02:50, 11 April 2020 m (Added a link.)
• 02:40, 11 April 2020 m (Added a link.)
• 08:24, 9 April 2020 m (Added Wikipedia link.)

Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

And he/she is still posting significant content with a misleading edit summary and ticking the minor edit check box:

• 06:17, 12 April 2020 m (Added a link.)

Toddy1 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h, and the talk page suggests they are not here for long.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over template protection

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is pure vandalism to make a point and abuse of WP:TEMPLATEEDITOR rights. It's a juvenile stunt at the expense of others who have accessibility issues and not at all funny. See Wikipedia:Template_editor#Abuse. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would normally have converted this to a WP:ANEW report, but this is extremely delicate and requires community input. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Involved parties:

• Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jonesey95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorted in descending order per my personal perception of disruptiveness. Correction: The rollback seems justified. Sorted by number of edits in the conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I was pinged, so I'm responding here. I'm happy to discuss the issue on Template talk:CBB yearly record start but this edit is a completely unacceptable stunt. If other users ask me to revert on the talk page or here rather than change it to some joke, I will oblige. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Policy sections to consider: WP:TPEREVOKE, #1 (pattern?) and #4 (vandalism?); "Dispute with a fellow template editor". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jweiss11 has now denied "vandalism" but confirmed their intent to "make a point", in Special:Diff/949330876. I think we can safely say that Jweiss11 has misused their privilege to make a point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I guess we have a different definition of vandalism. I was hoping my edit would drive thru the problem with Koavf's approach to this matter so that we can could advance to discussion as a community. My caption was exactly in line with what the caption is supposed to do, alert text readers for the blind that there is a table there. It has no utility for conventional displays in this instance. It's just redundant clutter. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jweiss11, your response seems to contain either a genuine misunderstanding of what Koavf was insisting on, or inacceptable sarcasm that continues the "making a point, disruptively" behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Can you explain what Koavf was insisting on? Perhaps I have misunderstood. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Any HTML parser is well capable of saying "Heads up! This is a table!" or any other text when encountering the opening tag of a table. Just like any other heading, table captions summarize the content in a few words. Replacing a table caption by "Heads up! This is a table!" is equivalent to replacing a section heading by "Heads up! This is a section!". Your argumentation is similar to "Only blind people need section headings". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  ToBeFree, Koavf has argued that these captions are needed specifically for accessibility for screen readers for the blind. Take a look at how this renders with Koavf's caption at Mike Krzyzewski#Head coaching record. There are already section headings there preceding the table. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is the second edit war without explicitly violating 3RR I've seen from Jweiss11 ([62] [63]). I have, in agreement with ToBeFree's analysis pulled Template editor user perm. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, so this is the second time you have observed me to not violate 3RR (or 1RR where sanctions apply) when reverting another editor who made changes to long-standing content without consensus, correct? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is the second time I have observed you edit warring without explicitly violating 3RR. The framing of your question suggests that 3RR is the only way an editor can edit war. This is not correct. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that concludes the discussion about Jweiss11's participation in this conflict, thanks. Now I'd like to address the reporter. Koavf, you're probably one of the most experienced editors around. Was it really necessary to keep reverting – against two other editors and over template protection – without having gained proper consensus on the talk page? Couldn't an RFC or other methods of dispute resolution have brought the desired clarity? I feel it would not be entirely fair to close this discussion without having at least mentioned concerns about your over-insistence in the conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  ToBeFree, The second revert you found to be justified, so I'll just assume that the consensus is that it was. The first one was because, as "Dispute with a fellow editor" above mentions, he reverted me and template editors should revert one another with "good cause [and] careful thought" which, "this is clutter" does not display. He and I discussed table captions at length on the talk page and the problem was with the accuracy of the wording, I added new wording and posted to the talk page immediately after to solicit feedback on that new wording. I have had many, many discussions over basic accessibility over and over again (alt text, MOS:COLOR, table captions, internal scrolling, collapsed-by-default content, etc.) and the attempts to get local consensus is exhausting. We already have these guidelines from W3C/ARIA in the first place and localized here in documentation such as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Proper_table_captions_and_summaries or MOS:SCROLL. I'm happy to discuss which captions or what type of alt text is appropriate in a given situation but I don't feel like I should have to make the case that basic accessibility should be a feature of the world's largest reference work thousands and thousands of times. If I sound put out, I am. If I seem rude, please excuse me: it's an infinite amount of work just to add this stuff in the first place, let alone bicker about it over and over and over again at every single page and template repeatedly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  No worries. I'm not entirely sure about this and would probably have sought local consensus via an RfC, despite the understandable annoyance that comes with doing so, at least after having been reverted by two different template editors. Special:Diff/949317017 looks way too risky for my taste. Then again, I lack the practical experience with making thousands of template changes and having to gain consensus for the same discussion again and again. I should at least note that Jweiss11's final template edit was the only one that undeniably caused damage to the encyclopedia on all included pages. Edit wars are disruptive, but warring over two somehow acceptable revisions is far away from the public disruptiveness of the edit that led to this report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  ToBeFree, you seem to be confused about who has caused damage to the encyclopedia. For the time being, we seem to be struck with Koavf's obstructive addition of clutter. My edit is gone now and was merely a device (an outside-the-box implementation of WP:IGNORE) involved to bring light to the issue when straightforward dialogue with Koavf had hit a brick wall. The upshot is we now have an RFC on the issue, which probably should have been initiated with by Koavf before his relevant edits today. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jweiss11, describing your edit in this way after all the discussion and permission revocation is hopefully the result of temporary feelings and not an indication of long-term unsuitability for trust-based privileges. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think that the permission revocation regarding protected templates was a hasty and poorly-thought out measure that hurts the project by undermining our collective capability. It would be helpful if involved parties could weigh the volumes of work I've done developing and managing templates over the last decade-plus against one unconventional edit, one that was intended to be instructive, in dealing with another editor who had flouted consensus during an obstinate and obtuse episode. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  AFAIK, the template editor permission is intended for editors who can be trusted to edit templates. I don't think it applies to someone who think's it's okay to make a harmful pointy edit to a template, affecting 3000+ pages, because they apparently think it's okay to ignore those who need to use screen readers just because they consider something "clutter" when they haven't even bothered to discuss obvious possible solutions before their dumb pointy edit which achieved nothing other than harm Wikipedia. A key point of editing templates is understanding what you're doing can affect many pages, and so a dumb edit which can normally be forgiven for a dumb heat of the moment thing, even if it was done with an unfortunate disregard for accessibility, is not so 'forgivable'.

  And yes, I am making a big deal about the accessibility issue as well because it is a big deal. We should not be putting unnecessary barriers in front of people with disabilities. Especially when we are editing templates which affect thousands of pages. Plenty of us have made mistakes because we weren't aware of something. While to some extent, it is our responsibility as editors to learn about these things, especially when editing templates used on many pages it's again often 'forgivable'. But it's another thing to continue to have no regard for it when it's pointed out to us.

  Note that I too have struggled to keep my temper in check when formulating this reply given my personal feelings towards those who seem to act like accessibility is something they don't need to worry about. Still I didn't make a pointy edit to a template affecting thousands of pages.

  P.S. As often the case, I think the general response 'well why didn't you start the discussion' applies here as well. It's generally lame when two parties edit war and both sides insist the other side needs to be the one to initiate discussion. Status quo ante is one thing but ultimately someone needs to start discussion. And once accessibility issues and a pointy edit comes into play, any sympathy for an editor allegedly trying to preserve the status quo in an edit war goes out the window anyway.

  Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I was pinged here as someone who has edited this template during this dispute, so I feel an obligation to respond. First, to state the obvious, the edit in question placed an obnoxious, unhelpful, pointy header on 3,000+ pages. Jweiss11 explicitly stated I was making a point (link), which is not what the template editor right is for. The edit was not representative of the sort of behavior I would expect of someone with the template editor right. As for the substance of the discussion and how the table should be formatted, my involvement has been limited, as far as I can tell, to reverting the addition of a header with non-factual text and posting a message on the template's talk page explaining why I had done so and encouraging all involved editors to discuss an appropriate resolution before changing this widely used template. If the editors continue to war over this template, I recommend a higher level of protection for it and a search for a more appropriate venue for discussing a mutually agreeable outcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Having been alerted by a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility #Captions in tables dispute, I looked at the revision history of Template:CBB yearly record start and was appalled at the edit that effectively vandalised the template. I checked the number of affected articles and then decided to block Jweiss11 for 48 hours for the combination of edit-warring and disrupting Wikipedia. Now that I've been alerted to this discussion, I'm willing to see Jweiss11 unblocked if an uninvolved admin disagrees with my block. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I've read the unblock request and I've unblocked as I believe the block is no longer necessary. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• This is a bit silly. Jweiss's edit is hard to defend as anything other than a "stunt" that constitutes "point" disruption. I don't recall what the specific guideline is, but it's rather straightforwardly disruptive based on whatever rule prohibits editorial meta-commentary in articles. That said, I think the "point disruption" was obviously done in good faith, and I think calling it vandalism is excessive and inaccurate. Jweiss was obviously sardonically demonstrating his perceived absurdidty of including an otherwise-useless caption purely for the sake of screenreaders (which he argued could be satisfied in other ways). It was wrong, and an abuse of the TE permission for sure, but at the same time it was wrong of both sides to edit war on a protected template while a dispute is ongoing. We expect better than this from you as well, Koavf. And then to top it all off we have some bizarre punitive block in which there was no arguable preventative angle, just great. Get it together, guys. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, What would you expect me to do differently here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It's exceedingly simple, don't edit war. This is the same simple standard that is applied to everyone, everywhere, in every area, and every dispute on this project. I appreciate your accessibility concerns, I do, and I can forgive your most rollbacking of the one willfully disruptive edit, but the template had existed without a caption for well over a decade, and your desire to add one was disputed. There was no immediate urgency nor no excuse not to follow the consensus-building and dispute resolution processes. There was no excuse for you to engage in an edit war (nor is there ever one), reverting four times prior to the "disruptive" edit in order to reinstate your contested change. You should know better, you should know about and follow WP:BRD, and there's no way this should need to actually be explained to a user of your experience, much less a user with the most privileged and restricted user right on this project short of adminship. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, Do you consider it bold to add what is already required by the MOS to a given template or page? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a legitimate premise to edit war. There is, generally, no excuse or "right reason" to edit war, with the exceptions of WP:3RRNO. If you are supposedly edit-warring in favor of the community's consensus, it is a given that the disruption you participated in was not justified, and properly resolving the dispute in your favor would have been a realistic alternative to disrupting a page, or in this case, thousands of pages, with an edit war. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, Do you consider it bold to add what is already required by the MOS to a given template or page? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, maybe before diving into trying to get Swarm to answer that question you could first acknowledge his clear (and in my estimation correct) point not to edit war. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Yes, edit warring is bad. I'm responding to the fact that he cited WP:BRD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Be bold" simply means to go make an edit you feel is necessary. You did that, so yes, it was a BOLD edit. There's no such thing as a "non-bold" edit that is exempt from BRD lol. Could you imagine the wikilawyering over edit wars if there was? Lol! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, Reverting vandalism is not "exempt from BRD" lol? Yes it is! LOL! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is getting a bit bizarre. You know that I'm referring to good faith edits, and have already highlighted WP:3RRNO as the exceptions, under which vandalism is included. Saying you're allowed to revert vandalism when you were edit warring in a legitimate content dispute strikes me as a bit funny, because you weren't reverting vandalism, that's the whole point. The "vandalism" was one edit, which was only provoked by an edit war that you contributed to because you refused to follow BRD. This is literally the same standard edit warring principles that get explained to any newbie. I doubt that you're actually unfamiliar with them, but why you're pretending you don't understand them or they don't apply here is beyond me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, I didn't say that I was: I was responding to you writing "any edit you want to make is bold lol" which is not true. I'm only reacting to what you keep on writing and it's hard to get a straight answer from you, even when I ask yes-or-no questions. If things are "bizarre", I'd recommend you read back thru the thread without imputing motives into what you think I probably meant and instead look at what I actually wrote. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon and civility

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

---

This user consistently writes confrontational and vulgar edit summaries. These are just highlights from the last couple weeks; please browse Special:Contributions/John_from_Idegon to get the whole picture.

• "How about you either fix it or fuck off so i can"
• "Addition of ignorant meaningless bullshit."
• "Make your tests in a sandbox"
• "bullshit. Your ignorance does not equate to my incompetence"
• "cute essay. Bet your English teacher liked it. It is not however encyclopedic in any way. Paraphrase your content from reliable secondary sources and cite them."
• "poor sourcing, trivial and localist in nature. A criteria for inclusion needs to be established via consensus. Even the sourced things are crap. It's the author's WP:OR that established these as "landmarks". There certainly aren't any sources. I doubt anyone gives a damn where the state highway garage was."
• "Still trivial, still the wrong article, still pointless, source still crap."
• "RAgain, those sources are not reliable. if you wwant this trivial crap in, you need CONSENSUS. And as you have been advised multiple times, see WP:OWN. Wikipedia now has the means to physically prevent individual editors from editing certain articles. you've been disruiptively editing on this (and a few other articles for years)"
• "Every damn team you play are not your rivals. provide reliable published secondary sources for your change"

The problem seems to extend to talk page responses, too, like this one and this one.

Normally, I'd make approach them on their talk page myself, but one of the comments was directed to me so I'm recusing myself and dropping the issue off here. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

While several of these are a bit much, and John from Idegon should really tone it down (left him a note to that effect), still, I'm not seeing anything that's otherwise actionable. El_C 00:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go away for the rest of the day. I have no patience with DICK behavior today. And I'm dealing with it in 3 separate places. Wish people would worry more about our interactions policies than civility. You can't regulate speech, but you can change the way you feel about it. When I can't make a good faith effort to try to fix a weird error because some fool is stuck in a box and won't leave it alone, it gets frustrating. Have a nice day y'all. If you don't want colorful language, don't be a dick. If it's that big a problem, permaban me now. John from Idegon (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

John, it's still best that you arm yourself with patience when editing. That would be in everyone's best interests. So, give that a bit more effort, please. El_C 01:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this response, and the further responses here, pretty clearly demonstrate the contempt John from Idegon has for your advice ... and for other editors. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I've escalated my caution to John to tone it down. El_C 02:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this. It appears that John from Idegon has a penchant for initiating multiple edit conflicts during the same time-frame, all without much cause. He initiated one at Lauren McLean, refused to provide any policy for his deletion of my content, and left two unnecessary notices on my talk page instead of communicating via the talk page. It appears that while this was going on, he was doing the same at Tri-Cities High School, EAGLES Academy, and Dayton, Ohio. One only has to take a look at his recent contributions to notice his uncivil edit summaries, ranging from snide to downright racist. This editor clearly has major civility problems. and may be WP:NOTHERE. KidAd (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, El C. I'll leave it for now, but don't expect a behavior change. As long as we run bottom up (and that cannot change), some will react badly when others don't follow our sound guidelines for interaction. So how is that the one reacting's problem? This issue would go away completely if y'all threw some sanctions out for not following BRD. And as I already said, if that isn't a satisfactory solution, block me now. I'm not gonna change. John from Idegon (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

KidAd, regarding "downright racist": while that's a harsh response on John's part, I do not see any racism. Say what you will about John from Idegon —who really does need to start doing better on the civility front— prone to racist exclamations he is not. El_C 01:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@KidAd: Actually, you were going against WP:BRD and edit warring at least as much as John from Idegon was at the McLean article. No comment on anything else. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I fully admit to participating in a conflict with JfI. That is on me. And I have crossed out my accusations of racism. I'm sure there's more context related to the If you don't know how to communicate in English stay off my talk page. This is English Wikipedia comment. KidAd (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I decided to look at a few of these. The edit summary "Make your tests in a sandbox" followed a summary from another editor that included "this is a test edit to see what's broken". Editors should not make test edits to mainspace encyclopedia articles but instead should do testing in their sandbox space, so what's the problem? As for the alleged "downright racist", I have read the diff five times and see no racism. All that being said, John from Idegon (who is a highly productive editor) ought to strive to be less confrontational and abrasive when interacting with other editors. Especially in edit summaries which cannot be changed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I noticed that this ANI was started due to a discussion I opened on the editor's talk page. It because because I was called out here when I tried to explain an edit that I fixed a bad link introduced by someone else, but with a tool I use. I apparently need consensus to fix a link like this. While I made another change earlier, and he reverted that, for this change, I think it's a bit harsh. I opened a discussion on the talk page and explained that the piling on at the ANI above might not end-up the way he'd expect since I was not making a bad edit in any way, but was greeted with a bit of profanity in response. I'm not sure what he means by "The fact that you think you have a ... RIGHT to change things is the entire problem", when we all have the right to change things, especially when they're broken.

To his defence, I often get heated and don't check sufficiently when reverting, and when the adrenaline starts and the amygdala takes control, I don't always think straight. I'm sure it's happened to the best of us. I am concerned that he sees not problems with his behaviour and that he not gonna change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, you can read. I'm not making excuses. I have a foul mouth, and that won't be changing. Follow guidelines for dispute resolution and you will never see it. Hold yourself above policy and you will, every time. We have no language police here, and that's been clear for the entire time I've been here. And virtually to a person, every person that comes here bitching about people's word choices are the worst offenders at NOT following the simple guidelines we have for dispute resolution. Again...if the community holds them to the established standards, then folks like me don't have to lose patience with them. And if you live in a glass house, throwing rocks is generally a bad idea. John from Idegon (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, KidAd, for striking out the accusation of racism. I suggest you consider doing the same for the speculation about NOTHERE. John is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia and has made massive contributions toward that goal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 I have done so. Both accusations were inappropriate/unproductive. KidAd (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, KidAd. Please try to internalize this. Our content is not decided by policies. It is decided by consensus. There are many many areas of content that are not defined by policy. Depth of content is one. The closest policy to the dispute YOU caused by holding yourself above our content dispute resolution process is WP:NOTEVERYTHING, but AGF alone is all the reason you needed. It's all the reason anyone needs. What is it about Wikipedia that brings out the megalomania in people? Takes a pretty big ego to believe only yourself has the correct answer, ya? So I've got you insisting that this very insignificant politician's endorsement of a failed presidential candidate is so encyclopedic no other input bears consideration; I've got the OP constantly reverting my attempts to actually fix the problem he identified and admitted he didn't know how to fix; and Walter again insisting that he is completely above it all. If you all just gave your fellow editors GF and followed the guidelines established for these situations none of this would have happened. When you don't follow the established guidelines, chaos ensues. If you find my abrasiveness objectionable, imagine how objectionable I find your collective ignorance of our very sound guidelines about the cause of the problem. The problem is NOT my reaction, it's your actions. John from Idegon (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, John, the problem is also your reaction. You do need to start doing better on that front. El_C 02:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon If you can't even be civil in your own ANI discussion about your incivility, I don't think you've taken long enough of a break. As an ignorant megalomaniac with an inflated ego, I think you might have to explain the above policy interpretation more clearly. I started a discussion on the very insignificant politician's talk page if you would prefer to do it there. KidAd (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

OK John, I am not insisting I am above it all, but I will ask, once again, where in the revert I made of yours, is the problem that needs to achieve consensus? Are you going to stick to the claim that I'm being tendentious. I'm not claiming I've got it right, but I have asked you several times where I've got it wrong, but you will not show me where changing [[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|]] to [[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]] is wrong and needs consensus. On the article's talk page I made this exact demonstration. I've requested on your talk page and here, yet you're making a claim I've got an attitude but you won't show me what the problem that you see actually is. Feel free to show me though. But even if it was a bad edit, it's not the edit or its correction that is the problem, it's the way you're approaching it. And if I were the one instance of poor behaviour, I would overlook it, but there's a long list above where you've done as bad or worse. It's for those issues that this discussion has convened. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is the incivility here? You expect a pat on the back for DOING WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE? Egad. John from Idegon (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL includes "rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity, ill-considered accusations of impropriety, and belittling a fellow editor. You've done all of those in your above comments to me alone, and for what? KidAd (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Then enlighten me. What in the above comment is uncivil? I'm ignorant of your perception of incivility. Which is the entire problem with playing language police. However not following the established guidelines for dispute resolution is binary. I did, you didn't. And yet my language which is completely acceptable to me and many others, is in your view the problem when you made an out of policy response to the situation at hand, and continue with your hyperbolic comments about my behavior? Test edits should be made in a sandbox, people I do not know have no business addressing me or anyone else here as dear, by failing to follow BRD, and dismissing that as a non problem, refusing to leave things one has admitted ignorance of alone so others can fix it....I fucking swore. Try following the well thought out guidelines we have established for situations that come up all the time, and there are no problems. At all. In my culture, that's the response you get. It has been my pattern for years. It won't change. Every person commenting here (except the administrators) has been in repeated breach of minimally GF. Sorry if I cannot see any equivalence between the sets of behavior here. Y'all are clearly breaking policy by insisting that it somehow doesn't apply. No, Walter, you cannot make unilateral cosmetic changes. If it's disputed, you discuss. An explanation would have ended it. KidAd, you know BRD, you know how it works...I know this because we've been down this road before. Again, discussion would have solved the problem (as long as you're willing to follow DR procedures and are willing to listen to other views.) The OP had a point, in regard to the instance at hand. We both failed to assume good faith. That could have been solved with more patience than either of us applied. I thought I could fix the problem, discovered I couldn't, and was reaching out to someone I know could fix it when he reverted me yet again. It's been a long day. I'll be happy to discuss the article at hand with KidAd, I'll find someone to fix the issue on the school article and I'll be happy to discuss the issue with Walter just as soon as he drops the "I've got a right..." position. But not today. Probably not tomorrow either. Good night. John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to industrial language; I often use it myself; but anyone who thinks that adding the word "fucking" to a sentence makes it more direct, persuasive, or well-reasoned is just plain uncivil, ill-mannered, and likely to arouse hostility to even their best argument. There is no need for such language anywhere on Wikipedia; anyone using it should wind their fucking neck in. Narky Blert (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• John, I basically agree with El C's comment: some are a bit much, none are really actionable. However, I would personally ask you to keep it clean in mainspace article edit summaries. Meaning, no profanity, please. No snarky or angry comments–not in article edit summaries. Why? Because it's the official log of the article. It should be professional. It's one click away for any reader wanting to see the history. And children read it. Like, small children... six or eight year old children. And there's no way for anyone to edit the edit summary to clean it up after the fact. Imagine going to the library, pulling out a chemistry book, and the table of contents says "Chapter 1: Fuck this guy. Chapter 2: For the last time..!" I mean, it would make for an interesting chemistry book, but it would a weird library if every book was like that. Tri-Cities High School is an article that is going to be read by middle- and elementary-school-aged children, almost certainly. Right now if they click "View history", the second item down says "How about you either fix it or fuck off so i can". Come on, we just don't need that. That won't entice a reader into becoming an editor. It's unprofessional and makes WP look like it's Twitter. I generally don't have a problem with profanity, and everyone loses their patience sometimes and justifiably writes sharp words, but I'd just ask that you keep that out of mainspace edit summaries, as one place to stay professional, just as we'd keep it out of mainspace articles. Thanks. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Levivich. What you said reflects my view, also (albeit more eloquently). El_C 06:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I had intended to recuse myself, but I can't help but adding an opinion at this point. (Also, what's the difference between bullets and indents?)

I'm piping up because this opinion doesn't reflect mine. In particular, I can't figure out how the "none are really actionable" conclusion is met. Using WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, we find at least four criteria met just in John from Idegons' posts in this very thread. (They are, by my read: 1a) rudness, insults, profanity, indecent suggestions; 1b) personal attacks; 1d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries; 2a) taunting or baiting; 2b) bullying.) Is there some other standard that's meant to be applied, rather than that one?

There's no justification for the sharp words John from Idegon used in his two edit summaries the Tri-Cities High School article. After all, nobody was in the way of his path toward fixing the article. The breaking edit was there for sixteen days before I tried to fix it, and I did nothing to deserve the response I got. In what I've observed so far in his other responses and summaries, there was no justification for his intimidating, vulgar, or disparaging comments or summaries.

Maybe it's my fault that I only went back a week or two. Researching John from Idegon's previous interactions reveals responses like this, and like this. There's bundles of them.

Sure, someone might loose their calm every once in a while. But that's not what's happened here; and it's not what is continuing to happen, either, even after being warned twice. The "think of the children!" argument above turns a blind eye to the targets of a consistent, persistent pattern of personal attacks. That John from Idegon was awarded an editor retention award is a strong endorsement that his anti-social, abusive behaviour is not only tolerated, but endorsed. It says "we want to retain bullies, and don't care about the targets we lose". So, I think his method of bullying and abuse is worth reprimand and censure ... assuming, of course, we really want The Five Pillars to mean something. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: If John from Idegon were a newly registered user displaying this behavior, this case would've been easily resolved and closed with an in indeff block. That is not the case though since John is not a new editor but here's the disappointing part, John has been editing for 8 years and should already know the behavior he's currently displaying is unacceptable. Even now as of April 12th, John is still continuing this behavior on their talk page: See User_talk:John_from_Idegon#Please_add_my_tendentious_editing_to_the_ANI_discussion. And the worst part of all of this, John has acknowledged his behavior as inappropriate but refuses to change it. That reply alone is proof of him having no regard for WP:CIVIL. If this case is left unresolved, John is just going to continue with his behavior until he ends up here again. But what I've seen here at ANI, the best way to resolve such behavior is a block. Not a warning to the editor, not an apology from the editor, but a bock, particularly, a block on the grounds of WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  Apart from everything else, WP:NOTHERE clearly doesn't apply to John and wouldn't be a reason for a valid block. If you believe that he should be sanctioned for violating CIVIL (which I'm not sure he should), that's a different case and should be argued on its own merits. But he's a highly productive editor who is clearly here to improve Wikipedia. Grandpallama (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Acerbic occasionally, and sometimes, perhaps, reacting to some problem he’s seen the 12 millionth time as though the particular wikiteur who did it last was responsible for all of it, but a competent, conscientious writer who regularly works cleaning up the rougher edges of the place... i.e., making it more like an actual encyclopedia. “Not here...” my shiny metal &cetera. Qwirkle (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• comment I've only interacted with John from Idegon a few times. I've felt they had clear reasoning and good suggestions. I can see how they would get frustrated with some of the editors who's behavior can appear agenda driven (that isn't saying they really are but it's easy to think to see it in others). Anyway, I hope John from Idegon can focus on the content and keep it more PG. I fear this sort of talk page stuff will get a good editor blocked and I don't want to see that. Springee (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• This edit is absolutely beyond the pale. Re-introducing a broken link and claiming a need for consensus to fix it is probably the most clear-cut example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point I've ever seen. The edit warring to deliberately break a footnote on Tri-Cities High School appears similar. Given those, the "everyone is the problem but me" attitude, and the apparent pride that John from Idegon takes in his incivility, there is a solid pattern of unproductive behavior here.

  I would propose a topic ban of sorts - a restriction against the use of profanity and insults in edit summaries. While only a part of the problem, Levivich is correct about the need for professionalism in the page history, and there should be some means of ameliorating this disruptive attitude. Wikipedia has a problem with granting established editors carte blanche to act with incivility; giving some leeway is understandable, but allowing a persistent toxic atmosphere should not be. As Jerm mentions above, a new editor would be indeffed without a second thought for this kind of behavior. If "be civil in edit summaries" is too difficult, then "don't disrupt to make a point" along with our other pillars and policies are probably too difficult. A topic ban would at least provide an opportunity for an otherwise-productive editor to remain so. --Sable232 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• John, I read WP:TPG and saw nothing about the use of the word "dear". If I shouldn't use it, I won't use it. I removed the D-word after you responded angrily to me. English is my first and only language, so please don't assume that I can't communicate in English. After you pointed out the mistakes on my merge proposal on Talk:Greater Los Angeles, I made several corrections. Then, I asked you if I could remove the comment you made following the merge proposal, as I had already corrected it and I felt that keeping the comment would be a distraction for the merge proposal. Read the talk page now - it is very clear what articles I'm trying to merge, and why they should be merged. You even reverted some of my corrections which I made in response to your comments. I did everything you asked me to do, including retitling the section. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  This edit is really close to what I'd consider racist. In addition to being incredibly incivil, I'll leave out the irony of disparaging the editor for their use of English, while simultaneously stating This is English Wikipedia... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  There is nothing racist about that post. Pointing out that this is the English Wikipedia? Pointing out a lack of mastery of the English language? I see that as frustration, not racist. "American" isn't a race, btw. John, you really do need to tone it back just a little. I don't care about using "fuck" or "bullshit" in edit summaries, I'm talking about the hostility. For me, this isn't about policy, it's just about keeping the environment calm. There are plenty of times when I would like to call someone an idiot or asshole (and rarely have I), but it shouldn't be a constant thing. That doesn't make you wrong about the merits of your arguments, but sometimes that gets lost because of the tone you express it in. Seriously, for your own good and to just keep the peace, you will be a bit more convincing if you took some edge off the tone. Please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  Hence why I said it's really close to what I'd consider racist. And ask yourself this: if the editor making the talk page comment was named something other than Sanjay7373 do you think John would have made the comment about their understanding of English? Be honest. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: Except that, unless I'm mistaken, I can't see that Sanjay7373 had anywhere mangled the English language at all, and looking at their other edits, their English is absolutely fine. So if that's the case, the "this is the English Wikipedia" just happens to be aimed at someone called Sanjay7373? There may be a different explanation, but the optics are not good at all there. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't say he was correct, I just said I don't see how that comment can be taken as racist. Assuming his judgement of the editor's grammar is completely wrong, it still isn't racist. Blunt, perhaps. Rude? Meh, maybe. But not racist. That word is thrown around all too often, and typically inappropriately, which only waters down real racism. Taken alone, you simply have to assume way too much to get to racism from that comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  And I didn't say it was racist, I said it didn't look good, but there may be another explanation. It certainly could be racist if it was typed for a certain reason. But regardless, even apart from that, the entire comment is completely out of order and John needs to wind his neck in a bit. He said above "If you don't want colorful language, don't be a dick.". But Sanjay7373 wasn't being a dick, and he still got the abuse. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I will admit, this is the first time I have edited a user talk page. I have just reached 500 edits, John has made over 100,000. Obviously, John has more experience on Wikipedia than me. But my use of the word "dear" (which might have been inappropriate) distracts from the central point of the discussion: that "metropolitan Los Angeles" and "greater Los Angeles" are synonyms and that the two articles should be merged. I have cited the policy-based reasons WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:REDUNDANT, retitled the section, made it clear which articles I want merged, and removed the reference to where I lived. I did everything John told me to do. Yet John reverted (some of) my edits, saying "Do not change any comment that has been replied to". It wasn't simply a comment, it was a proposal to merge two articles. And please tell me how I "lack mastery in the English language". The only grammar mistake I made was putting a period at the end of a question. I corrected my mistake after John pointed out. I have seen plenty of minor spelling/grammar mistakes on talk pages. Sanjay7373 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sanjay7373 As long as you were not personally offended by the "If you don't know how to communicate in English" comment as anything more than rude, I don't see any reason to belabor the point. I should never have blown that comment out of proportion and apologize again. KidAd (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with using "Dear". In English it's a traditional way of opening a conversation or letter and given your inexperience with using talk pages it was completely understandable. The reaction you received was very WP:BITEy (including the subsequent edits which included blanking the conversation with the edit summary "go away" after you'd removed the harmless "Dear" and stood your ground invoking WP:NPA... —Locke Cole • t • c 00:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• "I have a foul mouth, and that won't be changing." I'm sorry, but this should be unacceptable. Regardless of tenure, all editors should be required to comply with our civility rules -- and check their "foul mouth" when editing here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  That would be my concern as well. This has been going on for some time, and the failure to recognise that there is a problem is an issue. I was hoping that things will improve, but this is looking less likely to be the case. - Bilby (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  Use of profanity does not violate our civility rules. That's well established (regardless of some folks' consternation with said consensus). Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  Really? I didn't know profanity was the standard language we use when communicating with others. I dare you to use profanity while communicating with an admin, see if you won't get a warning to stop. Jerm (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, really. And I didn't say it was "standard language"; I said it didn't violate WP:CIVIL. There have been multiple discussions about it, some of which you can easily find on the talkpage of the policy itself. Using profanity with an admin is not going to result in sanctions unless it's considered abusive or directed at them. Like I said, I get that some people don't like this, but it's the current consensus. Within this very thread, a few admins have already said they don't see anything directly sanctionable in the listed edit summaries. Grandpallama (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: You don't need to have a policy stating profanity is WP:UNCIVIL, it's WP:Common sense. And with that, I have nothing else to add. Jerm (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jerm: any "common sense" needs to be read in light of previous consensus. The most recent widespread discussion of a related issue that I'm aware of of is Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 20#Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not!. I won't try and summarise the closing summary but unless consensus has changed, any action needs to be read in light of that and previous discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you needed to ping me to a conversation I'm clearly following, nor do I understand why you're arguing with me. Consensus is consensus. If you don't like it, start an RfC about it (again). Your "common sense" doesn't align with the current consensus. Grandpallama (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: You are simply wrong. While it is all-too-often not enforced by the regulars at ANI (particularly against long-time users), profanity is a violation. WP:CIVIL says so on its face: "Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor . . ." It's long past time that we should start enforcing the policy. Cbl62 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

How about folks quit pinging me to a conversation I'm already taking part in? I'm not wrong--everything I said reflects the current consensus. The attempts here to reclassify profanity as a violation of the policy are, as I said, not supported by the many, many archived discussions at the policy page. And the quotation to which you refer talks about a "single episode of extreme" language, which none of these are. In fact, the term "gross profanity" is specifically used to detail what is considered "rude" by the policy. Like I've said (multiple times now), I get that a portion of the community doesn't like this, but a behavioral discussion about a particular editor isn't the place to attempt a relitigation of the interpretation of the policy. The community has been very firm that it's not going to police people's use of colorful language as long as it's not part of abusive attacks against user. Grandpallama (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cbl62. The odd swear word doesn't particularly bother me, though sexist terms like "dick" and similar are, I feel, less acceptable. But the point is that, although anyone can get frustrated and lash out now and again, it shouldn't be habitual. The fact that a person has made valuable contributions to the encyclopedia doesn't absolve them of the requirement to follow the guidelines on civility as on everything else. Deb (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've neither argued that habitually bad behavior should be overlooked, nor have I suggested that prolific contributors should be excused. You and I both agree on that. What I've said is that the use of profanity is not, in itself, a violation of WP:CIVIL, which is what the initial claim here was. John's behavior is debatable, but if he is to be warned/sanctioned/whatever, it should be for the overall behavior. The use of profanity is not the problem, at least based on past community consensus. Even trying to police particular words, such as the one you call out, is problematic, given the relatively different weight certain words carry in different English-speaking locales; the "c word" is horrific in the U.S., but pretty mild in the UK. Grandpallama (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is a very long discussion so perhaps I've missed some explanation. But does anyone here really feel fixing [[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|]] into [[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]], in a ref where the Help:Pipe trick does not work and therefore the rendered page shows exactly as it shows here, "require[s] consensus" (which in this case can only be taken to mean needs to be discussed first) or amount to tedious editing? (Look at the diff if you don't understand me [64].)
  To be clear, I think it would have helped a great deal if Walter Görlitz had better explained early on why they were making the edit. However ultimately whatever Walter Görlitz's failings, I think an editor who has harmed Wikipedia by reintroducing a broken link needs to show recognition they've screwed up, and it isn't just the other editor's fault for not explaining things better. In fact, if we were to assign relative levels of blame, the editor who reintroduced the broken link would have to be the one at greater fault. And I say this as someone who hates to be wrong or at fault.
  Further I think this also illustrates one reason why more civility is helpful. If you keep coming of insulting or "pissy" in your edit summaries or comments, you tend to annoy other editors. Human nature means that there tends to be some response in kind and also other editors may not explain so well why you are doing something wrong. This can often be a 2 way street so a simple problem like an obviously broken link which should have been easily fixed ends up being a whole palaver.
  To be fair, in this case the early edit summaries don't really seem that bad, however editors who often encounter begin to recognise each other and unfortunately it's difficult to not let previous experiences colour how we respond.
  Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Shall we get back to writing an encyclopaedia rather than fuss over all this snowflake nonsense. The man hours and effort put in by some here could've easily knocked out a half decent article or two by now. Cassianto^Talk 19:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• This thread seems to have been largely muddled by irrelevant squabbling, but looking at the facts I definitely do see an obvious pattern of incivility which the user themselves does not seem to dispute but rather embraces shamelessly. In fact it's just about as blatant of a pattern of incivility that you can come across. I understand giving leeway to "frustration", but strangely the incivility is present in low-stakes situations where such a degree of frustration is not actually understandable. Most concerning is the fact that John openly says that he will not ever change his behavior. We are not the civility police, true. We do not enforce the civility policy heavy-handedly, true. That does not mean that civility is "optional". A pattern of "inactionable" incivility becomes actionable. Or, it needs to, otherwise the complaints go to Arbcom or the WMF who are not so forgiving as some of the users in this thread. It is, quite simply, our responsibility as admins to uphold the civility policy. This should be closed with a formal warning, absolutely nothing less. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a matter of WP:Civil and is in no way "Snowflake nonsense" as presumed by the comment above mine.

I've looked over the evidence provided by the reporter and while some of it is meh, there's enough to paint a good picture concerning Johns lack of civility in dealing with users. This is especially troubling given John is an experienced editor since 2012 as well as his replies to this report particularly "I have a foul mouth, and that won't be changing".

A one way IBAN for John could be the way to go, but given they've made it clear they won't change their ways, this may warrant a lengthy block (Though i'd personally hate to see it come to such an extreme option in regards to the latter). AryaTargaryen 00:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not for you, nor I, or anyone else on here for that matter, to "no-platform" someone, simply because that someone behaves differently to you in disputes. That does not make you right and them wrong. Nor is it your job to oversight and educate someone on their personality traits, no matter how much of it you may disagree with. Wikipedia is made up of all different personalities, which is why Wikipedia is what it is today. It is not a result of social justice warriors being pink and fluffy to one another; it is not a result of people sticking to WP:CIVIL and its flawed interpretations about what is and what is not acceptable language. It is about people from all walks of life sitting down at a keyboard and doing what they enjoy doing, writing, and as sure as god made little apples, in that scenario, there will always be people who disagree with one another. The more folk like you try and make this place a politically correct echo chamber, the more it'll falter. My friend, Eric Corbett, long since exonerated from this place, sadly, wrote Gropecunt Lane, an article about prostitution in medieval England, that in a million years would never have been written by one of WP's SJWs. The fact that it was written about, and has helped educate us about what exactly went on in those times, can only be a good thing, right? The diverse make up of this place is its only redeeming feature, and as much as I tend to hate how it's run (inept Arbitration Committees, a fair-share of even more inept administrators), it would certainly not be the kind of excellent online resource that it is today without these foul-mouthed hot-heads (and I include myself in that) being around. Cassianto^Talk 08:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• • I disagree. It's absolutely up to us, the community, to "no platform" someone if they abuse the platform. We do this all the time with blocks and bans. I hope it doesn't come to that and we can come to a better resolution, but "goodbye" is always the ultimate resolution for anyone who steadfastly refuses to comply with our pillars and policies. It's really hard to respond to "I have a foul mouth, and that won't be changing" with anything other than "OK, then take your foul mouth elsewhere." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    • So you don't believe in diversity and tolerance? That's very telling. Cassianto^Talk 17:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
      • That's a strawman, and very close to a personal attack, Cassianto. Plus, given the terminology sprinkled throughout your comments here ("snowflake", "social justice warriors", "political correctness", "no-platforming") it seems you're dragging personal political views into a discussion that should be focused on Wikipedia practice & policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

        Cassianto, I will also add to Hand's comment above that if you keep using such terminology here, this may also result in a civility thread about you as well. (not a WP:BOOMERANG, for sure, so what would that be?) SemiHypercube 18:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

      • Diversity and tolerance on Wikipedia is welcoming editors regardless of nationality or background, not allowing veteran editors to be as rude as they like to everyone else on a collaborative project.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Cassianto, Eric wrote Gropecunt Lane? Are you going to break the news to the 72 named editors, 39 IP editors and 7 bots who made 299 edits before he got there?

How does a vulgarly named place which is now the topic of an article compare to similar vulgarities used in an uncivil way towards another editor? It's the usage which is uncivil.

It's good that you advance the need for tolerance, so please, explain how John telling another editor to fuck off advances that tolerance? Cabayi (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Did the "72 named editors, 39 IP editors and 7 bots who made 299 edits" get it to WP:FA? Maybe you'd consider this version, before Eric and Parrot of Doom got their uncivil hands in it, to have been the article's best period? And talking of other contributions, perhaps you mean this quality edit, which appears to have been conducted by one of your precious "39 IPs"? Cassianto^Talk 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• At this point, I would definitely like to see a stern warning or short block for persistent battleground attitude. It's impossible to collaborate constructively with editors who don't know how to compromise with and respect others. Handy History Handbook (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• I see nothing wrong with Johns behaviour, I do however see various issues with Mikeblas', I would suggest closing this idiotic and pointless thread and those moaning over Johns edit summaries go and focus that energy on articles. –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 14 April 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.

• Followup: I've added a handy counter [65]. EEng 20:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior/threats of reversion from IP editor

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.

---

Over the last month, IP user 109.156.239.85/109.159.72.250 has been extremely abrasive to myself and anyone else not agreeing with them on the Star Citizen article and in threads related to article discussions, having threatened to weaponize WP:BRD to revert changes that they didn't agree with despite waiting for a WP:THIRDOPINION, and posted incredibly insulting responses accusing me of spinning sources and "obfuscating criticism". After continuing to berate me after I'd already said I'd disengage, I feel like I have no choice but to bring this to ANI since I'm not really sure what else to do since this is ongoing after a previous ANI dispute and topic thread that were both highly abrasive.

Disclosure: in the interest of transparency, in one of our first heated debates, I called the user a liar and accused them of a provocative tone after their initial accusation of me "spinning" a source; I apologized soon after. Recently, I accused the user of arguing a strawman and misrepresenting my argument in a way that could be considered aggressive.

This topic thread and this ANI thread may provide further background to this. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 00:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor should tone down the rhetoric. But this looks like it's a contentious content dispute. You can resolve that by going to WT:VG and asking them to comment on whatever the content issue is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There are content disputes, certainly. Disputes that have resulted from a new single-purpose editor deciding to take over an article on a controversial subject (a much-delayed and still very much unfinished crowdfunded video game which has attracted much commentary from well beyond the usual video gaming media), to make wholesale changes, and to then refuse to properly discuss their changes. I suggested reverting to the previous stable version, per WP:BRD, since we clearly weren't going to agree over the disputed content. I could, per WP:BRD have simply made the revert, but because I indicated that I thought this was appropriate before doing so - giving Seadoubleyoujay the opportunity to comment first - I am now accused of 'weaponizing' WP:BRD. Right from the start, Seadoubleyoujay has displayed WP:OWN behaviour, and a consistent pattern of basing their arguments regarding article content not on what the sources actually say, but instead on their own interpretation of them - an interpretation which seems to consistently tend towards promoting the subject, rather than reporting it neutrally in an encyclopaedic manner. I can of course provide evidence to support this if required, but I would hope that shouldn't be necessary. It needn't be, if Seadoubleyoujay is willing to accept that their edits are as subject to revision as anyone else's, that they need to actually respond to issues raised in a constructive manner rather than engaging in repetitive stonewalling, and that they need to accept that the purpose of an article is to describe the subject matter, rather than to promote it. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There are a few issues with your characterization of myself and your own actions.

1. I'm a relatively new editor who decided to work on some specific things, characterizing me as an SPA to discredit the work I'm doing is seriously offensive considering I've been working on other articles as I'm able. I don't have a long body of varied edits because two of those projects, (Armored Core and Star Citizen) have needed quite a bit of writing and research for sources. All my other edits are minor wording changes, reversions, or the first article I worked on.

2. Saying I refuse to discuss my changes is absolutely false. In this section, I clearly discuss a change, acknowledge the issue with wording, and even say I don't see an issue with changing the wording. One other change I reverted to retain an article link for clarification, another was the source of this discussion, during which I even conceded to one of your points early on.

3. In regards to WP:BRD, WP:BRDREVERT states, "first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead." A majority of the content you were planning on reverting was unrelated to our discussion, removing or changing the section in question is one thing, threatening to undo all of the additional ones is another. WP:BRD-NOT also states it "is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." and it "is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle." Your use of WP:BRD came off as vindictive in the context of the conversation, and you were "weaponizing" it by stating you would remove a bunch of content that wasn't even involved in the discussion, especially when we were waiting for a WP:THIRDOPINION on the subject.

4. As for WP:OWN, from my first post until now you've consistently dismissed every piece of content, sourcing, and argument I've brought up and demeaned anyone who disagrees with you. Practically every change I've made has been argued against, even with a ton of sourcing. When I suggest incorporating my rewrites, you even told me how that was the wrong thing to do because it would make it difficult for you to "properly review" it. I've tried to adhere to community consensus on how to structure game articles, yet you argue that we shouldn't do that because you, and so far only you, think that the consensus should be subverted just because you think you're right. And saying I exhibited "WP:OWN" from the start is weird, considering my first post was geared towards starting a discussion about a split before you accused me of "spinning" something like seven posts into the discussion and your shouting down of myself and another editor, AND your attempt to get me sanctioned on ANI. Reading through WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, the only thing I see that I've done is ask for discussion prior to changes to a single section due to the recent edits in regards to the article structure, which is something you did as well.

5. "a consistent pattern of basing their arguments regarding article content not on what the sources actually say, but instead on their own interpretation of them" is an extremely weird statement considering you removed a source's quote and the related content because of your own interpretation of their argument despite the source saying nothing of the sort. When I brought up 33 articles to support my point in an earlier discussion, you not only dismissed the content by focusing a single highly specific passage from a few of the articles, but also wrote that they were cherry-picked and that they weren't good enough, despite all of them being considered reliable sources and discussing the topic at length.

6. "which seems to consistently tend towards promoting the subject" is also weird. I'm adding content from reliable sources. Much of it isn't even controversial (a majority of my gameplay and development content is from reliable sources directly and are just direct statements about what happened, when it happened, and/or what is available right now). The stuff that was controversial (legal issues and delays) was an expansion of existing content and entirely sourced. I acknowledged some issues with wording as noted above and currently acknowledge issues with delay structure, but you argued against some of them in a way that is aggressive, demeaning, and accusatory. It's your method of response that makes these discussions extremely difficult and pulls away from the content discussion. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 15:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your arguments as to why you are always right and I'm always wrong might be more convincing if it were not for the fact that having asked for third-party input over the key issue in our latest dispute (i.e. whether a section on the ongoing delays endemic to the project should be entitled 'initial delays', and further content concerning later delays being buried amongst other content), you have now had to concede that doing it your way was inappropriate. As a new editor, you might do well to consider that other people may have more experience than you, and that dealing with content disputes involves more than endlessly repeating the same points.

And yes, I removed a CIG quote from the section on their legal dispute with CryTek, and then explained why I did it when asked [66] because as I stated, it was selective and incomplete, and gave an entirely misleading impression regarding what the case was actually about. Rather than ask for further explanation and/or sourcing at the time (which would surely have been appropriate if you had an issue with it) you have instead waited until now to bring it up as supposed 'evidence' for my misbehaviour. That, quite frankly, is ridiculous.

And on a more general point, you keep stressing how you are basing content on 'reliable sources'. That is clearly a requirement of Wikipedia policy. It is not however sufficient on its own to simply 'use' such sources. They have to be used in a manner which places them in context (i.e. to avoid representing partisan assertions as fact etc) and in a way that results in a balanced article. In the context of Star Citizen, this is sometimes difficult, in that the videogaming media (which after all has an interest in promoting video gaming) tends often to repeat more or less verbatim much of what game developers and publishers say. It would be entirely possible to create an article from such sources which consisted of nothing but recycled material from CIG's own publicity department. Sadly I've more than a few Wikipedia articles on other video games which seem to use sources in such a manner. I don't think, however, that it is in the best interest of our readership to do so. Particularly in the context of a project which has attracted interest from sources (BBC, NYT etc) well beyond the usual video-gaming publications. The article isn't just of interest to SciFi spaceship gaming fans, and needs, if it is to serve the best interests of a broader readership, to go into detail over the more controversial issues which have brought in the interests of such outsiders. And you won't do that by using 'reliable sources' just as a means to repeat CIG's preferred narrative. Writing an encyclopaedia is difficult, and can't be done without actually analysing the sources you cite, asking what it is they are reliable for, and then perhaps asking whether using them for what they say is going to serve the reader's best interests, or instead result in an unbalanced article. And if you disagree with someone over content, you need to also ask yourself whether you have understood what they are saying, and whether they may actually be right. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You are aware that my rewrite/concession was based on a suggestion I made early on in the discussion? "I think if we do end up moving Initial Delays out of the Kickstarter section, it should be rewritten to reflect a more comprehensive section rather than the specific period that the section currently covers." I've never said that I was always right, I've said that you shut down any suggestions/arguments I make and made implications as to my motives. Like I stated in the previous post, I've conceded to points previously.

The point I was making with the Crytek thing was that despite your claims that I "interpret" sources, you are doing that very thing by interpreting a source as being misleading. Your point about the "videogaming media tends often to repeat more or less verbatim much of what game developers and publishers say." is another example of interpreting and dismissing sources that you don't agree with because of your opinion that they are just "recycled material". You can't consistently accuse someone of interpreting sources to push a particular viewpoint while doing that very thing.

Finally, being "more experienced" doesn't give you carte blanche to demean someone who disagrees with you, whether it's policy related or not, or to accuse them of bad faith. I've shown to be willing to concede points in my discussions, even to you, yet somehow you claim that I "refuse to properly discuss [my] changes". — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 18:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Off you go again. I said the quote was misleading, because it was. It gave the entirely false impression that CryTek were unaware of, or hiding, the very wording of the contract they brought CIG to court over. The court was always going to see the contract. It didn't need CIG to 'share' with the court that it mentioned Squadron 42. That was never in dispute. People rarely bring contract disputes to court while hoping to hide what the contract says. What was in dispute though was whether CIG were entitled, per the terms of the contract, to sell Squadron 42 separately, rather than as part of Star Citizen as CryTek had understood when the contract was drawn up. If you had bothered to ask at the time I could have provided evidence for this, though I'd rather assumed that in writing the legal conflict section you were already aware of the fact. Only now do you decide to dispute the edit, despite it being made a week and a half ago, and with no further comment from you after I offered an explanation. I am not responsible for your failure to ask for an explanation of something you appear not to have done proper research on before writing an article.

And yes, I 'interpret' sources to see whether they are reliable for specific content. This is exactly what WP:RS requires us to do: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." I have nowhere 'dismissed' the videogaming media. I have however suggested that its use needs to be tempered with the sort of critical eye that WP:RS requires. Which requires that we need to be able to distinguish between the media stating fact, stating opinion, or merely repeating what they have been told by game developers and publishers. Sometimes we can use them as sources for all three, but when we do, we need to make clear to our readers what the source is giving us.

At this point though, I think it might be best if we stopped bickering amongst ourselves. It is clear no action is going to be taken here. If you want to discuss content with me, I'm fine with that, as long as you actually read what I write, and ask for explanations for anything you don't understand. At the time, not weeks later. And if we can't agree, we can ask for third opinions. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

109.156.239.85 and Seadoubleyoujay at its core this is a content dispute which ANI cannot resolve. Desist from any and all WP:PAs. If you are unable to reach an agreement on the talk page then you should seek WP:DR. Remember to focus on content in your talk page discussions. You were earlier advised to seek additional input on WT:VG I won't open a thread there for you, but it is sound advice. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we've probably resolved the major issues for now, though involvement of more contributors would of course be welcome. I suspect we'd have been less likely to have got into such a heated debate if it wasn't just a back-and-forth between the two of us. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear, well WT:VG is always available if you want wider input, best of luck to the both of you. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm dropping the stick and just focusing on the article content. I think this thread can be closed. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 00:44, 16 April 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’s threat of violence

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 an admin take a look at User talk:166.62.213.248 and take action? I had reverted uncited material on Olivier Aubin-Mercier and responded to a request for help on the Talk page, since deleted. I haven't had one quite like this before. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. El_C 04:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Watchlisting the Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that edit should be redacted since he appears to be giving out a personal address in it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 14:41, 15 April 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.

Никита-Родин-2002

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.

---

Nikita-Rodin-2002 still continues to create accounts on my behalf ZOKIDIN2 ZOKIDIN3 ZOKIDIN4 ZOKIDIN5 Zokidindisney and so on. On my behalf, it still creates fakes and threatens the administrators of the English Wikipedia. I have no peace from his hand. How to deal with such vandals? He follows me everywhere. [REDACTED - Oshwah] ZokidinUZB (talk) 07:38, 15 April 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.

Fabrizio Cerina, NewsGateNY - COI/UPE/NLT

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.

---

COI/UPE/NLT

• David T Cohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Cleanup

• Cabayi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JavaHurricane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ThatMontrealIP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous SPAs

A borderline WP:NLT case which needs a unified public forum rather than vaguely ominous postings on several user talk pages.

DTC is a freelance journalist who was engaged by NewsGateNY. NewsGateNY carries no advertising other than a single banner for a relevant business on two themed pages, and a couple of author profiles which link to their businesses. Fabrizio Cerina and his bank Credit des Alpes get regular attention despite their status as a minor boutique bank. (Question: How does NewsGateNY generate the money to pay its bills despite minimal advertising and no subscription?)

DTC's edits to Fabrizio Cerina unwittingly flagged up the number of WP:SPAs (25) who have previously edited the article. The article was flagged to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Possible UPE by JavaHurricane and cleaned up by ThatMontrealIP.

Following that cleanup DTC was terminated by NewsGateNY and has been threatened by them with legal action. DTC now seeks to blams (and shift his legal problems?) onto me, JavaHurricane, and ThatMontrealIP.

The only plausible cause and effect thread I can draw from this is... DTC was paid by NewsGateNY to write a puff piece about Cerina whose bank regularly commissions NewsGateNY to promote the bank. DTC adds material to the wiki article which draws attention to the previous puffery resulting in its cleanup. Cerina blames NewsGateNY for the loss of his "advert", they in turn blame DTC and fire him. DTC doesn't see himself as a paid editor in regard to Wikipedia, even though payment (for the NewsGateNY) was his motivation in writing about Cerina in the first place.

NewsGateNY have suffered no reputational damage. Their only reason to fire and sue DTC is if they are getting grief from Cerina. It's only possible to quantify monetary damages in their case against DTC if the edits along the way were paid for. The position DTC now finds himself in points to Cerina having a longstanding interest in the promotional aspects of his bio.

As I'm now WP:INVOLVED, here we are. Cabayi (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sums up perfectly what I think now. He had told me earlier that accusing him of UPE can land him in trouble, and he got fairly angry, and that, along with his continuous rejection of the accusation that he was a UPE, got me suspicious that sockpuppetry could also be possible, though I can't decide on a master. Further, those old SPAs are also stale, making it tough to find evidence of sockpuppetry. JavaHurricane 12:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JavaHurricane, I am busy now but will return to this soon (about 14:00 UTC). Meanwhile, Cabayi gives a better reason, and I disagree that there are any sock puppetry. Quoting some earlier user, fans often look like socks, and this appears to be a similar case. More analysis required. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Eumat114, I was actually concerned about the reply tone, but then, I'm fairly new to this, so I'm very likely to be wrong.

In any case, I would like to propose an indefinite block on David T Cohen for undisclosed paid editing. I'm not sure about the NLT part, and I'll leave it to more experienced editors to decide it. JavaHurricane 12:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JavaHurricane, I must disagree (despite the similar amount of experience by us). If we AGF on DTC, what he says actually made sense. He stated that he was a freelance employee of NewsGateNY, but then he might not fully understand WP:UPE, hence failure to disclose. (I consider his declaration of employment as a disclosure.) Anyway if we trust him, it is just unkind to spread salt on his already deep wounds. All these made sense and a block is not a good solution, a greater discussion is needed. I am not sure about the legal stuff, and probably will never understand until I am old enough to vote. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You won't understand it then, either. Believe me. creffett (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Eumat114, well, looks like I'm in need of a wikibreak, accusing people of socking and forgetting AGF entirely! Perhaps I'm a bit stressed out. JavaHurricane 12:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JavaHurricane, everyone is nowadays. DTC may be so upset as in this time of Covid-19 it is even harder to get a job. Stay safe! Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the sockpuppetry claims, but I looked at DTC's contribution history following the original COIN report. My read is that this is yet another one of those suspicious "I'm an independent journalist who was just so interested in someone I wrote about that I had to write a Wikipedia page about them!" cases (which I generally interpret as "I'm an 'independent journalist' who was paid to write this page"). While they deny COI/UPE, the fact that DTC mentioned repeatedly that NewsGateNY had written an article on Cerina makes me really suspicious. Concur completely with Cabayi's cause-and-effect analysis above, though I also wouldn't be surprised if DTC had in fact been engaged to write about Cerina in some way. creffett (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's worth checking out the earliest captures of NewsGateNY on the internet archive - back then the only content they had was a series of nice articles about Cerina. Whatever kind of relationship there is, it has been going on for a while. - MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"We would like to add that it is a story we like, a stirring account of an entrepreneur who demonstrated that his name was more important to him than his purse and made it back through perseverance and strength of character." Yes... looks like these people have a long relationship, based on this line from their front page. JavaHurricane 13:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The Internet Archive gets more interesting. A NewsGateNY article on Cipriani (which contains a hat-tip to Credit des Alpes) was archived on 28 March with a byline of "Giovanni Luchetti", on 15 April the byline reads "International News". Material which NewsGateNY previously credited to DTC is now credited to "Domestic". Someone's sanitising their PR work. Cabayi (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, ohh, thanks for your insight. Seems to me that DTC has at least some truth to his claims: he apparently was a former reporter (don’t know about freelance) and there is a very real possibility that his sacking is why these work are getting cleansed. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 15:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

But what are we trying to achieve? Make NGNY hire DTC? Hard. Restore the promo and give in to NGNY? Impossible. The only way out is Uncyclopedia. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 15:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• The David T Cohen account admits to doing paid editing in this diff: "But if it can help: my employer newsgateny was writing last week about some 10 famous names (among which cerina and cipriani). I was doing a section of the job." I'm not sure why we would waste any more time om this editor: they are clearly here to do paid editing, per the diff, and their only efforts have been that and to waste the time of other editors with weird legalese notices about losing their job and lawyers. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE and blocking them would save lots of pointless discussion time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  ThatMontrealIP, precisely. But let us wait for DTC to respond to this thread. JavaHurricane 17:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Since when do we wait around to give undisclosed paid editors a chance? Big waste of time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• I found a book maybe worth checking out: Finance Reconsidered by B.Paranque & Perez where Cerina is portrayed [67] [68]. If the Financial Times article is true, quite touching of a story, have to say. I've no opinion about D Cohen but I did read articles of Newsgateny in the past. I know they have been around for years.Philcroix91 (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Philcroix91, given that you signed up shortly after DTC first got pushback on his paid editing, and you linked to a NewsGateNY story about Credit des Alpes five days ago, then of course you have to say, it's what you're paid to do. Would you like to declare your other sockpuppet accounts while you're here? Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Am I paid to do what? I just said I found a reference. In fact I read about this case because of a link Newsgate. I think you are really overdoing and you believe that the entire planet is dishonest maybe because you are. I've no idea why you are so angry but you should relax and try to be more objective. We are not here to insult each other like you did first but to evaluate facts.Philcroix91 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

References

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

Personal attacks

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

---

2A00:23C5:930B:B000:7D7D:5D4A:CD29:5CA0 (talk · contribs)

The first one was this edit summary (repeated four times), followed by this comment on my talk page, followed by this comment in response to a template for vandalism, followed by this comment in response to a PA template by another editor, and finally this edit summary after the other editor who templated the IP for PA tried to revert the PA. I think action is needed here. This is awfully petty lol. – ².O.^Boxing 14:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ve just now noticed as I was typing this out that they’ve been blocked for 31 hours, removing the message from the blocking admin with this edit summary. I think 31 hours does not reflect the odd level of disruption this user has caused, especially seeing as they’ve recently came off a block for disruptive editing. – ².O.^Boxing 14:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

And now this friendly addition lol – ².O.^Boxing 18:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Evading their current block by editing from 2A00:23C5:930B:B000:D851:56F9:DC07:3D5A (talk · contribs) – ².O.^Boxing 00:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

2A00:23C5:930B:B000::/64 blocked for 3 days. Black Kite (talk) 00:42, 16 April 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.

Discretionary sanction notices on Joe Biden 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.

---

Due to the usual post-1932 U.S. politics concerns on Wikipedia, the Joe Biden article has a 1RR restriction notice in place (as seen at Template:Editnotices/Page/Joe Biden). The new spin-off article Joe Biden sexual assault allegation does not have such a restriction, but is unlikely to be any less contentious for the next six months leading up to the U.S. presidential election. Should it have the same 1RR restriction as the parent article, or should there be a wait-and-see approach? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction applies to that article the same as all others, the notice does not create the restriction, being about post-1932 US politics is what creates the restriction. The notice is a courtesy notifying people of the restriction. I will add it presently. --Jayron32 19:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Life on the edge...

...or life on the edge? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Or life on the edge?

-EEng

You are laboring under the misconception that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Every single step in the discretionary sanctions process is absolutely necessary, and I really hope you logged this action in the appropriate place. Otherwise, you're going to be getting a visit from the Arbcom Police. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Why did you think I didn't log it? You didn't even check my contribs before you leveled that accusation. If you aren't going to speak from a place of knowledge, you would do well to just keep your mouth shut. --Jayron32 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow. That's some wild hostility. "Leveled that accusation"? Are you serious? I made a joke about how bureaucratic discretionary sanctions are. I think you need to calm down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Jayron32, I think there's wire-crossing here - NRP's comment appears to have been very deadpan humor which was misinterpreted as a serious accusation. Would respectfully suggest that both of you chalk this up to a misunderstanding and leave it at that. creffett (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a good thing Covid is bringing out the best in people. Otherwise it'd be pistols at dawn for those two by now. EEng 20:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If we start doing that, I'll be writing Hamilton: The Wikipedia Musical creffett (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? "Fuck off"? Calm down!.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Jayron32 is absolutely correct on the procedure. Where an article subject is under restrictions, every subtopic spun out of that article is automatically under the same sanctions. If it was otherwise, any editor could evade those restrictions by forking from the article. BD2412 T 19:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Everyone is on edge lately, and minor misunderstandings blow up. Jayron, as Creffet says above, I think you misunderstood NRP's intended lighthearted tone. NRP, SS, please don't tell anyone who does not appear calm to "calm down". It never, ever, ever works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  I apologize for the edit summary. It was an overreaction. There was no excuse for it, and I should not have done so. Also, I thank NRP for clarifying their intended tone, and I apologize specifically to them for over-reacting to their joke. There was no fault in what you did, NRP, and the fault lies entirely with me for over-reacting. I am quite sorry for that. --Jayron32 20:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Whoa whoa, Floq, slow down on the wild accusations! "lighthearted tone" and "misunderstandings"? It's getting really intense in here! </s>--v/r - TP 20:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  And I didn't even include diffs. Surprised I'm not blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  I would suggest that the nature and conduct of political activity in the U.S. also contributes to this edginess. We have, I note, a substantial uptick in relatively recently created low-activity accounts, with edits previously completely unrelated to anything political, suddenly going very aggressively into editing of political topics. BD2412 T 20:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  No, no, it was just me being a prick. Don't excuse my actions. I apologized for them, and the blame lies with no one but me. I needed to lighten up, and I thank everyone for calling me out. I needed to be set straight. Whatever you may have noticed in the zeitgeist has nothing to do with me being rude. I was rude, and I am sorry for it. --Jayron32 20:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  I patrolled the political articles during the 2012 elections. You'll notice I've never been back. I definitely understand where the edginess is coming from.--v/r - TP 20:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  And that was a relatively mild election. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe, with all of this political heat, it's time to move the goalposts to post-1936. That would ease it. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threat made by IP

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

---

IP 92.251.224.116 made a legal threat in this misplaced edit request at Template talk:Edit extended-protected. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

lblocked. El_C 22:40, 15 April 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've never understood why we don't have an LTA on this "IP" who keeps vandalizing, threatening, making BLP violations, etc. In fact I'd say he's pretty much committed every wikioffense in the book. EEng 04:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • You can make one you know! Anyone can make an LTA page, I've made two. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 05:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

    I'm trying to decide whether you're pulling my leg. EEng 04:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

    Just remember the rules on autobiographies. creffett (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/EEng 🤔 Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

    Unmasked! EEng 18:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse question

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 an admin help this user at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Accidentally_moved_draft's_talk_page_to_the_main_space???? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 16:08, 17 April 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:Fabienzidane adding unsourced population figures

Fabienzidane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding unsourced population figures to a range of articles about ethnic groups in Mauritius. Despite repeated warnings, this behaviour continues. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

See also here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And this edit made since I filed this report, in clear contradiction of the cited source. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I left a note at their talk. Please ping me if necessary (e.g. if I don't notice follow-ups after 24 hours). Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeat reverts and goading using two different IPs

Yesterday I undid some work by an IP across a number of Formula One Grand Prix race articles, in which he made significant changes to table formats with no consensus. I retained most of his other work while reverting him on the tables. After a strange conversation on his talk page User talk:2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:84AA:25AF:B30A:6B79 in which he failed to assume good faith, and made strange judgements on myself and another editor, he has repeatedly reverted me on several articles, using two different IP addresses. During this time, he has called me a "naughty little boy" in edit summaries no fewer than nine times, at least, among other childish insults. For example:

1994 Canadian Grand Prix – edits and reverts using two IPs [69]

1994 French Grand Prix – reverts including after I added a source to the wording he objected to [70], then he removed the source a second time [71]

1994 San Marino Grand Prix — 3RR using two different IPs [72]

1994 Pacific Grand Prix – reverts using two different IP addresses [73]

There are a number of other similar articles in which he uses two different IPs to revert me, and I am close to 3RR on several of them. I don't know if he's trying to goad me into breaking 3RR, but the edit summaries would indicate that.

Besides the two IPs, he has an account, User:ChupoKlasky1991, but has not used it in over a month after "retiring" in the face of other editors disagreeing with him, something with which I was not involved.

Another editor has warned him here [74], but I don't really see why I should have to put up with this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Both IPs blocked for a week. That's just simple disruption. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, this person has a long and ignoble history of very similar behaviour dating back years now, with typical sneery, goading, deliberately provocative behaviour, gradually escalating over edit after edit. I mention it so that people can have a think about what sanctions/protections can be put in place to mitigate the effect of this person's abusive behaviour. Having decent editors clean up after this pillock over and over again is something that Admins need to work on eradicating. Just take a look through the edit history of the IPs blocked this time and you'll see plenty of verbal abuse, calling editors trying to manage their imbecillic pantomime "fucking idiots" and the like. When I started to simply revert their vandalism without engagement they decided to try upping the ante and called me a cunt :-D Subsequently there were a few edit summaries that needed redacting, but eventually they got bored, although it was a tedious process to get there and greatly added to my sense of ennui with Wikipedia admins and their inability to properly police persistently abusive IP editors. Hence, I edit here far less than I used to. All their edits trace back to IP addresses belonging to either Three Ireland (presumably their cell phone provider) or Virgin Media in Dublin (home connection?). Take a look through my talk page history if you want a bucket load more IP addresses, and i suspect that I am not the only one with a list like that. I appreciate what Bretonbanquet has done in raising this topic here, but I do very much fear that he will find that once the one week block imposed by Black Kite has expired this will only continue. We need a more permanent solution. Pyrope 03:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I just rewatched the show, I have to add: "We need a more permanent soluuution...to our proooobllemmmmm..." creffett (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• If it does continue, let me know and I'll implement longer blocks or wider rangeblocks. There isn't much collateral damage to worry about on those ranges. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks Black Kite. I have my fingers crossed that they might not need it this time. Pyrope 14:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

More eyes please

At Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard there are a few concurrent discussions that are featuring (accusations of) personal attacks, IDHT and reverting the closing and unclosing of sections. I'm very much involved in the discussions so I'm not expressing any opinion of who is or is not right, and while things haven't boiled over into full blown edit warring or incivility the potential is clearly there. The attention of a couple of clearly uninvolved admins to ensure things don't escalate would be appreciated. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's kind of a pain to read through all that drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Zoglophie

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

• User behavior of editing by making multiple 'publish changes' in one article. Especially, with behavior by deleting then publish, blanking then publish, adding content then publish, replace content then publish in one article section at adjacent times (per H:PREVIEW), mostly in Saina Nehwal and P. V. Sindhu articles.
• Persistence using capital letters in words that do not need to use capital letters (per MOS:CAPS), mostly in Saina Nehwal and P. V. Sindhu articles.
• Moving or adding infobox after the article introduction (per MOS:LAYOUT), in Sun Yu and Wang Pengren articles
• Adding flagicon in the infobox (Taiwan flag, which per paragraph 4 of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, Republic of China or Taiwan flag did not use as country representation in sports or in the sporting competition), and linking anchor to the same target in one line (Republic of China and Taiwan to the same target) (per MOS:REPEATLINK), in Cheng Shao-chieh and Tai Tzu-ying articles.

I've tried to give an explanation through User and my talk page, but user ignores that and used user personal preferences for editing on Wikipedia. Stvbastian (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Continuous harassment by Stvbastian

• I don't know why the user have to always harass me by warning me for a block, he/she can give me advice because i may not know some things cause I'm new in Wikipedia and I always try to put best in the Badminton Articles especially Women's singles.
• Compare prominent women's singles players article with now and 2 months back, you will get to know what contributions i made in all of them. See : Saina Nehwal, P. V. Sindhu, He Bingjiao, Lindaweni Fanetri etc.
• I admit my edits are continuous because I regularly find good citations to feed in these articles and will try my best to make Articles looking more good.
• Some of the words or statement needs special attention so to highlight them, i put it in capital letters.
• Blanking of section is not meant for vandalism, I did it to rearrange the sections in order. Like Career>C. Overview>etc. Please refer to edit history in Saina Nehwal and P. V. Sindhu.
• The user needs to go through the rule in MOS:INFOBOXFLAG because he doesn't know the destinction between Player's Nationality and Player's representation of country in International sports. See Chou Tien-chen where i haven't edited yet it clearly shows the flag of Taiwan in Personal information and flag of Chinese Taipei in international badminton competition.

{Edit:I have fixed the repeatlink problem as objected by Stvbastian, still i am relevant to my previously made edits in Tai Tzu-ying & Cheng Shao-chieh articles in which i have added flagicons to distinguish between nationality and country's (Taiwan's) representation in International sports}

I have informed him very well about this but he/she doesn't care and continues to argue with false claims. He/She even reported me intentionally in Edit warring because he wants to falsify the general rule as per Mos: INFOBOXFLAG. I hope strict response will be given to such activities. Thankyou Zoglophie (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This is so awkward when you said that i should give you an advice, please check our conversation in User:Zoglophie and my talk page, there were so much advice that mostly ignored by Zoglophie, even user against my advice with user personal understanding which is not based on Wikipedia rules or only based on other articles that are not necessarily in accordance with Wikipedia rules. For example about MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:REPEATLINK in Cheng Shao-chieh and Tai Tzu-ying articles. When Zoglophie firmly endures on his/her personal understanding, by performed 2 reverts in my edits, and finally user him/herself reverted his own edit about MOS:REPEATLINK in that articles. And for MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, please take a look on Saina Nehwal article, because recently User:Drmies removed the country flag in the infobox per overflagging, overlinking. Hopefully he can help to give you an understanding about MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Stvbastian (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Stvbastian I knew you would mention the edit by a user in Saina Nehwal, however, you still are ignorant of the fact that the Taiwan or 2 other names ROC or Chinese Taipei have 2 different flags. One for Nationality and one for Country's Representation. You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that most of the other Taiwanese players have 2 flags in them which is not the case of overflagging because they have 2 different flags. Edit in Saina's article is okay, why? Because there is no difference there like in Tai Tzu-ying and Cheng Shao-chieh. Your claim of overlinking was correct, i corrected it and mentioned in both of the reports of the edit i made. But you need to see even Chou Tien-chen, Lin Chun-yi (maybe more) have overlinking problem which i will fix after the discussion will be closed. You said you've given me advice but you don't mention the continuous block threats you have given to me. You are the user with bullying nature and i didn't like it. I am the new user and you should be of helpful nature like many other experienced users in Wikipedia, especially to mention other Senior Badminton Editors. I think you got my point now. Thanks. Zoglophie (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Second awkward, you are still explaining about nationality and representation of Taiwan athletes, but actually i already understood about that for a long time, since i who explained you about nationality and representation of Taiwan athletes, for your disruptive editing by changed Chinese Taipei flag to Taiwan flag in some articles (see your talk page). The point here is not about nationality or representation, but can we use the flag of Republic of China (Taiwan) in infobox? Read paragraph 4 of WP:INFOBOXFLAG carefully, "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field: they may give undue prominence to one field over others. However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." Is the Taiwan national flag used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport? The answer is No. And for the statement country in infobox simply write Country = Republic of China (Taiwan) without flag. Please try to get rid of your misconceptions, personal preference or making edit only based on other articles that are not necessarily in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I only warned you with caution level 1 for your many disruptive editing, and then you said that i gave you continuous block threats? Please check your talk page again. I already tried to help you with a lot of advice and tried to fixing your disruptive editing in some badminton related articles, but you mostly ignored my advice and then you are the one who felt that my advice was bullying. Stvbastian (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Stvbastian Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. This is a line in Wikipedia's rule MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. This should be understood that Taiwan has 2 representations, and both of them should be mentioned because their 'National Identity' is somewhere different with their 'Sports related Identity'. Both use different flags. For their own Identity, in Personal box, It is Taiwanese Taiwan but their latter identity is different, it represents them with a different flag - see : Chinese Taipei. Even though it is a sports related article, it needs to distinguished about these 2 flags so their recognitions in the World can be understood. You said it is not necessary to relate them with other Taiwanese articles why? The past editors knew the fact i am tired to make you understand. Don't know why this is so hard for you to understand? Why this is 'awkward' for you?! This is personal preference for you? Ha!

Yes they represent Chinese Taipei in Sports with a specific flag and this is undisputable. They were my first edits probably in which I inserted the Taiwan's flag but after the study i clarified the difference of two identities. Can this be considered as they were my first few edits?

I have given edit summary before the mass deletion of any thing i added but whatever you can call that my inexperience in Wikipedia. After those few edits, i haven't made any mistake further and always consolidated my edits. It is now evident with most of my recent edits.

2nd instance of threatening behavior by you was when i added H2H details in Chen Yu Fei page. You simply sent me the reverted message (Check on my talk page) and your message was not appropriate, you said You will not receive the Warning level 2 & not be 'blocked'. This was the second instance. Third instance you just removed the colors of h2h table eventhough you know there is still no consensus for permanent colors. I can consider that because i am not childish to continuously change the colors, i kept it like that.🤔

I don't know if my recent edit(s) in Sun Yu, Han Aiping, Li Lingwei etc. can be called 'Disruptive' as you are regularly mentioning. For you, even my Wang Pengren's edits are 'disruptive' even when you know it has no details what so ever, and i only added his major medal details. In Gillian Gilks what i did is to place the medals in infobox alike other articles and even that is disruptive for you! Afterall every article is not complete(stub) and it is not necessary that you will have all the career details available in them and not every editor is able to provide complete information. But for you Noo that's Disruptive :| Sigh! Zoglophie (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• • • I request admin(s) here to intervene asap because it is already more than 24 Hours since the user is reported. Many other new reports' discussions are even closed now so it's my request to solve this dispute. Thanks. Zoglophie (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, this sounds like a content dispute that needs to be discussed via Talk page or WP:RFC. I doubt an admin is going to be involved in this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, this is disappointing, I believe an admin needs to intervene here. Zoglophie (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

CIR concern with Sohail ariyan

New editor Sohail ariyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing in the area of Bengali films and actors for two months. In that time, their talk page has collected a significant number of warnings from 10 different editors. Sohail ariyan has not responded to any of the warnings or changed their behaviour.

Despite being warned multiple times, Sohail ariyan never uses an edit summary, and has marked all 200+ edits since 23 March as "minor", when they are nothing of the kind (for example, this, where unsourced information was added, and this, where reliable sources were removed).

They have created 24 pages, 5 of which have been moved to draft, and 11 of which have been proposed for some form of deletion (some were draftified articles recreated by the author in article space without meaningful improvement and without going through the Articles for Creation review process). The remainder of their creations, based on a small sample (Action Jasmine, Bahaduri (2017 film), Matir Pori, and Ojante Valobasha) are also problematic, being unreferenced and failing to demonstrate notability.

Their actions raise competence is required concerns. It is unclear whether they are wilfully turning a blind eye to feedback, or simply lack the fluency in English or the experience as an editor to understand the problems they are creating. Whatever the cause, the disruptiveness of their editing outweighs any beneficial edits.

A block is needed to, at a minimum, get their attention and make them realize that there are protocols and conventions to be followed in order to be a constructive contributor. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I originally tried to draftify the articles, such as Pure Jay Mon, explaining to Sohail ariyanthat he needs to add sources and encouraging him to work on the articles in the draftspace and then re-submit them once notability was established. Instead of doing so the editor simply just copy-pasted the same article, none of which are more than two sentencers and an infobox with absolutely no attempt to use sources, back into the main space. I have warned the editor three times now about adding unsourced articles and am now proposing them for deletion (I believe that A7 would be more appropriate but unfortunately films do not qualify). Sohail ariyan has made no attempts to communicate to other editors and has ignored every single warning that has been issued to him/her. Maybe a short block will force him/her to communicate but this is bordering on the editor having WP:CIR issues. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete all of his/her articles including drafts. there is no point for 24 AfD nom. Looks editor doesn’t understand WP:GNG (or don't want to) & mass creating non notable film articles. I also think that a block is necessary to get user's attention. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely [75] until they're willing to engage with concerns. The significant history of unsourced article creation, removal of sourced info, and complete failure to respond to others' concerns means that I think a short, definite block is more likely to just be ignored. I am expressly happy to have any other admin review this, and to unblock if they think the user is cooperating. ~ mazca ^talk 16:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mazca: Thank you for action. Regarding article created by the user, if those articles cannot be deleted under A7, at least drafty them please. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The ones I looked at briefly seem to mostly make rough assertions of notability based on having notable actors, etc, so they're not eligible under the deliberately restrictive requirements of WP:CSD#A7 even if it did apply to films - various editors seem to have marked most via WP:PROD, feel free to continue doing that to any others. I may do a mass AfD of any that continue to exist after that, but these are ultimately fairly harmless bad stubs that can stand to exist for a week or two while normal deletion processes occur. ~ mazca ^talk 18:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Joelrosenblum

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

Not sure if this is an account sold on the black market or what, but right about now I think that a belligerent antivaxer is close to the last thing we need, so I have blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Guy (help!) 19:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Good block. Their main talkpage post today was, in essence "I object to everyone citing reliable sources in writing this article, it isn't fair that there isn't a balanced view from these bullshit sources also". We need less of that around here. --Jayron32 19:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Abhibedi999 and Draft:Pauline Johnson

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.

---

Editor User:Abhibedi999 has declared that they are being paid by Pauline Johnson, and have three times submitted Draft:Pauline Johnson to AFC for review. So far, so good. However, it has been declined twice: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Pauline_Johnson&type=revision&diff=951032408&oldid=951020122&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Pauline_Johnson&type=revision&diff=951054998&oldid=951046523&diffmode=source Each time, it has been resubmitted without addressing the comments by the reviewers. On the second rejection, User:DGG said to drop the honorific Dr. before her name. The draft has been resubmitted referring to her as Dr. Johnson. (She does have a Ph.D. We don't put Dr. in front of the names of physicians or professors. We state what their education is.) As DGG said, she probably does satisfy academic notability, but Wikipedia don't have a satisfactory article on her if this editor keeps resubmitting this fluff.

I request a topic-ban against User:Abhibedi999 submitting or writing about Pauline Johnson. They are a net negative to the encyclopedia, and if they don't get paid by Johnson, that isn't our problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I see this request as an interesting experiment for how to handle unsatisfactory articles by declared paid editors. Usually, I would not think this is a good way of handling unsatisfactory articles. If they are will always be unsatisfactory, they can be deleted; if they are unsatisfactory but notable, they should be improved, and I would normally just have fixed the article myself. But this particular author is a declared paid editor. The key sentence of what I said was If you're going being paid for writing articles, learn how to do it right.. I have often fixed the scientific bios from paid editors, even undeclared paid editors, if the person is sufficiently notable. I no longer do it, unless the person is so very notable that there is a real need for the article in the encyclopedia. I have better work to do here, ,mainly to assist new good faith volunteer editors to write decent articles. I've writen a little for pay in other contexts before joining WP, but I would have thought it wrong to take the money and induce someone else to do the work for free. The effect of blocking this editor from writing on this article is going to be that it will be deleted in 6 months, unless someone else works on it, and if a new editor appears to do so, I would draw the obvious conclusion. If they prevent such deletion by continual re-submission, I've used MfD. RMcC sometimes does not support using MfD for that purpose, and this is another approach. I'd be willing to try it.

But If a paid editor can not learn how to write satisfactory articles they should be blocked altogether. I wouldn't do it just on the basis of one article, so I would look at the others. There are no others in this case. Paid articles on academics are sometimes written by the usual sort of independent one-article paid editors, but sometimes by their university's PR staff. I can sometimes tell the difference, but I don't want to actually judge this. In either case, the proposed block will send a message. and prevent further disruption. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I should mention there is a project for writing articles about notable women in BritishColumbia, and I havea nd will continue to look at their articles to help, as have a number of othe good establishede ditors here. This does not sem to be from that project. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

She seems to be notable,. and the article is not in a bad shape, so that in normal circumstances I could consider slightly improving it and accepting the draft, but I have no motivation to edit an article where the subject hires editors to write it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:DGG - I agree that this is an experiment in a different way of dealing with a troublesome paid editor. I do not think that I have ever disagreed with using MFD to deal with repeated resubmissions. I have disagreed with the use of MFD on drafts that were stupid or cruddy, unless the drafts were being repeatedly resubmitted. I would like to have a consistent set of guidelines for when to send drafts to MFD, and when to deal with them in other ways. (The regular editor at MFD whom I think has variable views from week to week as to how to deal with stupid drafts is User:SmokeyJoe.) I am willing to follow a consistent set of guidelines. (If I have disagreed with the deleting of drafts that were repeatedly submitted, then I may have been mistaken.) I would prefer that it not involve routinely sending stupid drafts to MFD unless they are being tendentiously resubmitted, but I am willing to try to follow almost any reasonable set of guidelines. In this case, I don't want to Reject or Delete the draft, because the subject probably is notable, but the editor is being a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, the user is not being paid by Dr. Johnson; rather, they are writing about her as an academic assignment (presumably from Dr. Johnson). I've trimmed the draft down, which should help. DS (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This is my assignment but it is not Prof. Johnson who asked me to do it. It is part of Prof. Jeffries' class, to write about a Canadian scientist. I picked Prof. Johnson because she is a Professor at my university and qualifies for academic notability. Abhibedi999 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have caused a problem but I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how it works. It is just an assignment and I'm not a paid writer. I'm a student doing his assignment. On recieving the first few comments I was just confused and also some comments appeared to be rude. I was being called a bad editor and causing a problem. I'm just a student trying to learn something new. I would kindly like to request you to review the changes I have made carefully this time. Abhibedi999 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Two-Part Reply

Thank you. This is one of the very few replies to a complaint about conflict of interest editing that I have read in years that makes sense, seems true, and seems innocent. First, I am willing to close this report against User:Abhibedi999 without action. Since the draft has been edited by a neutral experienced editor (an administrator), we can review it without regard to conflict of interest. Second, I think that User:DGG and I agree that a topic-ban should be one of the various options available for conflict of interest editing or other disruptive editing. However, this particular dispute is resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 16 April 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.

Urgent administrator attention needed RE Intelliname

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

---

Please see history at Epik (domain registrar). Edit warring to whitewash the article and hurling personal attacks, accusations, and vague threats in edit summaries. Woerich (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional comment: I apologize for reporting this issue at multiple locations. I started with the edit warring noticeboard but realized vandalism might have been a better avenue, and this person keeps going. Woerich (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Now blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Can We get someone to revoke TPA please he is continuing his personal attacks, accusations (without proof may I add) and vague threats on his talk page. Tknifton (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Cabayi (talk) 21:05, 16 April 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.

My full protection of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign

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 fully protected Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign through the week of the election, as a precaution against shenanigans with respect to a likely target already under discretionary sanctions. I believe that in the past we have, of necessity, used a fairly heavy hand in protecting election-related or candidate-related articles during the thick of the election season, and I believe that we should do so far all articles of this level relating to the 2020 presidential campaign (broadly including Trump and Biden, any third party candidates that arise, and probably the candidates and campaigns in the more tightly contested Senate races). This has been questioned on my talk page, so I thought I would initiate a discussion on the matter here. Frankly, I have noticed more activity lately suggestive of sleeper accounts that have done enough to get past the extended-confirmed limitations, only to suddenly become very active in political candidate discussions. I think we would be naive not to recognize that there are likely well-orchestrated shenanigans underfoot. BD2412 T 16:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Seems unjustified to me. There are only a handful of edits per day on that article. I'm not seeing the sort of ongoing edit warring by multiple EC accounts that usually justifies full protection. Also BD I think your removal of content relating to the Reade allegations and arguing against its inclusion on the talk page makes you WP:INVOLVED, and I also disagree with your edit summary, "no source is provided in this section to indicate that it relates to the 2020 presidential campaign", which is pretty stunning. Of course quality sourcing is needed, but we know it exists now (the content you removed was cited to the New York Times), and the notion that these allegations are not related to the campaign is frankly laughable. I think you're improperly trying to keep this content out of the article and using your admin tools to do so. I do appreciate you bringing it here for review but I object to your reverting to keep relevant content out and then fully protecting. I think the bigger problem on that page are the established editors reverting every attempt to include this content. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Concur with Levivich. Semi-protection is reasonable, but I think fully protecting an article for 6 months is undue. It'll have enough eyes on it, anyway.--v/r - TP 16:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• There are well orchestrated shenanigans underfoot, and they are to protect Joe Biden from well sourced and notable encyclopedic information. I’ve never seen such actions to prevent something from being included on this website. This situation with Biden compared to Kavanaugh is shameful. We have users, with no RS backup, calling into question the credulity of Reade, when just a short while ago a now admin redacted me calling Swetnick’s accusation “Wild.” link. Where is the same protection for Reade? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  There has been ongoing discussion on the talk page, and across several other articles and talk pages, to develop a consensus about such materials. Clearly, where discussion is ongoing, consensus should be reached before such edits are made. The addition of such materials to articles for political candidate of any ideology, against consensus or against an ongoing process of developing consensus, is exactly the reason why all of these pages should be protected. We have long experience in non-notable individuals seeking notability through attempts to insert themselves in notable events. BD2412 T 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  So now you’re attacking Reade too - unbelievable. If your opinion is she’s making this claim to get famous then you don’t need to be anywhere near that article. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  Folks, please keep this content dispute off of ANI. Let's focus on whether or not we fully protect presidential candidates for 6+ months.--v/r - TP 17:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe it should be handled like Secret Service protection for presidential candidates...creffett (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yes good point, thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with Levivich it seems unjustified and inappropriate per WP:NO-PREEMPT. Especially while you are in a content dispute on the article per WP:PREFER. PackMecEng (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  I am merely pointing out that there is a long history of non-notable individuals trying to use Wikipedia to become notable, and we always need to be cautious of that. My own neutrality in political matters is well-established. I have worked to eliminate overwrought claims and biased takes against political figures of every background. BD2412 T 17:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• Overkill. Agree with Levivich and TParis. The article will need to be edited by non admins. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with other editor's, you are totally involved, and to say it isn't a campaign issue is nonsense, Biden's campaign has responded to the allegations in every article I've read, and furthermore, there is precedence as seen in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The article on Trump's 2016 presidential campaign had extended protection from May 2016 through the election. However, it is likely that such protection is no longer sufficient, as the ability to gain extended protected editing rights can be gamed. BD2412 T 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• I totally disagree with this. Full protection for 6 months? As if there will be nothing to report about the campaign during that time? Or only admins will be allowed to update the article (something I got called on the carpet for doing while Joe Biden was full protected)? Unheard of. Unacceptable. I recommend immediate reduction to Extended Confirmed. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • All of these articles have admin eyes on them, as they should. We have extensive experience on this project with articles on highly contentious and highly visible topics being protected for extended periods of time, and with edit requests being well-handled on the talk pages. I see nothing that distinguishes articles on political candidates in highly visible election campaigns from those situations. BD2412 T 17:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
    • We do that for redirects and templates sometimes, but I've never heard of it happening on an article. Can you give me even a single example of an article being fully protected for more than a couple of days, particularly on a current event where we know it's going to be frequently updated? Here's every current fully-protected page, for reference. ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I thought we had done that for some articles in previous election cycles, but I see that these were extended protection rather than full protection (with full protection being imposed for some days or a week at a time where edit wars flared up). I continue to believe that this will no longer be adequate, and that we are equipped to handle the full protection of all presidential candidate and campaign articles. BD2412 T 17:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
• Reduce to Extended Confirmed BD2414, you appear to be involved so even if full protection is done, this needs to come from an uninvolved admin.--MONGO (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• I oppose full protection of this or any other article unless there is solid evidence presented of an onslaught of disruptive editing by sleeper accounts. Where's the evidence? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Undone

As someone with no interest in Joe Biden and who has never heard of "Reade", I've reversed the protection. I can think of no legitimate circumstances under which we would ever consider full-protection of an article on an ongoing current event for six days, let alone for six months. The duration of the protection should be set as short as possible, and the protection level should be set to the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption while still allowing productive editors to make changes., if anyone wants policy chapter-and-verse. ‑ Iridescent 17:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection seems like a good choice here. Also, I would imagine there's no reason why we can't get a few disinterested admins to help keep an eye on these high profile articles to address issue before they boil over. It's no secret that they have been inundated with meat and sock puppets, campaign staffers, and other non-encyclopedia-builders who take advantage of our liberal editing policies. - MrX 🖋 17:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely endorse the removal. When BD2412 said he had fully protected through "the week of the election" I initially assumed he must be referring to some upcoming primary. I couldn't believe he actually meant until November.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Endorse lowering to ECP. ECP makes sense. Thanks, Iri. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I was a bit staggered to realised it had been fully protected for six months. I very definitely endorse the reversal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• If this article is supposed to be under 1RR, will an admin please place an edit notice on the article to that effect and make sure it's logged. Not a banner on the talk page that blends in with 50 other banners, but an edit notice as required by Arbcom procedures. - MrX 🖋 17:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Template:Editnotices/Page/Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign added. El_C 18:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - MrX 🖋 20:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

BD2412, I wasn't being hyperbolic above when I said I thought you were WP:INVOLVED and shouldn't use admin tools, at all, on any article relating to the 2020 presidential election. The reason is because you have been prolific in expressing preferences for content choices, even !voting to include or exclude content, on pages related to Joe Biden or his campaign. Here are twelve of your talk page comments from the past month: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. My hope is that by reviewing these, you'll agree that you have crossed over into being involved in the various content disputes, and thus, per WP:INVOLVED, shouldn't act as an admin in this topic area. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• I can see how it would appear that way. I have no problem focusing my admin activities elsewhere. BD2412 T 18:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:07, 16 April 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:Carmaker1

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.

---

• Carmaker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has displayed bad faith on his edit summaries, as evidenced here. I really don't know why he decided to attack me because of an edit he believes is incorrect. Further evidence can be seen on this talk page, where he continues to insist that I was on the wrong for the edits I made instead of simply saying the information was incorrect.

It also appears that this isn't the first time he has displayed such unprofessionalism here, based on his block log. At the same time, he has voiced out his opinions on Wikipedia in general on his talk page. Perhaps it is time action should be made to this user once and for all. - Areaseven (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

What can be considered unprofessional is a lack of attention by you, to what was written by Mazda with a provided citatiom, the manufacturer of the product in question. Which in itself contradicts the opinionated narrative by the magazine. Making false implications in articles that will be read by hundreds of millions, if not over 1 billion people, is corrupting the information stream. I come here to add new content and for once, fix mistakes found in articles. No one comes here to babysit or play a game of cleanup, back and forth, because people are not hearing each other and insist on adding corrupt information to a page and blindly refusing to look closer at what trying to advocate for. I took great issue under the impression that I had already fixed this topic in the past and had to revisit it again annoyingly enough, because someone decided they wanted to revert it again.
It is annoying to be watching an automotive review, reading an article, hearing a news report, browsing social media/forums, about an automobile, then hear a contradictory gaffe. Then, often discover it originated from a Wikipedia article trying to give it credibility, based off of poor research.
My criticism of what you did on the talk page, is over the fact, many of you do not study a page history to understand why and when something was added by each user. You just add/remove and call it a day, revert, revert under some false premise of objectivity.
What I do see here, is you picking a fight over my expressing a concern for the ficitious text and yourself relying on unrelated matters to weakly support it. From what I can see, you have ideally fixed the issue at the page in question and have stopped creating a misleading narrative. If a number of you think that because I have told you explicitly about what you were doing wrong and that I do not like it one bit, calls for me to disappear from the face of the Earth, because it makes you feel better and soothes your ego, you're being quite childish. I've had 10x worse said to me on and off of Wikipedia as a PhD engineer, laden with epithets. No one has cussed you out, like a number of us have been (ever so unwelcomely). Re-reading my text, you are a merely a footnote regarding my frustration. Create a mountain out of molehill, because you were told what you're doing was a careless disservice to curious readers. We have to tread very lightly with what we report in articles as fact. It is very obvious to me, since I turned out to very correct about that information and in an effort to discredit me, you've taken it over here to blow off steam. Frankly, I'm sick of it, as there are many instances I could do the same to others. NONE of the my text directed towards this individual is particularly scathing. A huge glut of my criticism is directed at Evo magazine and for what I know, Areaseven is a victim to the writer's misleading nonsense. Those people have a duty to inform and entertain the masses, yet often do the opposite. As a UK citizen, I have often felt that the British motoring press has an air of indifference towards Japanese brands and rarely getting correct information about their developments into print. It has been my mission to counteract that indifference through Wikipedia and later on my own press company, after a few more years in the automotive industry as an engineering manager. It is furthermore frustrating to see other individuals fall for it very easily and then make my work difficult too, when people eat it up, hook, line, and sinker before I can fix it (or anyone else). And lastly I no longer refer to anyone directly whenever I have ever made an emotive edit summary, expressing disappointment. In your case I mentioned you and focused primarily on the issue with the content not you as a person. As I said before you are reaching and I find it peculiar, considering I just thanked your correction, because it reflects the truth as I intended.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:20, 17 April 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.

Reverting without discussing

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.

---

What is the procedure to deal with an editor who reverts and tell other editors to discuss, and then when those other editors do start a discussion, the editor continues to revert and refuses to take part in that discussion? This can be seen with Amaury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Just Roll with It (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where Amaury reverted my edits twice [76][77], so I started a discussion at Template talk:Television season ratings [78] and even pinged him [79]. They continued to revert the edits of my notifications to his talk page [80][81][82][83], and have since never responded to the talk page discussion. Can I restore my edits if they refuse to discuss? -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent reports against the editor that may be relevant here can be seen at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1031#Personal attacks by User:Amaury, started by JDDJS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Incivility by User:Amaury, started by Railfan23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#User: Amaury, started by 71.255.81.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive883#Conduct of User:Amaury, started by 79.97.226.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Amaury - Accusing my account of being a Sockpuppet and giving no reasons why, started by Luigitehplumber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-- /Alex/₂₁ 04:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You have no authority to order me to do anything. I will comment when I actually have something to comment with, not because you're ordering me to. There is no deadline to discuss anything. You only want one because you want things to go your way. I am well within my rights to remove harassing messages from my talk page. This ANI thread is premature as this user has a personal vendetta against me. And it's not the first time as this has been going on for years, with this user's history of WP:HOUNDING and other disruptive behavior toward not only myself, but IJBall as well. The only reason he even "cares" about the article in question is because he contribution stalked me there as is evident by the interaction tool here and here. Amaury • 04:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Then you have no authority to revert me without discussing. You say "when I actually have something to comment with" - are you admitting that you have nothing to comment and thus no reason to revert? Are you solely reverting me for this apparent "vendetta" and only to edit-war, because you have nothing to contribute to the dispute? And what on Earth do you mean by "You only want one because you want things to go your way"? Is that not the very point of discussions? To come to a compromise when multiple editors disagree?

Your accusations are baseless; I have edited multiple Disney Channel series across the years, including the one involved above. You would do well to curb your false accusations, given the multitude of above reports and the fact that the last one, which concerned the very topic of false accusations, ended in a block against you only last year. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

My only comment here is that I agree that it's incredibly premature to take this to ANI – ANI is supposed to be a last resort, not a first resort. This should not have been filed until all other avenues were exhausted (which considering the short time frame is nowhere near the case). I'd recommend this be closed, and that the parties should attempt to hash this out at Talk:Just Roll with It --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I gave Amaury ample opportunity to discuss it; they reverted me six times instead, including making personal attacks throughout those reverts, as with the attacks above. Most certainly not premature, given that this is now the sixth report (that I could find) against them and their conduct. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When will you realize I don't care what you think? The discussions linked to above by the IPs are irrelevant. Nothing in either of them was actionable and no official warnings were issued. I will not "curb my false accusations" when they're true. Accusing someone of being a sock is far different than accusing someone of disruptive behavior, but I don't expect you to know the difference. There's plenty of evidence against you, but this isn't the place. Your time on this project will come. Just Roll with It was created on October 24, 2018, and moved into mainspace on April 27, 2019. It is not pure coincidence that you happened to show up on March 7, 2020, just to revert me without any valid policy reason. And this was after JDDS said "an eye should be kept on me."

I'm not perfect, but by my count you've been dragged to ANI far more times than me. Hm. I wonder why that is. You'll notice that I get along with almost 100% of editors I come across, so for editors I don't get along with, that tells me that the problem is with those editors, not myself or others. And I even have disagreements with editors I do get along with, but they do things right and are reasonable, so I'm more willing to discuss with them and we'll end up reaching a reasonable compromise—in some cases, I may end up mostly agreeing with them. In any case, I'm not the only one who has problems with you, but it's clear you have a personal vendetta against me, as you wanted sanctions to be imposed on me from JDDS' thread and were "sad" when nothing happened. This thread is absolutely premature and fully agree it should be closed.

I was perfectly correct in reverting you, and there were no personal attacks. You made a bold edit, and then it was reverted. so you should have gone to that article's talk page. Instead, you reverted again to try to make some stupid point and went over to the template talk page, when discussion should be happening at the article's talk page, as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Guidelines are not absolute. It makes sense to follow them when they make sense; when they don't, there's no harm in deviating from them a bit, but that doesn't matter to you. If it's something that will aid you, you will agree that a guideline is just that, a guideline, but if it's something that goes against how you think something should be, then guidelines are absolute. It doesn't work like that. Guidelines are guidelines, general best practices. If someone personally feels that a year can be added to a season header before episodes air in that year, it doesn't change the fact that WP:TVUPCOMING is a guideline. If someone personally feels that a year can't be added to a season header before episodes air in that year, it doesn't change the fact that WP:TVUPCOMING is a guideline. All guidelines are not absolute and are general best practices. Even policy pages can have exceptions, so not everything is absolute. And I certainly don't see multiple editors disagreeing with me here, as you claim.

"When I have something to comment with" means exactly what it says. I will comment when I comment, and you do not get to demand that I respond at a specific time, so I suggest you quit putting words in my mouth. You started the discussion at 8:47 PM and then demanded that I comment at 9:11 PM. That's 24 minutes, which is not ample time, even with me having activity after that. I could have hypothetically very well have gone to bed before you posted that notification or before you ordered me to comment at the template talk page, for all you knew. Not everyone will comment right away, especially not when they're ordered to. Some people will comment later in the day or the next day, depending on what time it's posted, to think of what to post and how to post it. It's like an essay. You're given a two weeks to write an essay. Generally, an essay that was worked on little by little in those two weeks will turn out much better than an essay that you did at the last minute and rushed through the night before because you procrastinated this much. Replying to comments on a wiki isn't an assignment, but responding to certain things on a wiki has a similar concept. Amaury • 05:59, 17 April 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.

70.71.241.6

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 persistently wants to include the term genocide in the article Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction since the 3rd of April, refuses any discussion about the term, and was reverted by several editors. The term genocide is I think a bit too sensitive to be included by an IP who refuses a discussion about it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:35, 17 April 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.

Off-wiki Harassment

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

---

Please note that I have chosen to not notify the IP I am reporting because doing so may result in me being harassed as well. I have no objections if someone else notifies them, but I refuse to interact with them in any way.

In this edit [84] 2001:d08:d8:432e:c963:35a6:f82:5afd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) threatened another user with off-wiki harassment. I noticed it when I got a strange post to my talk page and looked at the posting history. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked 2001:D08:D8:432E:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Do you want me to revdel the comments? Guy (help!) 12:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done. El_C 12:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The IP comes round every few days to post more stuff on Mortal Engines and related articles. IP changes each time. Koncorde (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• 2001:d08:d8:5f96:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) too. Does this need a /32 block on the Maxis netblock, folks? Guy (help!) 12:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of others; all 2001:d08:D8 -[85],[86],[87],[88]. Koncorde (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

If they're all 2001:d08:d8::, then a /48 would work and cause less collateral damage. creffett (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

From a quick look, it looks like most of 2001:d08:d8::/48 's contributions have been this editor. Do we have any evidence of account creation? If so, we'd probably want a CU to peek under the hood to check for collateral damage before going for the wider block. creffett (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No users that I am aware of. Edits are by original user Starkiller88, otherwise known as Bryan_Seecrets and all relate around the same themes / prolonged harassment of certain individuals. I reverted some of the inanity a few months back and got added to his twitter feed, reddit and 4chan screeds and regular wiki-spam. Koncorde (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know why he thinks that I had anything to do with the Mortal Engines page or why he thinks I support Trump and Brexit -- which I clearly do not? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You reverted something at some point and that likely got his attention. Bryan See is unfortunately a little fixated on a certain set of themes, and has it in his head that either everything truly is a worldwide conspiracy, or that by mentioning our names in tweets or other mediums that this is exposing us to some army of Anons and / or going to intimidate people into no longer reverting his mixture of legitimate but misguided updates, his surreal obsessions with his own head-canon about documented works, and his self self promotion of whatever he is working on (but never completing).

I was unaware of the guy until a month or so ago, now I am one of his go-to guys. Running out of characters on his Twitter posts though, so you should be safe. Koncorde (talk) 14:02, 17 April 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.

Joelinton potential edit war

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 checked the recent edits to help Wikipedia and revert vandalism, I then noticed the Joelinton page saying that he was going to play with other notable football players in the future, so someone reverted it and added some warnings. Then somebody else undid the reversion and someone else joined in. So I reverted their edits and added template warinings. Then the second one got rid of the warnings, reverted the unvandalised page and then reported me for vandalism. Then the first person that did the revert reverted the page again, then it was reverted by the second vandaliser, with the summary "First reverter is gay". I most likely would add a template to their talk page, if I knew they wouldn't revert it. Note: first vandaliser was blocked.

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 continuing behaviour after 3rd block

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

---

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

User has been blocked three times for unsourced genre changes, last was for 2 weeks. Since that block ended user has made 5 edits, all inappropriate unsourced genre changes:

Special:Diff/950422788
Special:Diff/950635185
Special:Diff/951363263
Special:Diff/951379477
Special:Diff/951410688

Captainllama (talk) 14:38, 17 April 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.

Inappropriate reference to CIR

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.

---

Look at this discussion from WP:VPR:

Phone number and verification

Hi, I believe that one of the most annoying problems in Wikipedia is sockpuppeting. Sockpuppets use IPs and accounts. I wonder if we asked for verified phone number when creating an account, would that limit the number of sockpuppets who use accounts?. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube do it, why not Wikipedia? I know this isn't the right place to propose this but I want to see if this is a good idea or not so that I can propose it in another venue.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You're the same person who proposed #Checkuser notification?? I'll let you consider the implications. --Izno (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m starting to think there is a CIR issue here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

---

I removed that comment because it was personal attack per WP:CIR. I have been contributing to this encyclopedia in good-faith. I don't appreciate someone saying that I am not competence. Symmachus wants to add the comment back.

This is not the first time Symmachus Auxiliarus comes out of nowhere attacking me personally, I remember one time he said I am biased and other stuff.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Raising the issue of possible CIR is not a “personal attack”, as you claimed. Neither is it a reason for you to refactor/remove my comment. If you felt it was inappropriate, you simply could have spoken to me, rather than posted a template warning, threatened me in the edit summary, and refactored my comment. That was not a personal attack. It falls *way* short of one. Reasonable concerns about user conduct and competency are exempt, and good faith contributions are not a reason for not raising such issues. There is an extensive history of why we allow for anonymity, and this was the second related thread you started in just a few days, after other editors explaining it to you.

If there is any other time I “attacked you personally”, please post the diffs. I have never done so. If you meant my explaining the WP:PROFRINGE policy and explaining the general community consensus on fringe articles, that is neither a personal attack, nor anything beyond normal editing practices. I’m sorry, but this filing is frivolous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Raising the CIR accusation is a personal attack and gaslighting. I have never said we shouldn't allow anonymity. Your comment is inappropriate. Also, I am talking about that time when you said I am biased in Yemeni related articles. I find your comment totally inappropriate.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don’t recall ever saying anything like that. In fact, I don’t think I would, generally. Please post a diff and/or give some context. I’ve never interacted with you directly on any article related to Yemen. You followed an edit I made to one article I XFD’d, which you had never previously edited. But later recreated as a redirect. Even then, I never interacted with you. I’m sorry, but this is starting to look ridiculous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, and do you think you are unbiased? Guy (help!) 12:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ll respond to direct queries and monitor this thread while I can (I have a Latin class soon), but I trust editors to see this as a frivolous or retaliatory filing, especially given our sole interaction (so far as I know), on Naomi Seibt. I was always civil with you. As I said, your actions here are way overboard. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: Just commenting to point out that you can use this tool to check whether/where you have interacted with another editor. --JBL (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Honestly I’ve only ever used Xtools and Earwig’s applications. I’ll note that in the future. However, I’m almost positive I’m being accurate here, allowing for some possible human error. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• You have literally being following me in lots of articles.

here reverting me in Yemeni civil war article [89] And here about tribes of Arabia [90] talk page: [91] here reverting removal of snooganssnoogans comment (and also sent me a template about that). Also, [92]. Also, the Noemi thing where you said I am pushing fringe views by saying that "Climate change skeptic” is a euphemism used by proponents of climate change denial. -SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have all of those article watchlisted. Someone with the appropriate tools can confirm. We have an overlap in interests. I’m not following you. The only reason why I said you followed me to the one article is because it was only linked one place on Wikipedia, and was rather obscure. Plus, the article was already deleted, so you’d only be able to find it per my contributions. But I don’t mind that you did. Just noting it.

So, I’ve reverted you once, asked why you made an edit another time. Are any of these the diffs for the personal attacks you mentioned? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Which article you're talking about? I have never followed you. I am little bit busy right now. You comment was in this page in SharabSalam thread.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Rahmanism (note to other users that this was recreated as a redirect, and the previous article was deleted). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

What about it? I have never seen you there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have that article in my watchlist..I only noticed the deletion by the admin. The rationale for the proposed deletion was so uninformed and I recreated that article (I saw the rationale in the deletion log that appears on the article). Are you the one who made that proposed deletion?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell me how did you know about this discussion [93]?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You mean that discussion where Symmachus Auxiliarus agreed with you? Strange thing to pick up on. Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There was no way to disagree with me at that time and he kept actually saying that the edit is not absolute vandalism. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we both also have interest in my talk page?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Accusations about stalking etc. are a distraction. I suggest sticking to the topic of this complaint. SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't thinkSharabSalam is incompetent, just that they get carred away—but that this can be to the detriment of collegiality, however. ——SN54129 13:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which is saying that I am incompetent. Per WP:CIR be cautious when referencing this as it would be personal attack. There is no way I am incompetent because I suggested that anyone who is going to create an account should also provide a phone number. Editors already put their emails and verify them. I am not sure why he said I am incompetent because I suggested that. I wasn't sure what that editor was talking about when he suggested I am incompetent. I even thought that he is saying because my English language in that comment wasn't understandable him. Referencing the CIR was totally inappropriate in that discussion and its not the first time as I said this editor appears many times suddenly when I am in a weak position.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement to supply an email address to register. Do you really not have the competence to realise just how much privacy (and safety in some parts of the world) would be compromised if people had to supply a verified phone number? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

We already provide IP addresses, type of devices and other information to Wikipedia. I am not saying they would be public. Facebook, Twitter and many other respected companies already ask for a verified phone numbers. Also, why would you reference my competence again? Why am I getting all of this hate for suggesting that?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

If you continually involve yourself in discussions on topics where you demonstrate little clue, it will make people get snippy at you after a while. Don't compound that by throwing tantrums over minor issues. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Which is more damaging to someone's reputation?
  • Editor A referring to CIR regarding Editor B, once, on the Village Pump.
  • Editor B posting to the most heavily watched page on the project "Editor A thinks I'm incompetent!" ... "Hey, Editor A thinks I'm incompetent!" ... "It's not right that Editor A thinks I'm incompetent!" ... "I want something done about the fact that Editor A thinks I'm incompetent!" ... "Let's get back to the fact that Editor A thinks I'm incompetent!".

You sure do show up on this page a lot, SS. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I literally warned him not to reference CIR again and he posted a warning in my talk page saying that I should restore his inappropriate comment. I didn't want to come here. It's not my fault. I should go where to report this personal attack? I should just stay silent?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I try to do when someone says something mean about me. I ignore them. They go away. It simplifies my life by a factor of 10. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Put yourself in my shoes. I went there and proposed that phone numbers be required when someone creates an account. This way sockpuppets wouldn't be able to create multiple accounts using the same number because Wikipedia would say "this number is already used". This happens in Twitter, Facebook and other companies to prevent users from creating multiple accounts. My intention was in good-faith. I wanted to stop sockpuppets and LTA accounts, that's all. I never expected to be called incompetent because of that. I am not incompetent. I have being editing in this project for two years just to make it more neutral and to expand it and I really care about the personal data of other editors. I even proposed that each time an editor gets checked by a checkuser, he should be notified (not by a talk page post, but by a notification that appears in the notification bar).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said before, the comment doesn’t remotely qualify as a personal attack. It was valid given the context. You’re free to disagree. And as I said, you were free to raise such a concern to me. I didn’t “warn” you. I said your removal was inappropriate, and asked you to refrain from refactoring comments, and asked you to restore it. Two other editors disagreed with your removal, and one of them restored it. This is much ado about nothing, Sharab. I was trying to be civil and resolve this personally. You threatened to get me sanctioned in an edit summary, gave me a templated warning, and were generally belligerent. Overall, I’ve been quite civil with you.

And I’m still waiting for those diffs of other supposed personal attacks I’ve made against you. This is now the third time I’ve asked. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You said I have "intrinsic bias" "He does less good work in articles related to Israel and Palestine, Islam (though he’s been somewhat amenable there), and AmPol". You were absolutely not involved in that yet you found the opportunity to say that. Please don't follow me and don't post things in my talk page where you are not involved like [94].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

So.... are you saying that it's appropriate for some Wikipedian to delete someone else's comments basically because they don't like the comments made? Im pretty sure there are guidelines around that. And raising the posibility that someone has access to personal data and the problems it could cause, followed by "let's add to that personal data" seem to be "misguided" at the very least. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks should be removed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

By that logic, no one could ever come to this very page and made a CIR claim, it's always a personal attack. And you are saying that there is nothing wrong with first raises the posibility that someone with bad intentions could get access to personal data and then suggesting we add even more data to said personal data pool to make it even easier for those with bad intentions to track down users? The fact that you cannot see that those two trains of thought are at odds could lead some to question if you've really thought through your proposals. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

They can but they need to provide evidences. Also, I am not saying that the phone numbers would be public. No one would have access to them. The system will store the phone numbers and not allow duplicated numbers. This is the same with Twitter, Facebook and others.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No one would have access to them. - So they gather data, and NO ONE could ever see it? So I work in IT, if its in the database, someone, somewhere would have access to it, impossible for that to not be the case. It may not be a checkuser or whatever, but someone does. I guess in this case the "incompetence" is the fact that you don't seem to have any idea how this kind of thing works? I am 110% sure that someone at Twitter or Facebook can look up those phone numbers if they so desire, they have to be stored somewheree to check against after all, if they are stored somewhere, someone CAN read them. And with you raising the fear that someone "high up" could have bad intentions or corrupted it means that you should be concerned that someone with bad intentions could have access to phone numbers. So your two completly opposite trains of thought and the fact that you don't seem to get that they are opposite is the "evidence" that perhaps in this case you do not actually know what you are talking about. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

...besides, neither Twitter nor Facebook actually requires a phone number – they ask for it but it's perfectly possible to create an account without providing that info. Not that the situations would be comparable anyway. --bonadea contributions talk

I know that already. I not saying that a sysadmin wouldn't be able to see phone numbers. Of course any data you enter like credit card information when you donate can be seen if someone who has access to Wikipedia's system. I am saying that it wouldn't be public. You can stay on twitter for one to two days without a phone number then they suspend your account if you don't enter your phone number.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Facebook may not be the best place to reference when you're saying that users should be forced to give phone numbers... 1 2 aboideau^talk 15:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not a personal attack. Ever heard of the Streisand effect? I'd suggest dropping the stick. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

SharʿabSalam, you are the only one who is calling it a personal attack. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, Symmachus Auxiliarus just said in this thread "Raising the issue of possible CIR is not a 'personal attack'” but you still call that a personal attack? Maybe there really is something V-shaped coming around. SemiHypercube 14:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It is a personal attack when there is no evidence I am incompetent. If someone think I am incompetent they should provide evidences for that. Per WP:CIR, Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack. also Jauerback referencing mentality is gaslighting.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Raising WP:CIR does not constitute a personal attack, and as such is not actionable here. Unless someone besides the OP has an objection, this thread should be closed to prevent further time wasting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Close it. This thread is totally a waste of time. I know that baseless CIR accusation is a personal attack yet editors here making comments with about mentality and no admin is saying anything about it. Will note this incident and if I got followed by that same editor again I will never tolerate that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:17, 17 April 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.

Postings from Harold Lloyd Enterprises

A representative of Harold Lloyd Enterprises (User:HLE1893) has been posting at various talk pages requesting the removal of all content relating to silent film star Harold Lloyd's alleged involvement in encouraging/enforcing racially restrictive covenants in Beverly Hills in the 1940s. The user contends that the information, though supported by four reliable sources (including a 1945 newspaper article and three books published by reputable publishing houses), is false and jeopardizes funding for a proposed feature film on Lloyd's life. The lengthy posting by HLE1893 was done first on a user talk page (here), then at the Harold Lloyd talk page (here), a month later on the talk page of the Harold Lloyd Estate (here), and yesterday on my talk page (here). In response to the letter, the first recipient of the note removed the content from the Harold Lloyd page, though some content remains on the Harold Lloyd Estate page. This follows a similar pattern in August 2019 that resulted in the indefinite block of User:Chatterbox1880 for violating Wikipedia policy on legal threats.

I prepared a detailed response to HLE1893 earlier today which is found at: Talk:Harold Lloyd#Response to HLE1893. I am not suggesting or requesting a block of HLE1893 as I would like to give them an opportunity to respond to my requests for further information. Absent an indication that the four reliable sources have retracted their statements, my preliminary inclination is to rewrite the content to concisely report what the four reliable sources stated, with an explicit balancing statement that the heirs of Mr. Lloyd deny his involvement in supporting such restrictive covenants. However, as this involves implied (if not explicit) threats of legal action, I am posting here to see if anyone has other thoughts/suggestions on steps that should be taken. Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Eeesh, that message is a hair's breadth away from a legal threat (and I'm 99% certain it was written by a lawyer). It's not quite there, but it's basically a "here's what you're doing wrong, change it or we'll take legal action" letter with the "or we'll take legal action'" removed. creffett (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but that matters. In fact I think they raise good points. EEng 19:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not saying they didn't - but I suspect I'm not the only one who gets a little nervous when someone posts a message in legalese ("My client ("The Client") queries that you enumerate the habeas corpus of the nolo contendere to prove the party of the first part's negligent compliance") yes I know that's complete gibberish instead of just talking like a normal person ("hi, I work for the article subject, you say such-and-such in the article but here are sources that say otherwise"). creffett (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

They use the word "besmirches", you know it's for real. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Bee smirches. EEng 00:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• The HLE letter did raise some inaccuracies as to details in the discussion at Harold Lloyd Estate. I have now edited the treatment there to omit those alleged inaccuracies and reduce the discussion of Lloyd's role to the following accurate (and balanced) sentence: "Though disputed by his heirs, several published accounts have described Lloyd as a leader in the drive to prevent African-Americans and others from residing in the area."

Removing the discussion in its entirety would constitute inappropriate censorship on a matter of importance -- i.e., the role of prominent whites outside the South, in the "liberal" North and South in carrying out restrictive covenants which were one of the most insidious (and successful) mechanisms for enforcing de facto racial segregation. Cbl62 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Out of an abundance of caution, I modified further so that the sentence now simply reads: "Though disputed by his heirs, several published accounts have described Lloyd as a leader in the drive to adopt restrictive covenants." If we can't even say this much, then we may as well abandon efforts to an accurate source of information. Cbl62 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This is getting out of control. You can't possibly imagine we're going to have an article say though disputed by his heirs because of what someone posted in a talk page discussion. EEng 21:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I included the "disputed by his heirs" language in light of the prior explicit threat of litigation by Chatterbox and the current implied threat by HLE. I viewed my language as a prudent application of WP:IAR. If the consensus is that such qualifying language is neither helpful nor appropriate, I will abide by the community consensus. But under no circumstance IMO opinion should we wholly censor the core statement -- which is supported by four reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll say it again: we absolutely, positively don't put in language like this based on a talk page post by someone claiming to be somebody. EEng 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm personally aware of that restrictive covenant applying to property in the Fairfax District, Los Angeles, not far away. The restrictive covenant is stated in deeds to all properties in the area, though a letter from LA city or county stating that the covenants were overturned by legislation in 1965 or so (i think referring to U.S. national civil rights law plus city/county resolution) is legally required to be included in the papers of any real property transaction. That stemmed from the express wishes/conditions of the person/family (Hancock or some other name which is similarly represented in placenames in the area today) that owned the very large, larger-than-Fairfax area, maybe extending to border of Beverly Hills which was subdivided in the 1910s or 1920s or so. It was called something like the "Hancock tract", before subdivision. I don't see the restrictive covenants mentioned in any of the Wikipedia articles about neighborhoods. The West Adams, Los Angeles article reports an echo of them: "The development of the West Side, Beverly Hills and Hollywood, beginning in the 1910s, siphoned away much of West Adams' upper-class white population; upper-class blacks began to move in around this time, although the district was off limits to all but the very wealthiest African-Americans." West Adams became a black majority area, I understand because it didn't have the restrictive covenants of the areas further west and north. I think there must be available history sources covering all this. A mapping out the development of the larger area, with tracts identified as to year of subdivision and shaded about their covenants, would sure be interesting. And this stuff oughta be mentioned in the neighborhood / area articles. Perhaps greater, appropriate coverage of the use of restrictive covenants in development of Los Angeles area would go some way towards addressing the HLE concerns. If Harold Lloyd led in effort to bring the covenants to Beverly Hills, that should be said, but it would be better to have it placed in bigger context, i.e. that was an effort to extend use of the covenants from adjacent (i think) if not surrounding areas, and related to likely protection of property values which surely would have been a factor for people building homes in the area, etc. Not forgiving it, but this would not have been a new racist initiative being introduced from out of the blue by Harold Lloyd and associates. Unless it was that, and the covenants then spread east back to Fairfax (but I think the development process went from east to west towards Beverly Hills). If this Los Angeles-area restrictive covenants is not yet addressed extensively somewhere in Wikipedia, it oughta be; people living there should know that is the history. --Doncram (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Covenant (law)#Exclusionary covenants mentions this, but with no detail and "citation needed" about Los Angeles being an example; it does include this source about Palos Verdes, an article written with help of a Los Angeles Public Library librarian. --Doncram (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The article does not state or suggest that Lloyd invented restrictive covenants. Nor does any Wikipedia article brand him as a "racist". These covenants became popular in the 1920s and 1930s as a "clever" way to enforce supposedly de facto segregation in "liberal" cities. While some likely had overtly racist motives for the covenants, others likely viewed them as a means of preserving property values. Lloyd's role in advocating for such covenants, as described in four reliable sources, should not be overstated -- nor should it be censored or deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• HLE1893 has been indef blocked for making legal threats, and for being a suspected sock of Chatterbox1880. Lawyers like money, and they would more likely be filing a suit against WMF, not on a talk page to a lone unpaid editor. No monetary value in going after an unpaid volunteer. They would also know the entire legal history of any discrimination that happened in the area. — Maile (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe this was a real mistake. Detailed lawyerly reasoning does not constitute a legal threat. I'm going nuclear by pinging in Newyorkbrad for his august opinion. (I believe everything you need is at Talk:Harold_Lloyd#Restrictive_covenant.) EEng 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

    • Why wait 'til August? Let's ask for his April opinion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

      You may march upstairs right now, young man! EEng 05:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

    • Should not have been blocked, that cuts off communication, and the person was working completely properly, making a reasoned request. --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I see that I've been pinged to this thread, but it's almost midnight here—I'll take a look at this tomorrow (my time) if it hasn't been resolved by then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I stated from the outset in this thread that "I am not suggesting or requesting a block of HLE1893 as I would like to give them an opportunity to respond." Cbl62 (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad They have presented themselves as official representatives of the estate, with no proof of who they say they are. They now have the opportunity to provide that proof through the Unblock Ticket Request System. If they are who they say are, the unblocking, and any concerns they have about the estate and Wikipedia, can be handled there. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean, if nothing else, their comment We represent Harold Lloyd Entertainment, Inc. (“HLE”). indicates a shared role account, which is blockable in itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad I have unblocked them, as the blocking admin. You all can figure out the rest, but perhaps it's better to err on the side of caution when the issue might not be so clear-cut. — Maile (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. In other cases I prefer to hear out what a lawyer-type representive having COI has to say, and to try to work with them. E.g. advise about use of royal we in communication, which one individual lawyer-type person plausibly might do semi-automatically, but which suggests/raises issue of sharing an account (not allowed here). They (using the "royal they"? no, using the non-gendered pronoun alternative to saying "he/she" which is fairly often used in Wikipedia discussion) need to take personal individual responsibility for what their account states anywhere in Wikipedia, in order to participate and be taken seriously in Wikipedia discussion. It could be an accepted core value and good practice for lawyers and staff, in working together, to use "we" to share credit or to avoid taking undue credit when they say "we represent" or "we believe". If in fact several persons have jointly drafted their arguments, for Wikipedia one individual still needs to take individual responsibility and recast it in form of "I and my colleagues believe", or better "I (and my colleagues) believe" or better "I believe". However, it does rub me the wrong way when the lawyer-type throws up a litany of arguments and suggestions, including some specious, hair-splitting, insincere ones, or when they exaggerate, as they have done (including at Talk:Harold Lloyd#Restrictive covenant, which i think is the main discussion). Maybe that works in some legal settings, but for me it establishes that they lie and deliberately mislead, and they are willing to lie, and they believe it is their job to lie, which is not acceptable here. And it undermines their credibility in all their other statements and my patience in dealing with them at all. --Doncram (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Lawyers say "we represent" or "this office represents" as a matter of accuracy: the lawyer is saying that the whole law firm, not just the person signing the letter, represents the client. Solo practitioners typically say "I represent", unless they're being pretentious. It looks to me like someone took a typical take down notice, removed the lawyerly bits, and posted it on wiki. Generally if a message is not signed by a lawyer I assume it's not from a lawyer since lawyers almost always identify themselves in any correspondence sent on behalf of a client. It's ethically required (and that is not a legal threat). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

NOTHERE editing by Ataxan.az

Hi, the reported editor is attacking other editors who disagree with him : [95] and saying this kind of nonesenses :

• "Wow, everybody tells that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of anything and reading it is a waste of time but I never have believed it. I understand it better now."
• "Instead of appreciating, insight contributions like mine which you probably will not find in any source (they are the result of years and years of personal research and gatherings) you reject them"

etc ... Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Whereas their behavior is hardly exemplary, they have not edited after the warnings. Let us wait and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks for your insight. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ataxan azer advertising nickname of the Azerbaijani internal site. Subject to editing the nickname. ZokidinUZB (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't real really deal with username issues, but per WP:PROMONAME, I don't see how ataxan.az is a problem since it's not a registered domain name [96] Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 21:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive renaming of several pages

Hayq11 (talk · contribs) shows a highly disruptive behavior by renaming several pages of medieval Armenian authors, including Mesrop Mashtots and many others from their widely-accepted English names (e.g. Mesrop Mashtots) to ones with diacritics (e.g. Mesrop Maštocʻ) used in academic literature without any discussion whatsoever. Please revert his arbitrary moving of pages. ----Երևանցի ^talk 09:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing while logging out

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:Barind is suspectable of it, check the edit history at [97], look at both edit summaries of Barind and ip [98]. Also Barind has removed multiple sourced information from various pages, received a previous warning which he removed from his talk page. That can be handled at AIV but I am filing this report here because of suspecting him of making disruptive edits while logged out. 43.245.122.101 (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding another ip to the list, appears that Barind uses dynamic ip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A0A:A546:7FB1:0:1518:61BC:38FE:BF40 43.245.122.101 (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

In case its brought up, I confess my ip is also dynamic, I have no control over its range auto changing. 43.245.123.120 (talk) 10:00, 16 April 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:Cokestunt

Sockmaster and sock drawer have been blocked.--v/r - TP 14:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Call to report “racist” and anti Indian editors. Not sure what to make of this, but it seems an open invitation for harassment of editors. Kleuske (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Cocaine is a helluva drug. – ².O.^Boxing 08:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't pretend to recognise what's going on, but the following accounts are confirmed to each other: Cokestunt, Ronalddesa, Amanverma121, Levisoil23, Thomasverve, Palerefer1. Sock or meat or some other coincidence, I leave it for you to decide. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

With the exception of Palerefer1, all of the other accounts seem to be interested in Faisal Farooqui, and Amanverma121 was reported to COIN by Bri regarding edits to the Farooqui article. I'm not familiar enough with the history of that article to know exactly what's going on either, but given that Amanverma121 also called Bri racist in an edit summary, I feel like this might be some retaliation over that article/the COIN report. creffett (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Zzuuzz:: Can you look at User:TakebackWiki4nativeEnglishONLY. It just screams like it was a false flag account specifically to advance a cause based on this edit by Cokestunt.--v/r - TP 16:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  Nice catch there! creffett (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's possible, but I can't be more definitive than that. Same geolocation, same OS, different type of Internet connection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe for another forum, but if we have a genuine issue of perceived unequal treatment of non-North American topics, that needs to be addressed. I didn't know if this guy started out earnest, or was a troll from the start. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Wonder if a "sensitive topics noticeboard" would be good for issues that an administrator shouldn't just steamroll through? I was reviewing some edits on Croatia today and if I wasn't already aware of the controversial issues I might have stupidly taken action. Ended up leaving it for someone better versed.--v/r - TP 16:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Define a "sensitive topic." Then ask 15 more people what a "sensitive topic" is and collate all 16+ responces here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 18:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Some problems with the page of the physicist Seth Lloyd

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

---

There is an anonymous that modified heavily the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Lloyd. Lloyd was involved in a minor case in the Epstein's affair. Anyway, his contributions to physics are indisputable. Maybe, some intervention by an administrator is in need here. Thanks.--Pra1998 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed additional, superfluous tags. I’m a little bit familiar with his work so if I have time later I might do so some more. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Additional note: the focus on Epstein in the article is a good example of undue weight. It does not deserve to take up three paragraphs, let alone a good percentage of the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: I trimmed it down to one paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 17 April 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:CringPosting369

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

---

Hi! Please block this user because of his vandalism on page 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Turkmenistan. Thanks--Dimon2712 (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dimon2712: Use WP:AIV in the future. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:42, 18 April 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.

KingOpti101

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.

---

KingOpti101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am not taking action myself because I am involved. This user has repeatedly edited 2020 United States Senate election in Maine to add the current officeholder(Susan Collins) as the nominee of her party for the upcoming election. She is not technically the nominee until the primary election has concluded, even though she is the only candidate. I've mentioned this to KingOpti101 a couple times on their talk page, and started a discussion on the article talk page, but gotten no reply. In examining their edit history they have made similar edits on other US Senate election articles, mostly to add "TBD"(to be determined) which is okay I guess, but they've also prematurely added party nominees to other election articles. I'm not sure if they are unaware of their user talk page or just ignoring it, but I think something should be done. Thanks 331dot (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You buried the lede. I'll grudgingly admit that technically Collins (and other unopposed candidates) isn't/aren't the nominee(s) yet. But, come on, she (and they) is/are the nominee(s) for all practical purposes, and I don't understand what is served by leaving it blank for now. And I really don't understand why it is important enough to bring it here.

However, their talk page is full of complaints of one sort or another, going back more than a year, to which they have never, in 4000+ edits, replied. That's unacceptable. If it seems sufficient to you, I can leave a note on their talk page that they will be blocked from editing if they do not address this issue the next time they get back online, before they start editing articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeking resolution of the actual dispute here, I just want to communicate with the user. As I said, I brought it here because I am involved. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Oops- yes, that is satisfactory to me. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've done so. I have their talk page on my watchlist, but let me know if they resume editing before addressing your concerns. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

This user has never once used any talk, user talk, or project pages; nor has this user ever bothered with an edit summary. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:59, 17 April 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.

Bad, perhaps, moving

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.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T250551

user:Anarchyte moved Wikipedia:Introduction to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Introduction (historical): Revision history moreover what about the included or not subpages. Thanks a lot. Regards--Pierpao (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about this, started by Anarchyte, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Introduction page move. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yup, this was an accidental move. Forgot that giving it the Wikipedia namespace duplicates the prefix if you copy and paste Wikipedia:[here]. Anarchyte (talk | work) 09:15, 18 April 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.

vandal

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Yevgeny12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CAE:7100:28B0:B16A:39A4:CE66 (talk)

• Unsigned editor: first, you report vandalism at WP:AIV, not here. Second, the editor you are reporting has recieved no vandalism warnings at all and is brand new. Third, there's nothing resembling WP:VANDALISM their contributions. Fourth, you need to sign your messages. Fifth, it's mandatory (and there is a very bright notice is in the edit window to that effect) you notify any editor you report or mention in writing on their talk page. Normally, I'd inform you that you should have notified them, and then leave the notification you omitted, but not here. Your report is bogus. There is no vandalism in his edits. John from Idegon (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  @John from Idegon: I would probably classify this edit as vandalism, but otherwise spot on. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe. Maybe just clueless, and my read of AGF says we err on the conservative side. There's still nothing here that would even merit an AIV report, much less ANI. It's far more likely a newbie/misguided report. OP is far more in need of course correction than the reported editor, IMO. John from Idegon (talk) 10:41, 18 April 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.

move article to draft namespace

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

---

Please move Linda iLham Barto to draft name again. This article created on 24 January 2020‎ by user:Shakibim & next day Linda iLham Barto herself edited the article. On 25 January 2020‎, submission was declined by User:KylieTastic. Today i noticed it was move to main namespace by author without approval & minutes later Linda iLham Barto herself edited the article again (very suspicious!). Anyway this article should be moved to draft namespace. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft space isn't a replacement for a deletion discussion. If you think the article doesn't belong in mainspace, you should nominate it for deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:14, 18 April 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.

Akbarmaulana240420001 removing Speedy Tags

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:Akbarmaulana240420001 just removed a CSD tag fro man article she created herself after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've issued a warning. Let's hope that sticks. El_C 16:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours and page deleted.--v/r - TP 16:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay... I still think we've could have given my warning a chance, though. El_C 16:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. When deciding between leaving another warning vs blocking the user, it never hurts to go with the former option and see what happens. The worst case scenario with doing so is that the user continues the disruptive behavior despite the warning given. Then, you can just block the user as you would've before. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:12, 18 April 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.

Wikihounding

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 very tired of dealing with User:Dennis Bratland, who I have requested to no longer engage nor address me on my user talk page numerous times, realizing that any commentary left by them is almost never meant to be genuinely constructive and is often a form of posturing for an audience. It comes as a method of antagonizing me and inserting themselves into matters that do not involve their input. Unlike others, this particular user seems invested in following me around and that of my edits, similar to another user in User:Sable932 (who does not litter my talk page). From my observation, it is borne out of a long held grudge over a statement "...American h**ks..." made by me in 2017, not being handled as they would've desired and a resulting complex from it. I am here to formally request, that User:Dennis Bratland no longer comments on my talk page without invitation, unless it concerns content-related matters such as mutual work on an article page or formal summons/notices.

I have no reason otherwise to address them and leave him to his own devices (positive or negative), so I suggest he does the same and only discuss project related matters. I left a TW warning on his page, because I am tired of being Wikihounded by the user in question, when I already requested they do not comment on my page anymore. I did not summon his input, because I don't care for unnecessary strife with him. The using of my talk page to posture for an attempt to goad me into leaving Wikipedia or others to do that legwork for him, is a form of unwelcome stalking and baiting me into an argument. Any issues I have nowadays with content, I limit to article talk pages, my own page, or edit summaries and if possible, @ the user in question. Outside of TWs, I respect others' talk pages and do not chime in. If this is deemed not worthwhile as a request, fair enough. I am just taking mediation action so I don't have to get my hands any dirtier and endlessly edit my talk page.--Carmaker1 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to open an Incident report here to secure that request. It's your talk page, so if you say they're out, they're out. El_C 20:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response, but I have said that a number of times and nothing seems to happen, so I'm rather lost on what to do in that respect. He gets a kick out of leaving snarky comments on my page and antagonizing/baiting me in the process, knowing I won't report it. I am not asking for punishment of Bratland (it's not≠ warranted), but just a decision to be made via a more public forum. If you all want to close this that's fine.--Carmaker1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

On the broader "hounding" issue, I'm no admirer of Dennis Bratland, of whom my sole previous experience was this bizarre episode when I dared to close an AfD in a way with which he disagreed, but as far as I can see he's only made six comments on your talk in his entire history, only two of which were this year. Unless there's more going on elsewhere, I really can't see enough there to be construed as any kind of harassment or hounding. ‑ Iridescent 20:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've made the request before to no longer comment on my page, as it would only spell unwelcome strife. He does so regardless. My request to "not comment" mostly originated from a previous AN/I discussion full of contentious statements by him (in addit. to clamoring for my dismissal) and what amounted to trying bait me on my talk page when that didn't succeed. Carmaker1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"[C]reepy spanking porn!" El_C 21:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I assume a reference to File:Suspension-bb-lorelei-9016-jonwoods.jpg, which is one of the random images that cycle at the top of my talkpage. (That photo amuses me owing to the models' striking resemblance to Jimmy Wales and Lila Tretikoff.) ‑ Iridescent 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

LOL! El_C 21:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ain't this tied up in a current Arbcom request case? GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really, this is because of a recent post he made to my talk page in the midst of that, instead of keeping any grievances to that ArbCom. It's just rather convenient for him to also be involved in that ArbCom too (which is fine), but yet disrespecting my request to not comment on my page. Considering the content, it is baiting. If I am an issue in any respect, a simple be respectful/civil wouldn't gather any outrage and would be genuinely constructive. His intent isn't to be that, but bait and dress down on as a personal attack.Carmaker1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, Carmaker1, I expect now they know, so that will settle that. Also, you were supposed to inform Dennis Bratland of this discussion about him. I have done that for you. El_C 21:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Very sorry about that, how forgetful of me. I figured I had forgotten to do that (using smartphone tablet).

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.

Sir Joseph interaction ban violation

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

---

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sir Joseph is currently under a one-way IBAN on me. That follows this thread at ANI. Following a series of edits I made to WP:GS Sir Joseph decided to object to my actions by asking another administrator about the propriety of having the change discussed at AN over GS (diff). While I do not mind criticism or feedback on any of my actions, the IBAN was meant to prevent Sir Joseph from commenting negatively on everything I do simply because he doesn't like me. WP:IBAN prohibits him from mak[ing] reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly, and given Sir Joseph's history on Wikipedia, I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

In my opinion, objecting to an edit I have made by asking someone else about it is a violation of his IBAN as he is still trying to object to something that I have done. I'm not really sure what the best way to deal with this is, but Sir Joseph should know that if there is an issue with one of my actions he shouldn't be the one raising it. There are thousands of other active editors on Wikipedia and if I am acting outside of consensus or inappropriately, they should be the ones to raise it, not him. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree. Circumventing the IBAN via editing by proxy would still count as a violation. But I would also be good with just a strong warning to that effect, rather than sanctions outright. El_C 04:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. I'm not trying to get him sanctioned here. I just don't want someone who is going to find fault with anything I do to find ways to circumvent the intent of the IBAN, and I think it's important that someone else send that message. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to oblige, Tony. El_C 04:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, firstly, I was using the reply-to template so I was going to just reply to. I was going to reply to Vanamode or to you, my issue was that the edits were being done to the article but being discussed at AN and not at the article. Secondly, (and I was thinking of having a thread somewhere about IBANS about this) this is why I object to the IBAN in general especially against an admin, an oversighter, a checkuser and a functionary. It is ludicrous to have an IBAN against an authority figure, just like in the real world where a Congressman/Rep/President can't block a person.

In any event, I didn't mean to violate the IBAN I was just replying to the thread and noting by objection that the change should have been discussed there. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I realize there is a power imbalance, but both of you are first and foremost two editors. Since the IBAN exists, just try your best to adhere to it, armed with the knowledge that any further violations will result in sanctions. Thank you. El_C 04:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, you're basically saying that I am now being left out of any conversation that might be important to Wikipedia. That doesn't seem fair. And parts of this is of course hogwash, but I've been here before so I'll just forget about this and call it a night. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

That is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying has to do with Tony's edits, specifically. El_C 04:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

El C, OK, then clarify how am I supposed to object to modifying the GS page without discussing it at the GS talk page and only discussing it at the AN page? Because that is what I did and yet that was ruled a violation. So how am I supposed to participate in conversations about Wikipedia policy? And if you want, we can take this to my talk page, and close this because I don't need this open more than it needs to be.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, again, you must refarin from addressing Tony's edits (addressed through whichever means). I also note that, unrelated to this incident, you have a habit of skirting your bans. In one instance, I, myself, warned you about such an infraction, but was forced to block when that failed to produce its intended results, anyway. The point is that you have pretty much reached the point where warnings, in general, would no longer be viewed as viable. El_C 05:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Fully aware of the awkwardness that Sir Joseph can't reply to me here I'll add this while still trying to be fair to him: his comment here shows what the problem is. He was looking for a way to object to my edit without being in technical violation of his IBAN, which shows a degree of good faith while missing the bigger picture. If you have to think about ways to make an edit criticizing someone else's actions that aren't a violation of your IBAN with them, then odds are you shouldn't be criticizing it. Yes, he was actively trying to not violate the technical terms of the IBAN, but still be able to do the conduct it prohibited. That's the problem.
  The reason I brought this to ANI was because I knew we'd get a wikilawyer response and that he'd need to be told in no uncertain terms not to interact with me. He is not somehow special. He doesn't get a special exemption from his IBAN because I'm a sysop and functionary who is involved in policy areas. He's allowed to vote in RfCs and the like, even if I have commented. What he cannot do is to object to specific actions of mine. As I said, there are thousands of other editors. If he's the only one who sees the issue, it likely isn't an issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Well, now that's been clarified for Sir Joseph, I suggest El_C implement the warning—unless SJ wants to wikilawyer some more, in which a block will probably be necessary. ——SN54129 08:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129, the warning is in effect. Sir Joseph's participation in this discussion saves me the trip. El_C 08:52, 19 April 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 Flyer22 Frozen

We are not going to sanction someone for following Wikipedia's rules, and the underlying content dispute isn't a matter for ANI. ‑ Iridescent 16:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

---

I briefly was a Wikipedia editor, editing from IP address 143.176.30.65. As my contributions show, I started editing last February, and increased my contributions last week. One of my edits was an edit request at Talk:Sex#Suggestion Hatnote Change. After my edit request was denied by User:Deacon Vorbis, I made another edit suggestion that was replied to by User:Flyer22 Frozen. Her reaction to my posts there were hostile. I then noticed she had reverted another - earlier, before we talked - edit of mine, at redirection page Having sex, with an edit summary that once again displayed her hostile stance. I decided that being a Wikipedia editor is not for me, given Wikipedia's apparent unpleasant, toxic environment. In a contribution on her Talk page, I notified her of my decision to stop editing Wikipedia because of her behavior. I now see she has undone my edit. This really adds insult to injury. And her undoing of my edit may even go against WP:TPO given that none of the exceptions apply to the basic rule to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. She's now hiding my - a (former) newcomer editor - negative opinion of her. She claims in her edit summary that I did not quit editing because of her, but I most certainly did. In an "additional comment" edit summary she claims I "give [myself] away" because I would know more about her than I could if I didn't already know her from past conflicts. She's wrong. Her unpleasant attitude made me start reading her old and current User and Talk page edits, and it became clear quite quickly that she's had more than a handful of conflicts with other editors on Wikipedia. I had never heard of User:Flyer22 Frozen before I started editing. She first contacted me on Talk:Sex. You can run a sockpuppet investigation (or whatever else) on my IP address 143.176.30.65 if you want. I want the record to show that I did not give this editor permission to undo my edit on her Talk page. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

She does not need permission to remove comments from her talk page. Refer WP:OWNTALK: Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This complaint is spurious. The IP left a bitter, hostile message on Flyer22 Frozen's talk page, which she quite properly removed. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify that in certain circumstances, You can run a sockpuppet investigation (or whatever else) on my IP address = "I am sock"; this is one of those circumstances. ——SN54129 16:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Disruptive renaming of several pages

Hayq11 (talk · contribs) shows a highly disruptive behavior by renaming several pages of medieval Armenian authors, including Mesrop Mashtots and many others from their widely-accepted English names (e.g. Mesrop Mashtots) to ones with diacritics (e.g. Mesrop Maštocʻ) used in academic literature without any discussion whatsoever. Please revert his arbitrary moving of pages. ----Երևանցի ^talk 09:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Death threat by IP

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

---

Could an admin take a look at this please? I've reverted it but I believe further action is needed. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for one week and revdeleted. El_C 08:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged. Jusdafax (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Jusdafax, next time, contact WP:EMERGENCY, as they have the means to see where the IP is located, and to contact police if necessary. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 09:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Been a while. Jusdafax (talk) 13:15, 19 April 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.

ForzaItalia2020

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:ForzaItalia2020 is a very, very obvious sock of Sprayitchyo, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sprayitchyo. They are being a pest on my talk page, and I would appreciate some help. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. Sro23 (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 18 April 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 with no contributions to mainspace

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.

---

• Florin747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Florin747 joined Wikipedia in 2017 after apparently some time as an IP editor. Since then, he has edited his user page, user talk, sandbox, and reference desks. He is apparently a university student and posts a lot of "ideas" or "homework questions" and doesn't seem to constructively answer others' questions on said reference desks. He has never made an edit to mainspace, or really anything outside the spaces mentioned. His English literacy (as a Romanian) is idiosyncratic. I believe he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well no-one else had edited his talk page prior to your notifying him of this discussion. Maybe there should be an attempt at dialogue there first.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Eh. There's a consensus that the refdesk should be part of our encyclopedia project (or, rather, a lack of consensus against), and we have some people that engage there and virtually nowhere else (on the question side and the answer side). As long as we're going to keep it around, that's going to happen, and it doesn't seem any more problematic than any other narrow-focused editor whose activities have little to do with the actual writing of articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

If someone uses Wikipedia a lot and registers an account in order to use the refdesk, I'm not sure I see a problem with that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It's one thing if he's fielding questions and answering them, but it's a bit hinky when they all seem to be homework assignments he's posting for others to work out. Elizium23 (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

So what? It's okay if we have anonymous users copy-paste off the website for homework (who doesn't :) but registering an account to ask questions is THË BÌG BÃD? --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTARY is in point. Also, if they're taking now, someday they might give back. What's the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no requirement to answer questions at the refdesk in order to be allowed to ask questions. If people don't want to help with the homework questions, nobody is forcing them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would the refdesk exist if you had to answer questions to ask questions Tsla1337 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

While WP:NOTHERE is kind of a broad concept, in general it is only used against editors whose conduct is actually detrimental to Wikipedia in some way -- editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia but instead focused on some other malicious, destructive, or unethical conduct. Asking questions at the Refdesk doesn't seem to fall into the category for me, but I welcome any correction on that front. Michepman (talk) 02:42, 19 April 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.

Suneye1

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.

---

• Suneye1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suneye1 appears to be having clear competence issues, given he was already blocked for sockpuppetry and has now made a comeback by engaging in violations of numerous policies for the sake of his advocacy, by creating POVFORKs. He has been already warned for this disruption a number of times,[99][100] but he is not learning.

Created 2008 Kandhamal violence and 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal, in violation of WP:POVFORK, by copypasting from Religious violence in Odisha and making sure not to provide credit to the main article[101] in violation of WP:COPYWITHIN.

Has doubled the length of Violence against Christians in India since March 2021, by adding more and more trivial and non-notable incidents to the article.[102]

He believes that reverting such disruptive edits constitutes "vandalism",[103][104] contrary to WP:VANDNOT.

I am not sure if this user deserves anything but a WP:CIR block at this stage for this disruption and use of Wikipedia for WP:ADVOCACY. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that Suneye1 is aware of this thread and is resorting to WP:CANVASSING for garnering support.[105] Srijanx22 (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

First the user is making personal attacks against me WP:NPA by using the sock-puppetry case which was months back when i was very new to Wikipedia and a personal attack by another user.

1. The 2008 Kandhamal violence is a WP:SIZESPLIT from Religious violence in Odisha because it exceeded 50kb, see [106] and i did a bold move as per WP:PROSPLIT and gave attributions to both pages, see [107], [108]. The article 2008 Kandhamal violence was not "created" and it already was a redirect to the section.
2. The 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal has nothing to do with POVFORK as i created that article from the start just days before (on 14 April 2020) from scratch, see[109] and mentioned about it in a paragraph in the article Religious violence in Odisha#2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal
3. The user just reverted a lot of content in the article in Violence against Christians in India without any discussion. SUN EYE 1 13:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not an WP:NPA to highlight your recent history of sockpuppetry, especially when it concerned the same articles which you are currently disrupting. But falsely accusing others of WP:NPA is itself violation of WP:NPA.

You are not allowed to create WP:POVFORKs. WP:SIZESPLIT does not apply on those articles which are relatively below 75k bytes and largely depend on the subjects which you are forking out.

"The 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal has nothing to do with POVFORK" is misleading and contrary to the evidence since the main Religious violence in Odisha mentioned "In December 2007, Christians had installed a Christmas arch across the road in the town of Brahmanigaon, Kandhamal district", and other editor who observed that you copied content from that article for creating this POVFORK.

If all you are doing is adding non-notable and trivial incidents then the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove why your problematic content should be retained.

Fact that you see no problem with your disruptive editing and you are either trying to evade concerns or misrepresenting the evidence is terrifying. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The WP:SIZESPLIT says "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" in the 50kb section. The article was more than 50kb when i did the split and it is more than 60kb before you reverted it. You can perform a bold move as per WP:PROSPLIT.

There is a difference between the 2 sections, this is the section that i created after creating the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal on 14th April 2020 while this is the section you are now mentioning. I accidentally created the second section without seeing the first. The warning is for copyright violationWP:COPYVIO from the "2008 khandamal Violence" section before i split the section into two, see [110] (17 April) and the time i got the report [111] (16 April). Both the sections are still there right now so that is not a WP:SPLIT as what you mentioned before. That was the one of the incident during the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal and i have cited the sources for it. SUN EYE 1 14:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You are still yet to tell why you are creating these articles. WP:POVFORK cannot be justified by WP:SIZESPLIT when the original article loses most of its content to your POVforking and you are not even willing to get consensus priorhand.

You have frequently denied the "2007" article being related to main Religious violence in Odisha when other editor also observed that you copied from the main article. This strikes me as clear deception from you and your lack of AGF leaves no room to think that you are here for any constructive editing. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Reason why Suneye1 has been creating POVFORKs is because he wants to expand Template:Violence against Christians in India (which he created 2 days ago). I had warned him of these problems 5 months ago, but I don't see any improvement so far. Suneye1 does not understand what constitutes vandalism as observed months ago as well. I would support at least a topic ban from Christianity-related subjects mostly because this editor has developed a recurring pattern of problematic editing. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Srijanx22:When i created the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal, i did not see the "December 2007" section in the article and that's why i created the "2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal" section. And how can you say that the article was copy pasted from the Religious violence in Odisha. If you have problems with the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal, you are free to start a deletion discussion there citing POVFORK or COPYVIO. You just redirected the entire article of more than 64kb 2008 Kandhamal violence with out having a proper discussion with me or in the talk page. You did the same thing for Violence against Christians in India without any discussion and you are teaching me about AGF. - SUN EYE 1 15:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: How do you know that i want to expand the Template:Violence against Christians in India created on 17th April with the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal created on (14 april) and the 2008 Kandhamal violence splitted on 13 April. I was just creating articles of notable incidents and you are free to take it to a deletion discussion citing your reasons. Your warning is when i was a newbie and for a completely different article and how is that related to the "POVFORK" incident here? SUN EYE 1 15:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You are clearly deceiving here because you got the idea of creating 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal after you saw Religious violence in Odisha#December 2007 and other editor also observed that you copied content from that article. There is nothing wrong with redirecting POVFORKs, given you never had a consensus to create them in first place. Per WP:BRD, onus is on you to prove that why your POVFORK is needed but all you can do is allege others of vandalism. I stand by my initial observation that you have apparent WP:CIR issues, especially when you don't want to hear anything that goes against your POV. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you see what i wrote before i said that, i did not see the Religious violence in Odisha#December 2007 before creating the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal article. I have already said that the content i copied was from the "2008 Khandamal Violence section" before splitting it. There is a difference between the 2 sections, this is the section that i created after creating the 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal on 14th April 2020. I accidentally created the second section without seeing the first. The warning is for copyright violationWP:COPYVIO from the "2008 khandamal Violence" section before i split the section into two, see [112] (17 April) and the time i got the report [113] (16 April). Please prove that i copied the content from the exactly the section to create the article. Again if you have problem with the articles you can take it to a deletion discussion. I can start a split request for the 2008 Kandhamal violence in the Religious violence in Odisha article and get consensus. SUN EYE 1 15:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Expanding articles, expanding templates, creating new articles etc. are the normal activities of Wikipedia. The filer is barking up the wrong tree here. If he thinks there is a problem with these articles, it is a content dispute and should be taken up on the respective talk pages, AfD's etc., not here. What does belong here are his repeated personal attacks citing Suneye1's block history. Suneye1 has served his block, and that is history. Unless he repeats the same conduct that led to his block, referring to it constitutes a personal attack. Frankly, this whole complaint smacks of a lynching job. It should be dismissed with no action, or perhaps with a warning to the filer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm seeing a lot of smoke and very little fire here. Suneye may need to be more careful with respect to copying content, and their use of edit-summaries; but there's no sanctionable content that I can see, and the OP's activity may require further scrutiny. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:15, 20 April 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.

CLARITY

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 need clarity on this issue: Do I need to any special requirement to publish an article directly into mainspace (as an autoconfirmed user)?

- My first article - American Scientist Dennis Burton was published through the AfC channle and it was approved.

- My second Article - Indian Actor Bishnu Adhikari was written using Article Wizard, after publishing, I discovered that I could not find the article in a google search. Like when I search google for "Bishnu Adhikari Wikipedia", there were no results.

I am new here, but I love Wikipedia, and writing is my passion. Help me! TheEpistle (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi TheEpistle, Bishnu Adhikari was only created today, it will take time for it to show up on google searches, just give them time. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC) (non admin)

TheEpistle, I'm going to be blunt here - when editors ask about their page being indexed by search engines, it usually is because they're being paid to create the article or are otherwise connected to the article subject. Is that the case here? creffett (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello (talk), thank you all for your contributions, but I honestly feel I'm being kicked out of Wikipedia here, but it's fine. I would explain myself all again. I had always been enthusiastic about being a Wikipedia Editor. Recently, after joining, I decided to try out my first page with the Dennis Burton, which I saw on the Requested Articles list! I had no relation to the person whatsoever. After the article was approved from AfC, I was told I could now publish directly into mainspace, and within three hours I enthusiastically google searched my new write up. To my delight, knowing that practice makes perfect, I sought further,I discovered a page titled 2019 Hartford mayoral election, where i found Aaron D. Lewis as one of the candidate, I felt he was't profiled because he was black or because he defected from Democrats, so I decided to try writing, simple! Lastly, I watched an Indian Tollywood film, and I really liked the Lead character Bishnu Adhikari, I began to google search him and saw he had no Wiki page, this motivated me to create one for him since he met the requirement of being a notable person. After creating the page, I wondered why he didn't come up in the google search as fast as Dennis Burton which made me inquire. I hope my explanations are fairly understood. By the way, I called out for Editors to comment on my TALKPAGE with constructive criticism since I'm still getting around, but all these is really bugging my mid seeing deletions and negative comments, but it's all good. Thanks for asking anyway. Hopefully, I'd become expert like you someday. Once again, many thanks. TheEpistle (talk) 22:02, 19 April 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:Chris.sherlock

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:Chris.sherlock is currently going around removing the date of birth from Australian females. They are citing WP:DOB as reason, but this editor is removing regardless of sources. We are guided not to censor Wikipedia. This is focused on Australian women and there appears to be an agenda. A full discussion has not taken place on this issue. This was brought to my attention because a widely known singer Kylie Minogue had her date of birth removed. This information is available at the drop of a simple google search, so I fail to see the benefit of removing the information. [114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137]. etc I could carry on.. basically this type of mass editing without consensus is deeply concerning. The user will also then proceed to add a category to the articles, which misleads those patrolling the articles that the editor simply added a category to.Rain the 1 22:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

– Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Unsure who that is directed at... - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have checked 10 of the links supplied at random. Not one of them has a reliable source for the date of birth. Per Verifiability and BLP these deletion are totally appropriate and even required, and actually should have gone further to remove the year since that is not sourced either. Slp1 (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Slp1, which other ones did you check? Kylie Minogue's DOB was referenced in the body to Hello Magazine]. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t check Kylie. I imagine there is a reliable source for her. I checked [[138] [139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148]Slp1 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have worked at Toni Collette and I was surprised when the named user deleted her full date of birth but left the year. I queried the removals at its talkpage. The user only addressed one of the sources for her d.o.b. and claimed it was unreliable. I disputed that claim and asked for more details. I provided other refs (three were already in the article) for her d.o.b. and asked whether they were reliable enough. The user has not replied and so I returned the full d.o.b. pending a directive from this ANI (or from WP:BLP). I think, in this case, the user was in error.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I also provided 6 additional sources for Kylie Minogue. Ada Nicodemou was also sourced too. God knows who else. These people live their lives in the public eye, their DOB is out there. Just stop the mass removal of content. Their reason for removal is BLP privacy concerns over the subject's DOB. The user has been at it for a while too, sounds like a can of worms.Rain the 1 00:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Another example - Delta Goodrem's DOB was removed here [149] and then they did the category addition to hide the fact. An editing pattern seen over a 1000+ edits! This editor is playing games, I cannot assume good faith now. Goodrem's DOB is documented online [150][151][152][153].Rain the 1 01:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith a bit more. In fact I was indeed adding the categories to our Australian female articles, I noticed these violated WP:DOB. If I had wanted to hide from scrutiny I would have done the edits in one go, as it was I made seperate edits and noted what I was doing. I was never trying to avoid scrutiny.

I’m also not sure I consider Hello Magazine a reliable source, but regardless I’m not sure why you want to violate the privacy of the article subjects. Given it’s a BLP violation to do so, I’m well within my rights to make the changes. When people have reverted me I reverted back and added a note on the talk page. I think you need to calm down and read up on our policies around Biographies of Living People. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. Thank you for explaining and I can see that you were doing what you thought was best. I understand now and perhaps should have discussed that with you rather than presuming the worst. I just think we should be working to verify rather than mass removal. I get that it is not your sole responsibility to verify, and can just remove the information, but my concern was the scale it was happening. I probably would not have complained had your edit summaries pointed out the majority are not sourced. Like Slp1 has now demonstrated, many are not sourced which is another issue. You have stated you do not like DOBs because they invade the subject's privacy. If you removed them because they were unsourced then that is okay.Rain the 1 11:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This is an excellent example, thanks for bringing it up. There is no reliable source supporting Delta Goodrem's date of birth in the lede, but maybe there is one in the text? Unfortunately, no. The reference supposedly supporting her date of birth in the text [154] does not mention her birthdate at all. Per BLP all unsourced information such as this must be deleted. Please see WP:BLPREMOVE. If you wish to restore it, that is fine. But it is the restoring editors job to verify these facts by finding reliable sources for the information. Being able to find some "online" is not enough. For example, the first reference [155] seems like a reliable source, but it attributes the facts to "New Idea", whatever that is. The second is Who.com.au. [156] Is that a reliable source, with a reputation for fact cheching? The third, the Dalby Herald,[157] is a repetition of the first reference. The fourth does not mention Ms. Goodrem at all.[158]. It is important that you understand WP's rules about BLPs and Verifiability before accusing others of inappropriate editing in such a strong fashion. Slp1 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

New Idea is a tabloid gossip magazine. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I mistakenly pasted in the incorrect article from The Sydney Morning Herald. I presume I was carelessly copy and pasting the URLs and clicked a suggested article and did not notice. I understand that it may have not been present but it is true.Rain the 1 08:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I’m being cautious and removing potential BLP violations per WP:DOB. My question for those reading the DOB on living people are - why are they doing this, what does it add to the article and why are they potentially deliberately breaching the privacy of the article subject? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DOB applies to those who are borderline notable, or those who have made a complaint to Wikipedia about their full date of birth being shown. Either of those apply to Kylie Minogue? P-K3 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Where have they shown they are fine with their DOB being made public? But regardless, why is this not being discussed on the talk page? And what reliable source is being used? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere in the policy does it say we need a public figure’s permission to publish their date of birth. WP:DOB was intended for those who while notable enough for a Wikipedia article may not be widely known and who may not wish such information to be published. It was not intended for internationally famous pop stars whose dates of birth are already widely known. P-K3 (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, WP:DOB comes pretty close to saying that. Better read it again. EEng 02:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DOB states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". The point here is verifiability using (multiple) reliable sources... and these were singularly absent in all of the deletions that I checked above.Slp1 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Slp1 is correct that policy requires excellent sourcing for date of birth information. They listed 10 articles they checked. Here's my check of those articles.

Examination of 10 links by Slp1

Therese Ryder sourced to [159]. Not a reliable enough source in my opinion. Birth should either be removed or limited to year. Leeanna Walsman cited to a podcast that is no longer listenable at that source. Unreliable. Vivienne Binns sourcing not present Leah Purcell potentially sourced to The Age. I don't have access to the article. Rebecca Rigg no sourcing present Fiona Spence no sourcing present Catherine Sutherland no sourcing present Libby Tanner no sourcing present Tasma Walton sourced to [160]. It sources to a different place which I don't see any greater signs of reliability for.

Overall those removals seem good though the ease with which I found a source present in the article for Kylie does make me question how much care was taken before removing the information. But upholding BLP is important and it seems, on the whole, that is what was being done here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I expect no less in thoroughness from Slp1; glad she is back on the job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Same here. The Leah Purcel article gives her age, not birthday. Regardless, I don’t see why we would need to include this in the article. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's an edit at Davida Allen that blatantly disregarded a good source. Further, WP:DOB provides a scope for its application, it does not mandate the removal of DoBs in general. As others have noted, Chris.sherlock has also been inconsistent by leaving the YoB and its category unchanged. I don't know what to make of their focus on Australian females. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Any inconsistency is probably an error. It’s very simple why I went through “Australian females”, I have been going through our category list. Why do you feel Davida Allen’s DOB needs to be recorded? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Where did I leave the category unchanged? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. that’s very interesting the Australian Federal Government breaks it’s own privacy principles! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S. It’s also not inconsistent to leave the year of birth. That’s the policy. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As Iridescent pointed out at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kylie_Minogue, Kylie's date of birth is in multiple reliable sources: (Billboard, BBC News, Newsweek, Metro, the joint exhibition run by the Manchester Art Gallery and the Melbourne Arts Centre, The Telegraph, and of course Kylie Minogue herself, and that's just from the first page of Google results on Kylie Minogue birthday). While I'm not an expert on Australian privacy law, the toothpaste is well and truly out of the tube on Kylie's date of birth and no great harm is being done by giving it on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, none of those were the sources used. A tabloid magazine was what was chosen. When it comes to BLP, if a reliable source is not given - and I honestly feel uncomfortable with even giving the exact DOB of any living person on Wikipedia but will bow to consensus if the person is famous enough - then it’s pretty clear the information must be removed till one is given. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a third option: see if a reliable source can be found to verify and source the information. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

: Barkeep49, I don't think we should erect barriers to removal of badly sourced information from a WP:BLP. If other editors want to include the date and can find a reliable source there's nothing stopping them, but anyone who sees tabloid-sourced content in any BLP should feel entirely free to remove it. Guy (help!) 17:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Guy, overall I agree with you which is why after looking through a whole bunch of work by Slp1 I confirmed that Chris was acting with-in policy. However there are exceptions - if someone is famous enough, at say a Kylie Minogue level of fame or greater, I think the level of effort to find a RS is minimal. So my comment was less a critique of Chris, who I think we acting with-in policy here - I understand why some found the mass removal disruptive but I think was backed by policy - and more a comment that in general there are three options not two. That third option does not preclude the removal of the sources in this instance at least but is an option. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep, one problem with that logic is that it assumes the same level of knowledge among all of us regarding "someone is famous enough, at say a Kylie Minogue level of fame or greater". I will have to go hide under a rock after admitting this, but I don't even know how to turn on my TV, don't listen to the radio, get all my news from the internet, and ... here it comes ... had never heard of Kylie Minogue before this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, wow! That's actually quite impressive. I know who Minogue is, of course, but there are plenty of celebrities who do not publish birth dates and yet such dates are routinely speculated by tabloids. Regardless, it's solidly on those who want to include a date, to back it with a reliable source, and I remain of the view that there should be no bar to removing badly sourced material from a BLP, even if the first Google hit would fix the problem. BLP doesn't contain an exception for material that someone thinks you ought to be able to source easily. Guy (help!) 17:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree that it's very impressive. I pride myself on being a dinosaur when it comes to recent (as in quite a few decades) popular culture, but even I had heard of Kylie Minogue. If it's so easy to source birth dates of such famous people then the response to having them removed is simply to add them back with reliable sources, not to run to a noticeboard. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I once incurred the wrath of all three of my brothers by asking, "Who has ever heard of Taylor Swift, anyway?" :) And that was fairly recent! I do have a friend with several Oscars etcetera, so about once a year, I have to have a teenager come over and make my TV work so I can see his latest award. Anyway, I agree with JzG; I can see myself in the position Chris.sherlock is in, and think we should be able to swiftly remove, leaving the ONUS on those who want to add. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Ummmm ... by the way, Taylor Swift's birthday is sourced to biography.com (not sufficiently reliable for a BLP), in what could be copyvio or could be a mirror. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, fixed. BTW, re: same level of knowledge among all of us regarding "someone is famous enough, at say a Kylie Minogue level of fame or greater", I think you're right but I don't think assuming the same level of knowledge among all of us is a problem, because that level of knowledge is: "competence". Editors shouldn't patrol BLPs in areas where they are not competent (I'm not suggesting anyone did that here). That's why I'm not patrolling BLPs of Australian pop stars; I don't know much about Australia or pop stars. But I assume everybody who's editing is doing so within their area of competence (not necessarily expertise, but competence). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It would have been more helpful if you did not remove a whole bunch of potentially reliable sources and readded an unreliable source as you did here. Perhaps spending more time on better sourcing than use of cute templates on ANI might have resolved this issue quicker. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: I didn't add any source in that diff, unreliable or otherwise. Perhaps spending more time... nah I'm not gonna be childish :-) That was an unnecessary overcite in the lead that I removed. I stand by that edit. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

My conclusion is that Slp1 did a great job of showing that most were unsourced. I should have discussed it with Chris.sherlock more first, instead of starting this discussion.Rain the 1 18:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And we all lived happily ever after, with a good portion of credit going to the helpful intervention from one of my favorite admins, and an ANI discussion that stayed mostly civil! See, COVID can turn us all into nicer people :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 20 April 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.

2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6

This ip address has repeatedly restoring same comments on my user's talk which violates WP:3RR and WP:HARASS, please see [161], [162],[163]. I have also left the three warnings on ip address' Talk page to stop harassing me in which ip address still continues to harass me ignoring the warnings. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I was just responding to the users continuing responses in regards to their removal of article content. 2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6 (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Also this user has consistently been harassing me about my edits since the beginning of the year and obviously has an axe to grind against IP users. 2001:470:1F2D:C:0:0:0:6 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP user for 48 hours. But, to be clear, they can remove warnings from their talk page. Quit edit warring to restore them.--v/r - TP 01:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@TParis: The IP addresses' Block log says 24 hours and User talk says 48 hours. For the record, I did not restore any of the warnings on the IP address' Talk page. Each warning on the IP address' Talk page was a different level warning as the IP address continued to harass me even after each of the warning. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I see, okay.--v/r - TP 02:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hell on earth with u/HistoryOfIran

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 being reported: HistoryofIran For a long time I've decided to resolve everything peacefully, but seems like this user won't just come in terms with me (and other editors of Wikipedia) It is absolutely impossible to try to improve Armenian, Azeri and Georgian articles. No matter how many **credible** sources you list, both pre-modern, modern and highly respectable, this user would just revise your edits, state 1-2 sources which go against the consensus in the academic field (or which are not about the stated fact, but only mention it), and threaten (!!!) to report you if you dare to challenge his view. You can see this attitude in every single article that his vision was challenged in. I repeat, it is absolutely demoralizing and many Caucasian wikipedia editors I've had a contact with can't just continue their work in peace because of this user.

And you know what's also ridiculous? After he revises your one edit, he would literally STALK your article, revising EVERY edit you do, even if he doesn't know a single thing about what article talks about. See Special:Contributions/24.203.109.74. As you can see, the user found and linnked documents about Hamazkayin, from their own website. Yet for some reason this user revised it and claims it is not RS. This is a user who's somewhat respected in Iranian Wikipedia.

The golden bull of this user's agenda is the page for the Kingdom of Commagene. Open the page in any other language. Take a look at numerous sources. They all clearly state that the kingdom was of Armenian origin. Now, open the english page and take a look at the edit history.

*19:59, 2 April 2020‎ Lori-m. Need source and citation. You deleted sources who said another opinion
*21:23, 24 March 2020‎ Aram-van. Specifying that Persian was spoken by the ruling dynasty; nothing in the source talk about the language of the whole kingdom, only mentions that Commagene is a neo-Persian kingdom, in a same vein as other sources mention Commagene as an Armenian kingdom

His response?

*21:19, 2 April 2020‎ HistoryofIran. Dishonest edit summary, stop this or you will get reported, ty 

The biggest contributing factor, however, was with the page Hetanism. This is what pushed me over the edge. I have spent almost a month, checking many different sources, reading and reading different positions and coming to a consensus, writing a 60k byte long article just for this user to click one button and write "Sources don't say that. The religion is modern". I'm sorry, but if this is what Wikipedia is about, then I don't want to be a part of Wikipedia. His supposed source is an article by James R. Russel, a scholar who is HIGHLY controversial in the armenologist community [164][165].

Please, take a moment to find ANY source except him and 2 other "armenologists" which state that Hetanism, the Armenian native faith, was, in fact, just Zoroastrianism. Hint - you won't find any. The research behind the armenian native faith is 1500 (!!!) years long, starting from Agatangelos in 5th century AD.

I do not know how anyone can endure this. This is absolutely outrageous and has NO place in Wikipedia.

For some other documentation

See Also: Users HistoryofIran and LouisAragon discussing on their talk pages how to vandalize Armenian and Georgian pages:

• [166]

See Also:Page: Tigranes the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
HistoryofIran is claiming that Zoroastrianism is the religion of Tigranes the Great, but his references mention religion of Tiridates I only, no mention of supposedly religion of Tigranes the Great whatsoever, as you can see user Biainili stated several times that sources were for another person therefore cannot be used as reference for supposedly religion of Tigranes the Great, after removing the sources with a legitimate explanation:

• [167]

Kansas Bear immediately reverted his edits, and posted several warnings on his Talk page, then HistoryofIran after ignoring the fact that sources were wrong each time, somehow decided to remove them yesterday:

• [168]

I ask you to do something. I do not know what to do. Սամուէլ (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I too, have been harassed by HistoryofIran almost ever since I've started editing Wikipedia. He deletes names of coutnries/names in languages like Azerbaijani or Turkish from articles that are directly related to the history of Azerbaijan or Turkic people.[169]. He almost always threatens me with reporting me, and lately even insulting me (Talk:Azadistan) every time I try to start a conversation with him. On the talk page of Azadistan, when I asked him politely why he thought Azerbaijani name of the country was irrelevant, he replied:

• Do you not have anything better to do than try to push the Azeri/Turkish spelling into every article?

After me trying to understand him by asking few questions, he refrained from talking and said that he won't reply anymore. That was, until I told him I invited a third opinion, then he started talking again, which in itself ended in him insulting me by saying:

• if you can't understand a few simple lines, then perhaps you should begin to question if it's the right choice to edit in the English Wikipedia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Dearly, CuriousGolden (talk)

Well the first thing you should do is read WP:Vandalism and re-write your comment. I read the comment you linked to, and no one is suggesting vandalising any articles. I have no idea if the sources that the editors are proposing to use are good or not, but they are clearly not discussing vandalising anything, and that you claim they are badly discredit's your complain. Also WP:primary sources needs to be treated with care. Especially what an organisation writes about itself. Reliable secondary sources are a far better choice. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps yes, Vandalism is a bit loud, but I do not know what else to call it - suggesting to edit and remove every mention of religions which have many sources and thousand years of research behind them, just because you read a book by a controversial scholar Սամուէլ (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There is most definitely not thousands of years of research behind anything. Did you meant person-years? Edit: I see you said "thousand years of research". Even if you just meant "one thousand years" it's still a weird claim to make since the quality of "research" one thousand years ago, was often questionable at best. It's far more significant what modern scholars have found, based on analysing the historical record, including any surviving publishing from such research. In any case, I don't see any suggestion of "removing every mention of religions", they seem to be discussing updating the information in the articles to more accurately represent what is support by the sources. I have no idea if their claims of what is supported by the sources are correct, but that's ultimately what it comes down to. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I also just noticed you did not notify anyone you talked about in your thread, not even HistoryofIran or LouisAragon. I have notified them and Kansas Bear and 24.203.109.74 for you. In the future, please make your notify editors if you are going to bring them to one of the administrator noticeboards, as the big warnings tell you to. I also noticed that the 24 IP has been twice blocked. I don't know the details, but neither of these blocks were performed by HistoryofIran or LouisAragon so I guess others found problems with their editing. Nil Einne (talk)

• I'm obviously not an expert here, but I'd like to hear HistoryofIran's explanation for edits like [170] (two reverts) where they removed the Azerbaijani name of the country, in an article about a country that was located in the Azerbaijani Provinces of Iran and has Azerbaijani in its list of languages. Black Kite (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Asperisons, that's all this section is. At least try to be somewhat honest, jeez. First off, Սամուէլ; James Russell [171] is highly reputable scholar, whose work is used in various academic sources. Two lowbie historians disagreeing with him is not gonna change that. You even used Russell as a citation in Hetanism, where the source doesn't make a single mention of Hetanism in his work you listed (which you even didn't list a page on, Ctrl + F is my friend [172]). The same goes for Romery [173] and so on. Սամուէլ is trying to make a rather strange attempt to falsely make Hetanism (a modern neo-pagan) religion appear as the ancient religion of the Armenians, that's like claiming Heathenry as the religion of the Vikings. So much for your credible sources. Now for CuriousGolden; you might want to learn what harrassment means. You've attempted in a revionistic and/or anachronistic style to push Azeri/Turkish names into places where they have no place, hence why you have been warned on your talk pages several times in your short time in Wiki (which you have removed). One good example is the Seljuq Empire, where you tried to add Modern Turkish with the Latin, none of which they used. I already explained you that. Regarding Azadistan, the Azeri language has no relevance (especially not with the Latin alphabet, which has never been used in Iran) as the country was (according to the information) a continuation of the Iranian state. TLDR: These two users tried to pov-push, got stopped by me, now they are crying wolf. Everyone is more than welcome to look at the citations I've posted in whatever article, I can safely say I'm not falsely attributing them, unlike some others. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have not been warned even once for specifically adding azerbaijani/turkish name into any article. I have been warned because of an edit war with you once and once for meat puppetting. I still find it funny that you try to prove anything by repeatedly talking about my "short time on wikipedia". It doesn't make my arguments any less valid because I have been on Wiki less time than you. I also still like how you claim Azadistan was an Iranian country without providing any proof other than the article saying Khiabani was an Iranian patriot (Iranian was his nationality, he was an Iranian Azerbaijani). Your nationalistic views and POV pushing to glorify Persian involvement in historical states has been nothing, but an annoyance to everyone. Also, maybe you should learn the meaning of "harassment" instead of me, since you don't seem to realise that following someone to every article and reverting their changes without providing source for your claims is harassment.

Dearly, CuriousGolden (talk)

I'm mentioning your short time on Wikipedia to put an emphasis on how much disruption you've caused in such short time. Rest of your childish accusations I'm not even going to answer. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran is one of the most prolific editors we have in subjects concerning Iran and Middle Eastern history. He has been contributing vigorously to these subjects for years. On the other hand, we have an editor with barely 84 edits saying that HistoryofIran's work has been "nothing, but an annoyance to everyone.". WP:BOOMERANG may be in order here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

By "everyone", I meant people involved in this report and all the people he has reverted edits of unfairly. I, again see that me having less edits is somehow supposed to make my claims invalid according to your message. You have to understand that someone doesn't automatically become more valid or true in an argument when they have more edits than the other person

Dearly, CuriousGolden (talk)

The desperation to attempt to cause me trouble is real. You're yet to show proof that I'm the big bad villain you're painting me to be. I'm pretty sure casting aspersions and random insults is a blockable offensive. So is falsely attributing sources (Սամուէլ). I think it's best to stay back for now and let KansasBear and LouisAragon come with their piece, as they're much better than me at this little game. This is indeed WP:BOOMERANG, a very big one that is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No one is trying to paint you as a big bad villain. Someone reported you, I saw it and decided to add my own unfavorable experiences with you. The reporter and I, have presented our case and have listed all the sources in our messages. And thanks for reminding me that using insults are blockable, maybe I'll report the insults you used against me [174] and multiple other users [175] on multiple talk pages.

Dearly, CuriousGolden (talk)

CuriousGolden, debating over content with a fellow editor for what looks to be a very short time span and then reporting them at ANI with claims that you've been "harassed" and "insulted" (just because their edits don't agree with yours) does come across as WP:ASPERSIONS (and is WP:BOOMERANG-worthy). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not the one who reported him, I'm just stating my own unfavorable experiences with the user. You clearly don't know why I say I feel harassed and insulted, so please don't claim like you do. Read the actual sources I have provided for my claims. Also, here's some more proof of your fellow user vandalizing Wikipedia pages [176].

Dearly, CuriousGolden (talk)

I have looked at the edits and what you've presented here but don't see any evidence that points to HistoryofIran ever insulting or harassing you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"if you can't understand a few simple lines, then perhaps you should begin to question if it's the right choice to edit in the English Wikipedia." this in itself is already an insult and he's harassing me by following me to every article (that is even slightly related to iran) and reverting my changes without providing source for his claims.

Dearly, CuriousGolden (talk)

An experienced editor suggesting a new editor to question their edits is neither an insult or harassment. HistoryofIran may have seen issues with your editing in other articles within his scope of interest and decided to get involved there too; that's no reason to come to ANI and say you've been "insulted" and "harassed". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's not pretend like he said that sentence because he was politely suggesting me to check out other languages I could edit in (I already edit in other languages). He said it because I didn't agree to his POV, which he tried to push, with a clear intention, which I consdider an insult. And I've already explained why I felt harassed in my previous comment. You'r really hanging onto me saying I was insulted or harassed few times and completely ignoring all the other points I've made.

Dearly, CuriousGolden (talk)

CuriousGolden, a content dispute is one thing, but coming to ANI and accusing another editor of "harassment" and "insults" without clear evidence (aside from your own feelings) is WP:ASPERSIONS (and like I said in a previous post, WP:BOOMERANG-worthy). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Saying this for the second time now, I am not the original reporter, I came and added to original report with my own unpleasant experiences with the reported user, me saying I felt insulted and harassed, was a nuisance in my addition to the report, hanging onto it won't get you anywhere.

Dearly, CuriousGolden (talk)

You've repeated yourself several times now each and don't appear to be contributing anything of further value. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That's because I'm not repeating myself to add something of value, but rather because the other party is asking things that I've already answered

Dearly, CuriousGolden (talk)

Can someone do something about the discussion heading - a heading of "hell on earth" isn't helpful and is bordering on an attack itself.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but it seems that others don't. It's a very long thread that needs reading in full to see that there are administrators who don't agree with changing the title of a discussion to be neutral. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• This thread boils down to a content dispute, if we ignore the spurious claims of vandalism and the many personal attacks by the originator and supporter. If someone reverts an edit then the next stage is to discuss it on the article's talk page, with reference to whether it is supported by independent reliable sources, and whether we are representing the weight of such reliable sources properly. I know nothing about pre-Christian religion in Armenia, but can see that this issue is not being approached in the proper collegial way. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 20 April 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.

Alan Flaherty

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.

---

Born 27th of May 1988 From Kilbannon Tuam Co. Galway. Plays football with Kilconly Gaa club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.146.229 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

And you want an admin to stop him? Or what? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 20 April 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.

Biainili

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'm reporting User:Biainili for ad hominem behaviour, constant baseless accusations, vandalism, pov-pushing, showing signs of being anti-Iranian, and whatever there is else to add.

Not in chronological order:

"Again, you are the one who cherry picks the sources, not me. Go ahead and report me, I will not let you vandalize Armenian(also Georgian) pages with your Iranian bias."

"No, I won't let you get away with vandalism of Armenian related pages this time, the source, Romeny 2010, is the same source you keep using on every page, and it clearly states that he was an Armenian satrap, no mention of "Persian" or whatsoever, you will be reported immediately if you revert this referenced information again."

Removing Encyclopaedia Iranica source(s).[177], false edit summary, POV editing More POV editing

Misusing sources (that doesn't state what he adds) to push his pov [178] [179] Reverted me as well to add information not stated in the majority of used sources [180]

"Finally this tension is an outcome of falsifications of Armenian Wikipedia pages by notorious u/HistoryofIran."

Constantly edit warring (basically most of his edits) [181] Even didn't come to the talk page in an article where he kept edit warring against several users [182]

Has been harassing user @Kansas Bear: (who reverted his disruptive edits) as well [183] Also attacked him: "Kansas Bear, you can do whatever you want, just stop polluting my Talk page with your idiotic statements, if you keep reverting my edits, at the behest of your Wikipedia friends, you will be reported."

He's seemingly a mind reader as well See the Սամուէլ's comment on HistoryofIran's talk page which he deleted immediately after, because he couldn't come up with an answer:

I suspect that this user is sock, considering he has barely any edits on his belt and is able to write references like this [184][185] [186] It's interesting that he is constantly threatening to report other users to report them for vandalism/disruption/whatever, yet still hasn't done it once. Perhaps he knows of Wikipedia:Boomerang? Not to mention he seems very familiar with the "I will report you" sentence. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I don't understand the mind reader comment since Biainili linked to this comment. The sock half-accusation also seems inappropriate for here. Either go to WP:SPI or don't; either way throwing around suspicions isn't appropriate. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  The first sentence that I quoted is his own [187], not part of the comment. And oh, I definitely will. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• See: Incident-→ Reported User: HistoryofIran --Biainili (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  He's still able to revert [188], yet still hasn't come with his piece in this section. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Let us look at the facts:

User:Biainili's first edit, was to remove Zoroastrianism from Tigranes the Great, with the edit summary, "Religion removed, insufficient source. Rather odd for someone that had just started editing to seem to be so well versed in Wikipedia speak, yet their removal was followed up by user:Սամուէլ's removal of the same information.(meat-puppetry?)

User:Biainili's second edit, was to remove Zoroastrianism from Kingdom of Armenia, this time with a personal attack in the edit summary, "Falsification of Armenian history by u/HistoryofIran. Second edit, and already issuing a personal attack against an editor that they have had zero interaction with, or have they(sockpuppet??)?

User:Bianili's personal attacks:

• Kansas Bear, you can do whatever you want, just stop polluting my Talk page with your idiotic statements, if you keep reverting my edits, at the behest of your Wikipedia friends, you will be reported.
• falsifications of Armenian Wikipedia pages by notorious u/HistoryofIran
• Users (User:HistoryofIran) and (User:LouisAragon) discussing on their talk pages how to vandalize Armenian and Georgian pages
• No, I won't let you(HistoryofIran) get away with vandalism of Armenian related pages this time, the source
• vandalism
• rv, vandalism
• rv, vandalism

User:Biainili chose instead of taking their concerns to the relevant talk page(s), chose instead to revert some of my work on Catherine of Valois, mocking what they have been told(and had refused to do). restored referenced information, take your concerns to the talk page

User:Biainili, chose not to start any talk page discussion instead showed up after I had started the discussion and made all sorts of weird accusations(with no evidence).

Ignoring, the attempt made by user:Biainili at trying to make this personal(ie. harassment), the fact this editor has been here barely a month and can write references in the complex "harvb" manner, and their unexplained hostility towards an editor they do not even know(??), the personal attacks alone are enough to show me this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. This User:Biainili is under the oh-so-common misconception that since "they are here to enhance/protect/correct a certain history", other editors are here under the same reasons. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

See: My comments on the Talk pages:

• Page:Zoroastrianism_in_Armenia
• Page:Tiribazus

• Comment:[189]
• Comment:[190]

How easy to accuse users without any evidence here? Let's see how will administrators react to those(Wikaviani, Kansas Bear, HistoryofIran) who try to get everyone, they disagree with, banned with false accusations... --Biainili (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest Biainili consider their words carefully. If they imply that Wikaviani's AN3 report was "false accusations", it raises the question of how to interpret the tit-for-tat report Biainili filed shortly after.[191] —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred, with all due respect, but my report had nothing to with what you refer to as "tit-for-tat", since I'm relatively new user here, I accidentally posted it on wrong section/page, that's why I removed it shortly after. --Biainili (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Where, if not WP:ANEW, did you mean to post a report about that? —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"User:Biainili chose instead of taking their concerns to the relevant talk page(s), chose instead to revert some of my work on Catherine of Valois, mocking what they have been told(and had refused to do). restored referenced information, take your concerns to the talk page" --Kansas Bear

You reverted my constructive edit on Tigranes the Great page, even though I explained it on Edit Summary why sources were incorrect, and User:HistoryofIran, after denying my statement on several occasions, "Also, do read the four sources again please, because what you're stating is clearly not true.", removed them himself [192] --Biainili (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So you're basically admitting that you stalked and reverted Kansas Bear out of revenge? Also, in the link you can clearly see I removed two citations (out of five, so not all sources as you falsely claim) which I wrongly added, that doesn't change the fact you still claimed (and still is claiming) that none of the citations supported what is stated in the Tigranes the Great article. Your edit is still as disruptive as before. Even if your statement was correct, how does that justify what you did to Kansas Bear?

EDIT: "even though I explained it on Edit Summary why sources were incorrect, and User:HistoryofIran, after denying my statement on several occasions, "Also, do read the four sources again please, because what you're stating is clearly not true.""

Hol up. This is a comment by Սամուէլ which you mention I "denied", not by you. Nice of you to use two accounts to cause disruption, that explains this as well [193] [194] @C.Fred: You might wanna see this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• HistoryofIran strikes again with baseless claims, how many times do I need to say? This is my one and only account. --Biainili (talk) 21:10, 20 April 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.

Possible disruptive editing by Pincrete in a MH17 article

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.

---

• Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Александр Мотин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well, the edits of the mentioned editor, in my opinion, resemble disruptive editing at least, since he removes relevant and very well sourced information under far-fetched pretexts [195][196]. For example, at the MH17 talk page he claims that he does not like some of the wording, but at the same time he simply ignores my requests for suggested wording and disregards my and other editors' explanations (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). Also he refers to the allegedly reached consensus on the article's talk page for deleting all the recently added information in the article, which is not true. Without getting a response from him, I try to guess what wording he needs, but he again rolls back my edits because he did not like the wording again. I kindly ask administrators to view and check the discussion on the MH17 talk page since I believe that the edits made by Pincrete possibly do not comply with the requirements of Wikipedia rules about constructive dispute resolutions.--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The first material I removed was so poorly phrased as to be virtually incomprehensible. It was WP:SYNTH of a primary source which did not remotely support the text inserted by Александр Мотин, and I had given my reasons on talk some time before removing the text, and thus opportunity for him to address both the SYNTH and poor phrasing. My second removal was of a crude rephrasing of the previous text plus some recent additions by Александр Мотин, which quite a number of editors had already objected to. Александр Мотин was effectively edit-warring them back in with no attempt to establish agreement on talk or seemingly much understanding of why I and others objected. I have of course never said I don't like the wording, I have variously said I had no idea what it meant and/or that it bore no relationship to what the source said and/or was blatant COPYVIO iro another addition. which I did not remove. Diffs of my initial attempts on talk to explain why the insertions were not acceptable here and about 13 hours later here. The second includes Александр Мотин's reply to my first post.

I will address any concerns but believe this is a frivolous complaint by an editor who lacks the basic competence to be editing such a contentious article. Pincrete (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A massive 54 of the 68 edits made on this artice in the last 62 hours have been made by Александр Мотин many of the 14 edits made by 8 other edits have been removals of his material or attempts to keep up with his changes. He is attempting massive reorganisation of a contested article without getting agreement or - seemingly - having the linguistic or editing competence to do eo. Also the last nearly 200 edits made by him have been to this one article in the same period - which he is not a regular editor of and which have been attempts to very substantially alter the structure of the article. Pincrete (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the assistance of administrators is strongly required. --Александр Мотин (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин is basically trying to edit war disputed content into the article [197]. The burden is on him to get consensus for inclusion before restoring it. But since the article has been quiet for a long time, and discretionary sanctions are in effect, everyone active on the Article and Talk Page should probably be templated with DS notices in case anything arises there that needs a trip to AE. Geogene (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note Александр Мотин, please observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 02:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Correct. But how to achieve consensus if the opposing editor ignores any attempts to find this consensus and just deleting the whole text fragment because he doesn't like a couple of words in it. Is this constructive? --Александр Мотин (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин, consensus is achieved by article talk page discussion, not edit warring. If that discussion reaches an impasse, there are dispute resolution requests that can bring further outside input to the dispute. El_C 02:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I totally agree again. But look at this as well. It seems that a group of opposing editors are mostly focused only on my edits but not on improving the article. Am I right? --Александр Мотин (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Александр Мотин, no, that is an aspersion on the good faith conduct of your opponents. Please resolve this dispute in the usual way, by following the steps outlined at WP:DR. El_C 02:39, 21 April 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.

Regarding User:Horse Eye Jack

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 number of issues historically with Horse Eye Jack's editing:

• Unsubstantiated Accusations WP:PA
• Not WP:AGF or issuing downright inappropriate warnings, particularly in the area of WP:BITE
• Edit warring (reverting twice a million times on a million pages, while technically not in violation of TRR is still edit warring)
• Removing sources
• Vandalism
• Non-collegial actions and behaviors WP:NOTHERE
• Personal attacks

Here's a timeline of these: DD/MM/YYYY (days elapsed since last warning/days elapsed since last warning regarding particular area of concern)
Dec 2019 (N-A): Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings
15 Jan 2020 (30/N-A): Vandalism (edit warring) here and here
24 Jan 2020 (9/9): Edit warring/accusations of edit warring here, here, and here
25 Jan 2020 (10/N-A): Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings here
26 Jan 2020 (1/N-A): Edit warring once, twice, thrice, four times, five times, six times, seven times, eight times, nine times (split into two reverting sprees but warned after the first one)
4 Feb 2020 (9/19): Vandalism/Blanking sources as introduced here
5 Feb 2020 (1/10): AIV: Edit warring here
10 Feb 2020 (5/15): Personal attacks/Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings here
20 Feb 2020 (10/16): Vandalism [see 26 Jan entry, this was the second reverting spree]
1 Mar 2020 (9/24): Edit warring/Reverting appropriate edits as discussed here
2 Mar 2020 (1/20): Non-collegial actions/Personal attacks WP:NOTHERE as discussed here
13 Mar 2020 (11/21): Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings this, but refers to this
15 Mar 2020 (2/N-A): Failing to abide by WP:NPOV misunderstanding of NPOV policy ,including mass purge and personal attacks as discussed
18 Mar 2020 (3/5): Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings/NPOL v. GNG vs GNG here
2 Apr 2020 (15/15): Personal attacks/Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings/Unsubstantiated accusations [case misconstrued]
2 Apr 2020 (0/N-A): WP:TPG violation asked here; and here, violated here and here.
16 Apr 2020 (14/46): Edit warring but resolved as no offense
17 Apr 2020 (1/15): Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings here
20 Apr 2020 (3/3): Warning someone for "general discussion on a topic" when they were discussing moving said page

Unsubstantiated Accusations (1 instance)

• 2 Apr 2020

Not WP:AGF or issuing downright inappropriate warnings, particularly in the area of WP:BITE (7 instances)

• Dec 2019
• 25 Jan 2020
• 10 Feb 2020
• 13 Mar 2020
• 18 Mar 2020
• 17 Apr 2020
• 20 Apr 2020

Edit warring (5 instances)

• 24 Jan 2020
• 26 Jan 2020
• 5 Feb 2020
• 1 Mar 2020
• 16 Apr 2020

Removing sources/Vandalism (3 instances)

• 15 Jan 2020
• 4 Feb 2020
• 20 Feb 2020

Non-collegial actions and behaviors WP:NOTHERE (1 instance)

• 2 Mar 2020

Personal attacks (3 instances [numerous others not included due to deviations from official meaning])

• 10 Feb 2020
• 2 Mar 2020
• 2 Apr 2020

Horse Eye Jack has been repeating the same offense two weeks after each successive warning and violating WP policies anywhere from multiple times a day to once a week. Indeed, the longest he's gone without a warning of some type was 30 days. I issued more or less this warning on his page but he didn't act like he was going to change his behavior. He also has a strange habit of pulling irrelevant sections of the rulebook, especially when he called my warning up there a "violation of WP:NPA". Augend (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I reverted this user on the 16th [198] which began immediate abuse “your own racism is not an acceptable reason to undo edits designed to neutralize pages.” [199] and its escalated from there. They already tried taking me to the edit warring noticeboard and that didn’t work out for them so here we are now. I’ve clicked through the diffs and not a single one appears to show what its purported to show. I propose a strong WP:BOOMERANG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• They completely lost me at WP:NOTHERE,if anything the most I read here is a content dispute. I don't see anything egregious that would warrant sanctions. Edit warring is a two way street, stop, discuss it on the talkpage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The comment issued by the person specifically said "At the very least, it suggests that you are not at the project to be a collegial editor" based on HEJ's actions. Augend (drop a line) 21:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thats the weird thing... Its already under discussion, has been since the 17th see Talk:Taiwan#Discussing neutrality. The last revert wasn’t even me it was made by an admin [200], I didn’t edit war it off the page and there is currently no ongoing edit war. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Quite a few of the links just simply don't work so it's hard to know exactly what the complaint really is. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The weirdest one is the diff from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism [201] which does not involve me in any way whatsoever. The only link I see is that the diff involves user CaradhrasAiguo who’s talk page Augend randomly put a post about me on. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I will not speak for Augend, but that link you mention is part of the context of this thread that we resolved in a reasonable manner, where we agreed you mis-interpreted my edit summaries on that user I reported. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note to you both since you're both here. (I wrote a very long comment in reply to that thread after seeing it when looking into it below, but decided not to post it.) If someone asks you to stay away from their talk page, this should generally be respected per WP:NOBAN. Essential notices like noticeboard ones are an obvious except, but warnings generally aren't. There's no need to negotiate anything or set preconditions for obeying such a request, but I also suggest you don't make a request lightly since it can make things more difficult for everyone including you. Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thats a relief, I’m not sure what my talk page will do without its number one fan [202] though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I had a quick look at some of the diffs, and you seem to have made a mistake with some of them or maybe you should use proper diffs. For example for "17 Apr 2020" you linked to User talk:Horse Eye Jack/Archives/2020/July#Reaction. But when I go there I see this [203] which is nothing like you describe, and does not suggest any fault on the part of Horse Eye Jack. For 2 Apr 2020 you linked to [204] in the context of non compliance with the TPG. But it makes no sense in general or in relation to your earlier link. If you intended to link to [205] that makes no sense either since your examples for violations of this request pre-date that request. To be fair, the discussion that followed suggests a problem, but it seems likely it could be resolved simply by explaining to Horse Eye Jack that they should follow the request, which it's not clear to me anyone has done. I'd also note that a warning is often an accusations of wrong behaviour. If an editor accuses someone of misbehaviour when they haven't done so, it is a personal attack. So bring up NPA in response to warnings isn't irrelevant. It may ore may not be justified. Frankly any desire on my part to look at this flew out the window when I saw your silly and unjustified accusation of racism. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Those two are irrelevant, Horse Eye is pulling a Red herring fallacy to divert your attention and unfortunately it appears that it has done its role. Augend (drop a line) 21:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Well, some of the "links" don't have diffs at all, some of the links that exist don't actually work, and many of the links that do exist and work don't show what the OP claims they do (NOTHERE? Really?) I think we're done here? Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: @Bishonen: Review the comment again, while most are diffs and some aren't, some are just links to comments that justify... for instance if you bothered reading the NOTHERE comment the main issue is "At the very least, it suggests that you are not at the project to be a collegial editor" Augend (drop a line) 21:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, the OP is hard to follow because of the poor linking, and, as Black Kite says, also because quite a few links that do work don't illustrate the claim made. I agree we're done here. @Augend:, for another time, to make proper diffs and consequently a proper report, please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen &#1:4; tålk 20:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC).

There seems to be some serious POV pushing here as well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

While some of the diffs might not work, there are some major ones that stand out: 26 Jan and 20 Feb, a mere month apart, saw two edit warring sprees on the same page, even after a warning @Hell in a Bucket: @Black Kite: @Bishonen: - and there are several AGF issues, after multiple warnings:

• Dec 2019
• 25 Jan 2020
• 10 Feb 2020
• 13 Mar 2020
• 18 Mar 2020
• 17 Apr 2020
• 20 Apr 2020

These are incidents fully backed up by warnings (on some, I only attached the warnings) and diffs (most of which I provided) - and no matter how screwed up the diffs are, nothing excuses making the same violation seven times in a four month period, and beyond that, nothing excuses edit warring twice on a page in a span of one month. Also, I would strongly advise you not to fall for Red herring fallacy - I don't come clean but that does not detract in any way from the topic at hand. Augend (drop a line) 21:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I had to revert myself because I forgot for a moment why I said you seem to have a problem with a POV, Looking over [[206]] you say that you only want nuetraility but then the nuetral version is the one china policy but no sources to show this is consensus. Very strange. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would recommend closing this time-sinking thread. This is only a content dispute issue. Horse Eye Jack is the best editor in Wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• These comments from Augend and the surrounding discussion may be of interest: [207][208]. Not necessarily COI, but probably worth looking into. Darthkayak (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment)
• Well, I looked at the "26 January edit-warring" and all I saw was an IP changing the nationality of Taiwanese firms to "Chinese" (i.e. vandalism) and HEJ reverting them back to Taiwan. So there's no problem there, unless you believe that Taiwanese companies are Chinese of course, which is intriguing given Hell in a Bucket's comment above. Meanwhile, I looked at February 20, and found nothing at all, but on the 21st February HEJ reported another editor to the edit-warring board. During that conversation, another editor, User:CaradhrasAiguo jumped in to accuse HEJ of various things. Completely coincidentally, you wrote on CaradhrasAiguo's talkpage this morning ... with a notice asking them to weigh in on your ludicrous "CRITICAL AND FINAL WARNING" on HEJ's talkpage. Now, we can end this here, or I suspect it may not go the way you intended. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 20 April 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.

Akoroves/Wikiauthor77's attempts at promotion and personal attacks

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

---

I first encountered User:Akoroves at Korovessis (surname), which I had originally had tagged for deletion given that it is not a surname of anyone with an existing Wikipedia article. After going back in forth with this editor (during which time he called me a Greekaphobe") it became apparent that there are several people with the surname "Korovesis" and quickly realized that he had chosen the "double S" version because it was how a specific person's surname was spelled and that he had created the article to include that person (Alexander Korovessis, who is the publisher of Kasma Science Fiction and the only previous subject Akoroves had significantly edited about) as a notable person (I eventually move the article to Korovesis (surname)). I noticed that Kasma Science Fiction clearly did not meet notability standards and nominated for AfD. Since the article's deletion via AfD, Akoroves tried to add Alexander Korovessis several times (which I have reverted). Additionally a second account, User:Wikiauthor77, has been created and re-created the deleted article at Draft:Kasma SF Magazine and has continued to try to add Alexander Korovessis as well and included a personal attack in his most recent attempt. This is likely an attempt at promotion and a case sock puppetry. I was going to take this to SPI but given this is the second personal attack against me by what is likely the same editor I decided ANI is a better venue. GPL93 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Since two registered users and an IP made the contententious addition, I have semi-protected Korovesis (surname). —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• The page has been moved from Korovesis (surname) to Korovesis because disambiguation is unnecessary. GPL93 has requested extended confirmed protection at RFPP, because the user Akoroves is autoconfirmed. However, the other users are not, so C.Fred's semi-protection takes care of them. And I think the one autoconfirmed user can be dealt with in other ways, up to and including a block he won’t stop doing it. I will decline the request for extended confirmed and leave it up to this discussion how to deal with the problem user. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• Wikiauthor77 is a confirmed sock, and I indefinitely blocked that account. One can only assume that Akorovessis (talk · contribs) is another sock, but that account hasn't edited since 2014. I blocked Akoroves for three days. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 21 April 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.

"Further reading" spam by User:MedievalSam1

The entire contribution history of MedievalSam1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been to add the book Cornwall, Connectivity and Identity to the further reading list of any article remotely related to Cornwall or Cornish history. Said book's author, one SJ Drake, appears to be a scholar of Cornish history of little impact (few citations of his few published works). This would appear to be a clear attempt to drive sales (or at least interest) in this book, which itself appears to have yet received no reviews from any major sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I came across this being added to articles on my watchlist. User:Cullen328 beat me to blocking him. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all this editor has done is to add this book to many Cornwall related articles. Nothing else. So, I blocked the account for spamming/advertising. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

They were overzealous in adding it to further reading sections, but the book does seem relevant to some of those articles such as culture of Cornwall. The book is published by Boydell & Brewer so very likely to be good quality. They were asked to stop at 18:06 and haven't edited since so I'm not convinced that a block is needed at this stage. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: I did some checking into the book's author and publisher before posting this thread; I recognize they are a reputable publisher, but the book itself does not appear to be a significant volume, nor does the author appear to be a significant authority. Now, this may have to do with the fact that the material is rather specialized (medieval history of Cornwall), but between the unknown value of the book and the clearly promotional intentions of the editor, I can't recommend restoring the book as a further reading source, but I'll defer to others who may be more knowledgeable of this particular niche topic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your estimation of significance is based on the fact you couldn't find any reviews, which given the book was only published in November is hardly surprising. A browse of its pages shows that it contains lots of information about Cornish history. I wouldn't rely too strongly on Google Scholar, its coverage of history and archaeology is patchy at best and will not give the full picture. In future can we please look for healthier snacks than the newbies. Perhaps someone who took the time to think where the book was relevant could have been persuaded to add some text, but instead we all seem to be in a rush to see who can show them the door first. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It could be an enthusiastic new editor who happens to have picked up the book, or it could be someone sneakily promoting the book. There's no way to know with the available data. Personally, I'd err on the side of AGF and recommend unblock + discuss with the user. creffett (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in life is free from problems, and the same applies at Wikipedia. If someone looks like a promotion-only-account, and adds spam as if they were a promotion-only-account, they should be blocked to avoid wasting other editors time. We see such accounts all the time. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, Good block, this is WP:REFSPAM. If he engages on Talk, we can unblock. Guy (help!) 10:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I tend to concur with Creffett: unblock and engage, I think the block is overkill at this point. I agree with Richard's assessment that this book is likely to be of scholarly value, and relevant in at least some of these sections. That said, this is also a poor way for an academic author to go about engaging with Wikipedia; there are a great many people who could make claims of equal merit to add their monograph etc. to a "Further Reading" section here, and we aren't a directory of links. Using it organically as a reference to support unreferenced material in existing articles, or expand them further, benefits both the encyclopedia and the author. Choess (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

My block was based on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, specifically the section reached by the shortcut WP:SELFCITE, that says "adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." I think the reasonable presumption given the username and the behavior, is that this editor is probably the author. This editor added links to this book to over 40 Cornwall-related articles without adding or improving any content whatsoever. If it had been a handful, I would have left a friendly expression of concern. I consider this overt spamming which is why I blocked but I now see that other editors disagree. So, if any administrator wants to unblock with conditions, I will not object. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If someone is able to unblock MedievalSam1, I am happy to walk them through the editing process and talk to them about conflict of interests. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The user made 41 edits in 90 minutes, each to add spam. They have not made any other edit since then (17:06, 15 April 2020). Anyone believing they will turn out that around should post on the user's talk explaining what the problem is, and offering whatever help they think appropriate. Ask if they would like to improve any articles, and offer to help them achieve that. With a suitable assurance, an unblock appeal would be successful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

User:104.36.204.205 and lead sections of articles about actors

104.36.204.205 is adding information about the television series Banshee to the leads of literally every single article about actors who have appeared in that series. Per WP:AGF, this may simply be a fan at work, and I do not wish to violate 3RR by reverting this editor (I have reverted twice at Ben Cross, not only because the edits broke formatting but also because there is nothing sourced in the article to suggest that this is a series for which that actor is known). However, this does seem like single-purpose editing and the editor does not seem to be communicating about this despite my talk page messages. I'd appreciate other opinions and/or other sets of eyes on this. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Kinu - I agree that this is likely a misguided editor who is a fan of the TV show, and we should do our best to try and educate the user and avoid leaving any bite marks. That being said, the user's intent starts to become irrelevant if the disruptive editing continues despite repeated messages, warnings, and requests for it to stop. Regardless of whether or not the editing is being made in good faith vs bad faith, if the editing behavior is disruptive, repeated, and continues after being given a fair number of warnings and opportunities to cut it out, the user can be blocked in order to protect the project and prevent further disruption from occurring. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Oshwah. Seeing as how this editor refuses to communicate and is edit warring, I have temporarily blocked them. Like I said, I want to assume good faith, but the possibility that this is some sort of astroturfing campaign is still within the realm of possibility. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Civility issues with an editor

Can someone talk to User:Alex Devens about what's expected with civility? They've been blocked for WP:NPA issues in the past and just posted this bizarre rant at and AFD of there article that ended with the article being speedied [209]. Definitely an issue here. Previously block was this January, see the block log: [210]. I initiated the AfD, but I believe I'm otherwise uninvolved in this situation. Hog Farm (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely, given this was an exceptionally blatant personal attack after they'd already been blocked for a month for what was, if anything, something significantly milder. I do not consider a user that's had multiple warnings and opportunities to stop doing this, but hasn't, to be capable of collaborating with others in this kind of project. I invite review if anyone thinks I'm being too harsh here. ~ mazca ^talk 00:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I endorse this block, and it would take a truly exceptional transformation for me to support an unblock. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Block looks good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of Pashtun pages

• Kami2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, I'm writing this message here to draw the attention to activities of one of the users who goes by the name kami2018. This (kami2018) account engages in war edits. I have observed that whenever any user reverts his edits or makes changes to the edits he has made such as in the case Bangash or Ahmadzai (wazir clan) Kami2018 not only reverts them but also uses rather an aggressive tone in info bar. For example he made an edit to Ahmadzai (wazir clan) writing that '[this tribe] lives on border between Birman valley and Kurram valley' even though the source explicitly mentions that Ahmadzai were originally based in Birman valley. You can check the source by typing in Ahmadzai in the search bar & download the doc. This was reverted later by Yamaguchi (another Administrator on WP). But this is one example of his nonsensical behavior. He has done the same to the page of Bangash tribe. According to the attached (Iranica encyclopedia) reference they were settled in gardez in Afghanistan until 10 CE. Afterwards they migrated to their current location in Kurram valley. But because it was changed by an IP citing the reason that the source mentions Gardez,(which it does, please look that up) and that 'Gardez' was removed by 'Saladin1987' (now a banned user), Kami2018 (who, it appears, previously operated under the username 'saladin1987') reverted the edit. Kami2018 continues to use WP platform to promote his own personal opinions, which are by any account biased and obviously nationalistic (anti Afghan and pro Pakistan). He randomly removes 'Afghan' "Afghanistan" and Iranic peoples" and other such terms related to Afghans/Pashtuns/Afghanistan from articles and inserts 'Pakistan' even if the doesn't mention Pakistan. He has been warned multiple times on his talk page User_talk:Kami2018 multiple times for his disruptive behaviour. He continues to remove those messages of warning but I'm sure administrators here can look into that. Furthermore, many of his edits as I have checked are reverted and he has been warned already. I dont know who to reach out to so I'm writing here. (because I dont know the technical aspects of using WP which is why I haven't formally joined this community.) I request you to PLEASE look into this and take an action! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.95.62 (talk • contribs) @ 21:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Kansas Bear: You seem to be familar with Kami2018. Can you elaborate a little better?--v/r - TP 23:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems that Kami2018 has been editing with a pro-Pakistan POV based on his edits but I don't know enough about the topic area to judge adequately.--v/r - TP 23:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

In response to TParis.

Kami2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I investigated Kami2018's editing following the IP's post on my talk page. Following a cursory inquiry into Kami2018's editing, I found Kami2018 had added "Kurram Valley" to a referenced sentence.

Copied from Kami2018's talk page:

"Do you have a source for this edit of yours?

• "...Kurram Valley of present Pakistan, where they were still living as of the Ghaznavids period (975 to 1187)."

The source states:

• "The ethnogenesis of the Bangaṧ, therefore, seems both to be religious and to be located in the Gardīz region during the Ghaznavid period. Later on the Bangaṧ, who were then expelled from their mountain den by the Ḡelzī during Tīmūr’s invasions, crossed the Paywār pass and progressively moved into the upper Korram basin on the eastern slopes of the Solaymān mountains."

"Therefore, the Bangas were not in the Korram basin until after Timur's invasion. Do you have a source stating otherwise?"

"AND, why did you remove referenced information along with the reference from this article?"

I have not received a response from Kami2018 at this time. Essentially, Kami2018 has added unsupported information to a sourced sentence and removed reference information and a reference from another article. I have not checked on the other allegations made by the IP. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

More from IP101.50.95.62

Please read further as I provide proof of kami2018's disruptive behaviour.

There are many more examples of Kami2018 adding information without adding a source:

• Here to Dir district page he added info without adding a credible reference (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/949559929). This edit was reverted later by another administrator.

• Here Kami2018 inserts 'Pakistan' to the page on Jalalzai tribe of Pashtuns, when the cited reference doesn't even mention Pakistan (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/949559635). This edit was reverted by Yamaguchi (his page is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yamaguchi先生&action=view)

• An another example is of the Sulaimankhel tribe where he again inserted Pakistan when the references cited do not mention Pakistan (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/949558073) this edit was reverted by Admin Yamaguchi. He also warns Kami2018 for his disruptive behaviour.

• Kami2018 did the same to the article on Barech Pashtun tribe ( here see this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/949558198). The cited sources DONOT mention Pakistan but Kami2018 added Pakistani cities to the article. This edit was reverted again by Yamaguchi.

• Here is yet another example of Kami2018 disrupting a Pashtun article. He added Pakistani cities to the article with out adding a reference. See here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/949558367) His edit was AGAIN reverted.

There are countless examples of Kami2018 adding info to Pashtun articles without adding reference or adding info contrary to what the cited reference states.

Also check out his talk page. See these examples of warning which Kami2018 removed from his talk page

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/951212271

• Here he blames an IP which he also mentioned earlier for removing content that was without reference. Kami2018 here is warned by Yamaguchi for doing that. Kami2018 gets personal with other users who revert his foul edits or add/remove information that Kami2018 doesn't approve of. (SEE here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/950382631)

• Yet another example of Kami2018 being admonished for his disruptive behaviour (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/950382595) Strangelt he removes all these warnings he receives.

• And here again yet another example (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/924691842)

At the end I would reiterate what I wrote earlier, Kami2018 is driven by his nationalistic instincts to remove information to disrupt WP articles on Pashtuns and Afghanistan. He is clearly anti-Afghan sentiments are visible through vandalism of Pashtun pages.

As an administrator I hope you will take action in light of examples I've provided you here.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.95.62 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Whatever IP has mentioned and is referring as sourced information is not always the case. Below are some of the articles where he keeps on removing sourced information and even the sources. He blames me for using foul language. I would appreciate if he could provide me with an example where i have used such language ? if you look at the following he keeps on adding Afghanistan in every article:

Amir Kror Suri - For this he keeps on adding that he established Ghorid Empire but ghurid dynasty was established by another Amir Suri. Please refer the language here [[211]]

Durrani - Keeps on removing Pakistan when Pakistan has the 70 percent Pashtun Population. Please refer [[212]] where he removes information without any reference. I am not involved in this edit.

Removing referenced information like "The cult of this god was primarily Hindu, though parallels have also been noted with pre-Buddhist religious and monarchy practices in Tibet and had Zoroastrian influence in its ritual" from Zunbils. Please refer [[213]] and [[214]] where he removed sourced content.

Kambojas - This IP user has been removing referenced information with multiple IP's. Please refer [[215]] where he removes sourced content

Muhammadzai (Hashtnagar) - They were originally said to have resided in Afghanistan - Now the source does not mention this at all but he has added it. Please refer [[216]]. This was the original content.

Turi (Pashtun tribe)] - He keeps on adding Khogyani without any reference when under Pashtun tribes it is Karlani. Please refer [[217]] where he removes without any references

He has operated under multiple IP's 101.50.95.62 and 58.65.159.42

I would really appreciate if he could let me know where i have used abusive language or even became personal. He has been personal many times calling me Punjabi nationalist anti afghan Pakistani nationalist and giving me different names which can be seen in the history of his edits.

The most abusive language he has used is as of here where he is abusing Indians in general [[218]]. Anybody can use translation to translate the abuse hurled at the users and indians in general. Clearly we can see who uses abusive language here [[219]] and [[220]] and [[221]]. He abuses indian, Pakistani or even anybody while he reverts their edits. Following his unreferenced edits, i did revert some of his edits but nowhere i engaged in edit wars rather he has been abusive at several occasions. Whatever he adds or removes is without references. I havent added anything myself rather i did revert some of his edits to the original wording before he removed stuff without explaination. Here we can clearly see the language he uses while he reverts the edits. [[222]] and [[223]]

I would greatly appreciate if he could provide me any link where i have been abusive. Kami2018 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Kami2018 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, as you mentioned :::"AND, why did you remove referenced information along with the reference from this article?", i basically didn't add any information rather reverted the article back to the original content as seen here [[224]]. Many of the edits by the IP were actually reverted due to copyright issue as can be seen here [[225]] and i just changed the article back to original content as it was here [[226]].

In relation to the Bangash i changed the article to original content as can be seen here [[227]]. I did not add anything myself and i might have not looked at the reference. But by looking at the history of the IP edits here [[228]] where he is clearly abusing Indians no constructive edits can be imagined. Anybody can use translation to translate the abuse hurled at the users and indians in generalKami2018 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

To begin with I never called Kami2018 a Punjabi nationalist. Perhaps that's how he identifies himself but I've never called him that.

The question here is the disruptive behaviour of Kami2018. If his edits were correct then why were they reverted? The activities of the said IP is not under scrutiny here. The behaviour of kami2018 is. He should provide reason why he made those foul edits which were reverted. I have provided proof here. kami2018 has already been warned for edit war by Kansas Bear. Please check this out: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/905422999). This warning was removed by Kami2018.

Also here I would like to say that kami2018 used this account ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2605:6000:8B06:D100:C8E2:6E98:17C8:915E) to edit Ahmadzai (Wazir) page. Please see below:

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/941110583)

And then he re-edited the page see here: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/942680894). I believe Kami2018 operated under this ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2605:6000:8B06:D100:C8E2:6E98:17C8:915E). Please look into this.

As for allegations of Kami2018 towards IP, all those allegations have already been addressed on the page of Kansas Bear. But there are addressed below.

• First off, Muhammadzai (Hashtnagar) page that kami2018 talks about is absolutely wrong. The cited source mentions 'Khorasan' in modern day Afghanistan, (read the last paragraph of the page 883 of this reference in the article: [229] please check that there is NO mention of Zhob or any other Pakistani city). This was changed to ' Zhob' Pakistan by 'Saladin1987' years ago. The edit by Saladin1987 (now banned and apparently active under a new user name that is I believe is kami2018) was reverted. But Kami2018 re-added the false info. Why? I request you to read the source yourself. The source mentions (Khorasan) - modern day Afghanistan.

• As far as Amir Kror Suri is concerned, he was a legendary figure in Pashtun folklore (not a real Amir Suri) in Ghor and he has been called 'King of Ghor' in the Pashtun epic Pata Khazana. Ofcourse Amir Kror Suri and Amor Suri are not the same because Amir Suri was the actual ruler from Ghor who went on to establish Ghorid Empire in 8 CE. This is written in the very next sentence only if Kami2018 had bothered to read that.

• Furthermore Kami2018 mentions Durrani tribe of Pashtuns. Sir, Durranis, historically known as Abdali, are primarily found in southern Afghanistan which is mentioned in the very article and a reference is cited as well ( look at the intro paragraph). Anyone can read that. Just to brief you a little. The two major tribal confederates among Pashtuns are Ghilzais and Durranis who are primarily found in Afghanistan, NOT Pakistan. The so called '70%' Pashtuns living in Pakistan has nothing to do with the tribal division between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you're interested to know further, you can read up on this.

• BUT that's not it. Kami2018 uses his account to vandalize other pages. See here

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/942685227) by adding Pakistan without a reference.

• Here to this page Afghans in Pakistan Kami2018 changed the figures when in fact it was correct. The information was RESTORED and Kami2018's edits were reverted. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/923846336)

• Kami2018 added an unsourced category (Punjabi category) to the Katoch page here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/924647323 , which was reverted by yet another editor, see here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/924691816

• Similarly Kami2018 removed 'Afghan' from this page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/911485282) when in fact the article states that Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah came from Sistan in modern-day Iran and "Afghanistan". The question is why was it removed by kami2018. The information however, was restored to include iran & Afghanistan.

• Similraly to punjabi qisse, Kami2018 removed Afghanistan when it actually was in that article long before. Kami2018 removed Afghanistan without any explanation. The reference no longer exists, but kami2018 still removed Afghanistan from the page. Why?

I request the admin here to check out his talk page where he has been warned multiple times of his disruptive behaviour.

The question here is Kami2018's behavioir so why is he justifying his behaviour by pointing out what other accounts do. As far as I see, the edits made by IP were restored by Yamaguchi while the edits made by kami2018 were reverted. Why?

I reiterate what I wrote earlier, kami2018 edits pages with pro-Pakistan POV. Please look into his account and take an action.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.95.62 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

To Answer a few questions here as i have other stuff to do:

• Muhammadzai (Hashtnagar) page that kami2018 talks about is absolutely wrong. The cited source mentions 'Khorasan' in modern day Afghanistan,

As you yourself mentioned that you added Afghanistan but the source says Khorasan. Please refer here Greater Khorasan to see how many countries are part of Khorasan.

• Here to this page Afghans in Pakistan Kami2018 changed the figures when in fact it was correct. The information was RESTORED and Kami2018's edits were reverted. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/923846336)

The source that you are referring to actually supports the numbers which i added Please compare this edit [[230]] with the source [[231]]

• Similarly Kami2018 removed 'Afghan' from this page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/911485282) when in fact the article states that Shamsuddin Ilyas Shah came from Sistan in modern-day Iran and "Afghanistan". The question is why was it removed by kami2018. The information however, was restored to include iran & Afghanistan.

So here you yourself contradict yourself by calling Sistan a part of Iran and Afghanistan. But then Specically Sistani "Afghan" was added to prove linkage to Afghanistan. Please refer [[232]]

These are a few answers to the IP who has been using abuse language towards me and other users. I have previously provided some examples and links to his comments related to race and ethnicity of other users. Kami2018 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Epik (domain registrar)

As you value your life or your reason keep away from this talk page.

-EEng

A commenter at Talk:Epik (domain registrar) has asked Where are all of the other Wikipedia assistants who should be protecting their own platform here? Figured I'd help them out by putting their plea where the Wikipedia assistants would see it—I happen to agree that there needs to be more eyes on that page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this an NLT violation? M Imtiaz (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Can I get an illustration appropriate for seeing the wall of text, rolling my eyes, and doing a u-turn out of the nonsense? Natureium (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I've issued an NLT block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

And to try to make the page a bit more readable, I've hatted a couple of long rants containing personal attacks and legal threats. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've reverted and blocked the latest sock/meat posting the same personal attacks against GorillaWarfare, and showing the same stylistic tells as all the others. There's clearly extensive socking and/or coordination going on here, so I've also semi-protected that page for 24 hours. As I have commented on the change proposal there, I'm trespassing on WP:Involved by taking admin actions. But I think the level of coordinated personal attacks justifies a bit of WP:IAR here, and I open my actions to any other admin to revert, endorse, whatever, as you see fit. Also, could any admins who can spare a little time please keep an eye on that page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

CIR - SHISHIR DUA

I think we need a competency block for SHISHIR DUA (talk · contribs), an editor whose over-enthusiasm strays into disruptive. Some examples:

• A quick look at their deleted contribs shows they have created numerous non-notable/poorly thought out articles/categories which have been deleted.
• Recently, they have created identical categories in Category:Indian Super League coaches and then Category:Indian Super League managers, both of which actually duplicate an existing category (and are therefore now at CFD).
• They have incorrectly added categories to articles, such as this
• They have taken it upon themselves to launch an entirely new WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Super League), something which is already adequately covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/India task force, and also created a heap of associated templates and sub-articles ({{Strikers of ISL}}, Wikipedia:ISL/Strikers of ISL, {{User ISL Vice-Coordinator}} etc.) which will need to be deleted.

I, and others, find ourselves spending more and more time cleaning up after this editor. My previous attempt to reach out fell on deaf ears.

I suggest that unless serious and genuine assurances are given, SHISHIR DUA is blocked per CIR. GiantSnowman 16:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop harassin' others by usin' administrative might. Everythin' is relevant SHISHIR DUA (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Everythin' is relevant is not a persuasive argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think their response is a great example of their general attitude to Wikipedia. Doing what they want, refusing to listen or work with others - the antithesis of what Wikipedia is actually about. GiantSnowman 19:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What I saw in their edits (5000 or so?) does not suggest CIR to me. They may have created a project and the attendant templates and categories, but this essentially conflates all your points: if they create this project because they think they are doing a noteworthy thing, it stands to reason that they would create the categories etc. to go with it. Now, that their comment here shows a lack of collegiality, which is essential to a collaborative project, doesn't mean they're a candidate for an indefinite block. But I am not the best person to ask them to stop being antagonistic. At the same time, going to ANI after one notification was ignored, that's a big step, and it seems to me that this should be taken up first at one of the soccer project pages--y'all have functioning projects, so use them. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Am I missing something? GS noted that the category they created already existed under a different name (Category:Indian Super League head coaches). They have created two new categories, which duplicate this one. Number 57 22:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And list articles copied and retitled with the exact same duplicated list under different names, I've PROD'ed some which got deleted. It can be quite repetitive. Govvy (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Number 57, did you ask that of me? Because I'd ask whether we are seriously considering indeffing someone for creating a duplicate category. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that would be very strange to block them if the category were the only issue, but several other problems have been noted by GS and Govvy above. Number 57 11:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: what about the articles/categories that have been deleted? The comments from other editors which have fallen on deaf ears? The more this editor edits, the more mess we have to clean up. GiantSnowman 16:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds, Drmies, Number 57, and Govvy: this editor has today re-created Category:Greek Football Cup players, a category which they previously created and which was deleted by CFD only a week ago. This cannot continue. GiantSnowman 16:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, yeah, in that case a short block to get their attention is in order. They need to understand they cannot simply recreate deleted categories like that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If somebody uninvolved could step in, that would be great... GiantSnowman 15:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for 2 weeks, the next one should be indef, the refusal to engage (pure WP:IDHT), removal of notices, huge number of deleted creations, 2 weeks is pretty short imho but they do good work sometimes and maybe it's possible to fix the present issues without an indef. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks @QEDK: - what would your suggestion be dealing with cleaning up some of their mess whilst they are blocked? eg I don't want to take the WikiProject they created to MFD whilst they are blocked because that looks sly, but it needs doing sooner rather than later... GiantSnowman 16:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: If it feels the project (and other pages) are WP:NOTHERE enough, you can choose to not wait - ethically might be not okay, but improvements to the encyclopedia are always worth WP:IARing over. --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Mavi Gözlü Kel

As previous ban expired, the same user reinstated the same edits + tons of new questionable edits[233] --Havsjö (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I cannot help but notice there has been zero attempts at any discussions with this user. Nothing on either their talk pages nor the talk pages of the article. Not even any warnings or templates to the user other than ANI discussion notifications. Canterbury Tail talk 22:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Havsjö, please start a discussion on the article's talk page and notify Mavi Gözlü Kel of the discussion and location. If edit warring continues despite the attempt at discussing the matter, you can file a report here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail:@Oshwah: Well, after initial reverts he just wrote "fck u" on my talk page[234] (which among other things led to my first report), but discussion can be attempted in the future --Havsjö (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Havsjö - *Sigh*.... Lovely.... Thank you for letting me know about the message; I'm sorry that it happened. That behavior is clearly unacceptable, and it has no place here. Please let me know if any further edits or incivility occurs, and I'll be happy to step in. I warned Mavi Gözlü Kel for edit warring yesterday, and he/she hasn't made further edits to the article since. Right now, we should focus on attempting to discuss and resolve the dispute peacefully. Worst case scenario: Mavi Gözlü Kel continues what they're doing and ends up blocked. Best case scenario: They listen, understand, and choose to participate and comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

user:193.190.253.145

There's been a history of vandalism from this IP. I assume it may be multiple users, so I don't know how this would usually be dealt with. But I figure its worth looking into as the IP's talk page [235] contains many warnings for this kind of behavior. Bacondrum (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Pretty low level, despite the length of the talk page though the years. This is not immediately actionable, beyond the warning they've already incurred today. If there is sudden burst of activity, please let us know. El_C 00:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks like it's a shared IP from a Belgian university, it's likely almost every edit is from a different user. The edits seem to have been fairly spaced out and are frequently neutral if not actually helpful, even though there's a sparse scattering of vandalism in there too. IP addresses like this can be blocked temporarily if one or more users starts actively vandalising - use WP:AIV if there's a sudden burst of it - but in general there's very little we can or should do if there's the odd single unconstructive edit - just revert it and move on. ~ mazca ^talk 00:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool, just thought I'd bring it to the attention of more experienced users. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree

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 the WWE Hall of Fame discussion on the talk page of the wrestling Wikiproject, I made one last comment to HHH Pedrigree as you can see and he responded by telling me to "fuck off" as you can see. He was very uncivil. I've never seen anyone swear at someone nor have I been sworn at or swore at some. If he had an issue with something said, he could messaged me on my talk and we could have worked it out . But he decided to respond the way he did. Never had a problem with him till this happened. This is serious and needs to be dealt with accordingly. Thank you. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 08:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You repeatedly said that he's not neutral. What did you expect him to say? That said, he shouldn't resort to insults. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I said so. First you made several changes on the Hall of Fame article. I explained since, from the beginin, there is a consensus: just the most notable titles, supported by several users for 10 years. However, you said there is no consensus even If I prove it. Then, a discussion, fine. Let's go to a new consensus. During the discussion, you disrespected me. I show several users, examples of other articles and gave sources, but in the end, you and JDC only relive my argments because I used the word I think, calling me No neutral (For years, people has complained because I sound to agressive English is not my first language), but is just a way to express. There is any difference between "I think this policy applies" and "this policy applies". Also, you insulted me. You told me "I'm wrong", "afraid of change", "a yes-man" and I told you these kind of comments aren't neccesary, but I don't see any apology. (In fact, JDC called me yesman one more time, again, an insult during a civil discussion). I have spent 10 years here, learning and reading several policies, but suddenly, I'm just a no-neutral yesman and users of the project insults me just because I don't agree with them. After 4 users said they prefer a new consensus, I agree, I don't change my mind about the issue, but I see more users want to change it. Then, Insult to injury. You told me that I should agree with you before and don't waste your time while you *Shake my head*. What do you expect? To smile at you? I felt very unrespected and insulted during the whole process and you joked on me even after the discussion ended. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

My calling you a "yes-man" was based on your editorial behavior of seemingly only going with the status quo as opposed to actually forming solid arguments to support your position. It was not intended as an uncivil insult, but rather a flaw to work on. --JDC808 ♫ 19:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• New rule. In any dispute infvolving wrestling,. all parties are blocked for 31h. Guy (help!) 10:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Absofuckinglutely. About time. Plus smash their keyboards with metal chairs. EEng 10:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheating in a fake fight. A new low. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: You can't just make new rule without consulting other peopl just because you are am admin. That's not how that works. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Fishhead2100, I'm 95% confident that JzG was being facetious. creffett (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: Sometimes you can always tell in text. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The level of disrespect from the admins here is atrocious, regardless of how many ANI reports come from our particular project. --JDC808 ♫ 19:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JDC808, maybe because you take fake fighting waaaaaaaaay too seriously and Wikipedia core policy not half seriously enough. Guy (help!) 19:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's nice to know that you blatantly admitted to being disrespectful. And you guys were made admins how? It does not matter how seriously one takes a form of interest. I mean, are you all this disrespectful to those with interests in other forms of entertainment (a lot of which is also fake mind you). --JDC808 ♫ 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Fishhead2100, would you like to test that hypothesis? Guy (help!) 19:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Saying "I think" is not neutral. A fundamental of Wikipedia is to have an NPOV. You can be for or against something while doing so in a neutral manner. If you were debating someone, you wouldn't say "I think." You present arguments for or against something while remaining neutrak with the language you use. He was also hoping that people who participated in the previous discussion about this particular WWE Hall of Fame issue would chime in. He miight have thought that if they did that their thinking would have remanied the and would have agreed with him. If he did think that, that's not neutral either. But that's not issue at hand though. The issue is as stated. He told me to "fuck off." Like I said, if there was problem with what was being, he should have came to me or JDC808 on our talk pages and it would have been worked out. If would have apologized and admitted what he said was wrong, I would have accepted and moved on.

HHH Pedrigree You didn't like the fact that accolades WWE recognizes JBL for were added because you deemed them unimportant because that is "consensus" and you didn't like the fact that it was being challenged. The box is called "WWE recognized accolades" for a reason. It's not "WWE accolades we deem important are only added." You were going off a discussion that happened well over ten-years ago. You were dead set against against change. You said because consensus was established all those years ago, it shouldn't be changed or even in the very least discussed. You continually would find any reason to try and shut us down. You were hoping people involved the previous discussion would chime in because you were hoping you'd get people on your side because you are against changing the way something is done. That's not neutral. Just consensus was established all those years ago doesn't mean it will he like that forever and never discussed or changed. Ways of doing things can become outdated or not proper. You are allowed to challenge the "consensus," but you are dead set against that. You like the "status quo." You just want to keep doing it the way it was in the past because it's always been done that way. When the in wrestling sections were done away with, I didn't like that. I was against it. I have learned to accept and now think it is okay. Someone challenged consensus and it got changed. So yes, consensus is not set in stone. Also, you starting how long you've been on Wikipedia is irrelevant to that discussion. I have been on Wikipedia for 15-years, but I have never once brought that up. I've rambled and strayed from the original intent of coming to the notice board. If you apologized and admitted what you said was wrong, I would have accepted and moved on. But since you haven't bothered to do that, we will have to seen where this goes. Oh and I never once swore at you or anything like. Also, JDC calling you a yes man is something you have to talk to him about. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

What are you expecting? You're not going to convince me. I already gave up. The discussion is over. You insulted me the whole discussion and joked on me after that. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: I said you weren't being neutral. I explicitly said here, if something said in that discussion was a problem, you could have come to me on my talk page and it would have been resolved. Instead, you went as far as to tell me to "fuck off." I also said if you apologized and admitted what you said was wrong, I would have accepted and moved on. Before this, I never had an issue with you until you told me to "fuck off." There are insignificant things about you that are pet peeves. The main one was something someone already pointed out to you. Regardless of those things, I never had an issue with you. I want you to seriously answer these questions. Why are you against "consensus" being challenged? Are you afraid of change? Are you afraid that something won't be the way you know it? Are you afraid that you might be wrong? Are you afraid the correct way doing things would be established? Who are you to deem and pick and choose certain accolades WWE recognizes and has listed in Hall of Fame profiles on their site as not as important as other WWE recognized accolades? Do you not see that excluding those accolades is wrong? Answering these is not asking much. You never answered some of these things in the discussion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Saying "I think" is not neutral. is one of the dumber things I've heard in a day full of dumb things. Grandpallama (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: It's not though. You say "I think" when you know.you aren't supposed to be neutral. You can say what you have to say without saying "I think." Plus what he thinks is not really what thinks. He wants to stick with the so-called "status quo" because that is what has been done for years based on an outdated "consensus." Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop poking HHH Pedrigree. Your interest in policing the phrase "I think" is getting a bit disruptive, and I suggest that you drop the issue. There is nothing wrong with using that phrase, and people don't have to be mindlessly neutral on talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If you make stupid assertions such as Saying "I think" is not neutral then you shouldn't be surprised if people swear at you. Spike 'em (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Spike: That's not a good reason to swear at someone. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 05:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: I believe this last comment was meant to be addressed to you, not me... Spike (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Spike. I stand by what I said: that is one of the stupidest things I have read in a discussion on here. Spike 'em (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't blame HHH for losing his temper. It was a discussion of opinion. People are going to say "I think" when giving opinions. Not one iota of that is invalid, and the implication that it somehow makes it illegitimate is frankly silly. oknazevad (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I hate everything about this thread and am tempted to agree with JzG's "facetious" viewpoint.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 21 April 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.

Copyvio pics, probable COI, edit-warring copyvios back, etc.

Cpitcher1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding copyvio pictures to the article he created: James Ketchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In the Commons, he declares the copyvio pictures he uploads as authored by James Ketchell himself. Please see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cpitcher1977. Meanwhile, in Wikipedia he restores the copyvio pictures I had removed earlier while removing multiple times COI tags placed in the article. Overall, very bad editing tactics. If not an indef, we need at least a final warning and/or a topic ban from the article. Dr. K. 04:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly COI and/or copyvio, merits attention.--Eostrix (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed. MER-C 18:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Editor emptying categories then requesting CfD, refuses to discuss or use WP:CFD

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.

---

Chris.sherlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has emptied Category:Australian convict women and then sought speedy deletion for it being an empty category. I noticed this as I have had Mary Bryant on my watchlist since 2006. I noticed the removal, reverted advising in the edit summary that WP:CFD was the correct place to seek deletion, and objected to the speedy on the category talk page. Chris.sherlock then undid my reversion (contrary to WP:BRD. I left a note on his talkpage advising him of WP:BRD and WP:CFD. He responded by telling me to go away and threatening to take me to ArbCom. DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

He then went to another board to ask others to step in, and made personal attacks on me. I only saw that because he pinged me in the comment. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have very little to say to DuncanHill. I asked him not to post to my user talk page, but he has decided that he will do so anyway. Anyway, on the issue at hand, it was extensively discussed at on AWNB and we came to a consensus on the best way to handle a problem with the category structure we were using, as Gnangarra pointed out, “being a 20th century Australian woman writer is not an occupation, nor is it a defining characteristic, or subset of 20th century Australians by occupation".

I think this is likely an attempt by DuncanHill to needle me. He’s done this in the past, at this point I feel he is deliberately harassing me.

I did tell the guys at AWNB what is happening because we all discussed the issue and came to a decision on the best way forward. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. it is just past midnight here so I’m going to bed, so you may not hear from me till morning. Night to all those in my timezone! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, I don’t believe for a minute that he only noticed my category changes when he saw me make a change on Mary Bryant, because he reverted a CSD I placed on a category well before I made the change to articles in the convict category. I'm curious how he knew about this... unless he’s been obsessively stalking my contribution history, I’d say he did this because he’s got my talk page on his watch list. I don't think he's being very honest, and it really is getting to the stage of harassment and I wish he’d stop. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have had Mary Bryant on my watchlist since I edited it in 2006. I noticed the edit removing a category and followed that up. It could have been done by anybody and I would have done the same thing. The correct venue to seek deletion of a category is WP:CFD. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Please don't place your answers above the thing they are answering, it looks deceitful. DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Duncan, I wasn't answering you. I want nothing to do with you. There was an edit conflict. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• There is no WP:HARASSment going on; [236] including this very discussion, you've only edited the same pages in the same month eight times—and of those, on five occasions DH was the first to post. And of course at least one of those edits—to your talk page—was an official requirement over and above the allowance made to editors per WP:NOBAN. Harassment is a serious accusation, and I think casting such an accusation groundlessly, cheapens the offence. It is also, perhaps, inflammatory, to suggest that DH went [237] straight to the dramaboards, when in just the preceding section, you threatened to go to Arbcom. Describing other editors as "obsessive2 could also be construed as an WP:ASPERSION.
  However, DuncanHill, even though you may feel strongly that CS was in breach of WP:CANVAS, some may argue that—while CS's phrasing may have been a little florid, it was fair to mention the direction the discussion had turned in on the same noticeboard that it had begun. The same goes for accusations of deceit; while you have a right to be sensitive, edit conflicts are legion here, are they not, and could also be construed as an aspersion. ——SN54129 14:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You know that my other account was User:Letsbefiends and User:Ta bu shi da yu, right? I’m not sure what that link shows as it’s not loading for me, but I suggest you check that account and User:Tbsdy lives. There are many people who have noted his animosity to me over the years, perhaps JzG could fill you in.

Incidentally, as the creator of this forum, it is a drama board and I often regret having started it. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether you "created" this forum (or rather, its main page where there is, in fact, far less drama) does not alter the fact that arbcom is a greater drama board yet. And yes, your history is well known, Chris.sherlock; I didn't want to include it (generally, it's irrelevant here what happened years ago), but your previous (TBDSY, LBF) show a corollating low-level of interaction. So yeah, maybe reduce both the interaction and the aspersions even further. ——SN54129 15:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you think I’ve been trying to do? I didn’t initiate any of this. And it’s not irrelevant when the other party literally holds a decade old grudge. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a grudge against you Chris, despite the years of abuse from you and the disgusting email you sent me. I feel sorry for you (as a human being) and wish you (as an editor) would go to WP:CFD and follow the instructions there. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what abuse you are referring to. And I’m not sure why you are sorry for me. That’s quite... condescending. Your own words show you do indeed have a grudge. Let’s not speak again. Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Go to WP:CFD and make your case there. I won't join the debate as long as you don't mention me there. There, that suit you? DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop trying to engage with me Duncan. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop posting here then, go to WP:CFD and propose the deletions there. DuncanHill (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Duncan, you are the one who brought this here for discussion and review, so discuss it I shall, though hopefully not with you. I guess that’s my final thing I need to say to you. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I must have missed the edit summary explaining the move. Had I known it was an edit conflict I would have understood. DuncanHill (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

True, DH; the lack of an edit-summary does make it easier for parties to suggest that in fact, "edit-conflict" was just thought up after the event  :) ——SN54129 15:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What the heck does that mean? Do you normally speak to someone directly in the second person like I did in my reply? I certainly don’t. If I have something to say to someone directly, I use their name and such words as “you”, I don’t use words such as "he" when speaking to someone directly. If that’s how you communicate, it must get fairly confusing! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Instead of using this as an opportunity to fight, why not ask User:BrownHairedGirl and do whatever she says? I would have thought the whole point of categories was to have an overarching system, not to have the Australian wikiproject decide how to categorize Australian writers, the US wikiproject decide how to categorize American writers, etc. I'm sure BHG knows whatever that overarching system is. (I should probably have asked her if I could suggest this; if she doesn't want to be "volunteered" for this, then ask at WT:CATP.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There is one :-) it is point 1. of WP:EGRS#General:

Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic.

In our discussions that was the Australian contingent’s concern. Not sure how the rest of the world does things, but in Australia we don’t have an occupation of “Australian women writers”. We have “Australian writers”. If other countries have this, then I guess we should use it for those countries but that’s not the way things work in Australia! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Let’s keep in mind the bones of this, rather than personalities. Doing something piecemeal, and then using that to justify another action, is generally a Bad Thing. Parricides don’t get sympathy because they are orphans, do they? Qwirkle (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• My suggestion is that if someone believes a category or categories should be deleted, then they should go to WP:CFD and follow the instructions there. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Also see WP:CONLIMITED. ——SN54129 15:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You mean, like WP:EGRS#General point 1.? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Without splitting hairs, that's an important guideline; but it doesn't override policy, of course. Night! ——SN54129 16:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you clarify which policy you are referring to? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONLIMITED is policy, and WP:EGRS is a guideline. Night. ——SN54129 16:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that policy says that consensus should not trump policy. What policy are we overturning? It would be amusing if the answer was WP:CONLIMITED, but I had rather assumed you had a specific policy other than that one in mind. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be more amusing if you just dialed the passive-aggression back a notch. ——SN54129 19:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what policy you are referring to? I don’t believe you have answered my question. It’s a fairly serious accusation you have levelled against me and a number of others - you say we have violated a policy, I think it only fair that you tell us what that policy is. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I have waited quite a while for a response to a fairly simple question. What policy have we violated? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yesterday I had the pleasure of interacting with Chris for the first time, on my user talk page, arising out of the last ANI thread about Chris. It's too bad there's a new ANI thread today. This comment at WP:AWN (Mitch Ames, Gnangarra, JarrahTree, The Drover's Wife, we have a major issue developing. It appears a few uninvolved parties have decided that we, as a bunch of Australians, don't know how to structure categories around Australia. They have been reverting the changes we agreed on. Can I get some help when you get a chance?) strikes me as battleground canvassing, with a lot of ownership to boot. Trying to wedge Australian editors from other editors is extremely uncool. The last thing we need is to go tribal. It was followed up by this comment, Ok, now I’m getting harassed by User:DuncanHill, who is attempting to start a revert war. If anyone wants to step in, it would be appreciated. I really don’t want to interact with that guy, he has been horrid to engage with from the very start and personally hates me to the point where it is impossible to deal with him. In fact, I have told him I want nothing to do with him and I asked him some robe ago not to post to my user talk page as he tends to harass me - I’m fairly certain he has gotten involved because he has my user talk page on his watch list and is doing this just to needle me. The point being is he will be quite happy to unravel all our food work. (I assume he means "good work"), which also strikes me as battleground canvassing. The heat needs to be significantly turned down here. We get nowhere by turning against each other, or trying to rally editors against other editors with nationalist appeals. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I had the especial pleasure of being told I was full of shit by Levivich yesterday. The admiration goes both ways. The original person who filed yesterday's AN/I thread, incidentally, apologised to me. The issue was over WP:DOB, and nobody could give an example of where I violated the policy. You, however, removed reliable sources of information and retained unreliable sources, and then got upset when I noted this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am preparing a longish reply to the ping by @Floquenbeam, setting out the background at the existing consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This whole ANI thread is an unwarranted and aggressive escalation that clearly seems to be motivated by some longstanding personal history given Duncan's comments. I don't particularly understand why the "Australian convict women" category is being emptied, but rather than revert-warring and instantly escalating to ANI, it would have been much more helpful to either ask Chris what was going on or to take it to WP:AWNB for some further feedback from Australian editors. (My instinct, not knowing the actual reason, is that I probably would have agreed with Duncan on the content issue if he had.)

The allegations of canvassing for bringing it to the general noticeboard of Australian editors (for an Australian-specific category in the Australian category tree) is crap. It's a way of bringing it to editors who probably have relevant opinions, but not necessarily taking any particular side given that it's just a country-wide noticeboard, and everyone he pinged directly tends to have different opinions on these issues from one another. Everyone directly involved in this needs to dial back on the aggro, chill out a bit and focus on discussing and resolving the actual issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: your comment that this is an unwarranted and aggressive escalation that clearly seems to be motivated by some longstanding personal history given Duncan's comments is complete wrong. This desire to eliminate Australian-women-by-occupation should have been a proposal at WP:CFD accompanied by a neutral notification at WP:AWNB ... but instead it has been implemented in a rush by a small clique at WP:AWNB, without any notifications. The only aggression here is from this small clique of Aussie editors (I think 4 in all) who have bypassed CFD and gotten all angry when challenged about their misconduct and asked to use established processes.

At User_talk:Chris.sherlock#Category:_20th-century_Australian_women_artists, at least three editors had asked User:Chris.sherlock to use WP:CFD, but Chris rejected their requests. So ANI is the proper venue to discuss such rejection of process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: - what clique? Chris was trying to find a solution to his disagreement with Mitch Ames, Mitch and Chris both agreed that it was a solution they could agree on, and the other two editors in the discussion (one of which was me) both went "meh". He should have used WP:CFD, but he's been gone from Wikipedia a long time and it seems just forgot the appropriate process to do this by; unfortunately, in not doing that, he's accidentally stumbled into a whole different dispute that I'm pretty sure he didn't realise he was getting into by trying to compromise with Mitch. There is no "desire to eliminate Australian women-by-occupation" - he depopulated the category that was the subject of his dispute with Mitch, asked for feedback about a different occupation category given that he apparently recognised that what he'd just done had wider implications, didn't get any responses, and stopped. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: The clique is the 4 editors (of whom you appear to be one) who decided to implement a wide-raging set of changes, using the wrong venue, with zero attempt at notification ... and esp User:Chris.sherlock, who repeatedly rejected requests made by other editors to stop depopulating these categories, and use WP:CFD:

• User:14GTR: [238]
• User:DuncanHill: [239]
• User:SlimVirgin (aka SarahSV): [240] (not that SarahSV doesn't explicitly mention CFD, but does say that it shouldn't be decided by one WikiProject)

So it's quite perverse for User:The Drover's Wife to accuse DuncanHill of unwarranted and aggressive escalation, and especially to make an unqualified assertion that DuncanHill was acting in bad faith (clearly seems to be motivated by some longstanding personal histor. Note that it's not allegation or a suggestion or a query; it's an assertion as fact that DuncanHill's has ulterior motive.

If The Drover's Wife is acting in good faith, then I hope that The Drover's Wife will demonstrate that good faith by striking those unfounded attacks on DuncanHill, and preferably apologising. DuncanHill has tried to uphold established consensus-forming processes, and should not be subject to this sort of smear campaign. Chris.sherlock and The Drover's Wife both need to clean up their acts, fast, before sanctions get applied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Where, exactly, did this "clique" decide to "implement a wide-ranging set of changes"? Two editors (Chris and Mitch Ames) were having a dispute about a different category issue, and decided that getting rid of one category was a solution they could agree on. Two other editors who'd engaged in the discussion about the dispute, but didn't have any particular feelings about the solution, went "meh" and didn't say anything. The category was depopulated, and I thought that was the end of it. Chris then flagged the issue that the solution he'd implemented regarding his dispute with Mitch might have wider implications and asked about the "artists" category and didn't get any responses, which is where I thought it had ended - I've just realised that he went on and depopulated that too (which was a bad idea) but nonetheless. You've just gone nuclear on me and threatened sanctions (!) even though I don't have any strong opinions on the matter (besides thinking that the depopulation was a bad idea) and am just trying to resolve the issue. Perhaps that might be a sign that it's a good idea to take a step back. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: so you don't retract your smears against DuncanHill. On your head be it.

As to stepping back, since your idea of trying to resolve the issue is smearing the editor who opened this discussion to try to uphold established process, i suggest that you take your own advice.

Your comments on the substance are more interesting. You seem to be saying that the AWNB discussion did NOT in fact establish even a local consensus to depopulate any category, and that what actually happened was that two editors made a decision without seeking wider input ... and then User:Chris.sherlock unilaterally decided to do the same to a whole bunch of other categories. If so, then Chris.sherlock's claims about a decision at AWNB are baloney ... and if you genuinely want to resolve this (rather than just repeatedly smearing DuncanHill), you should be asking Chris to promptly self-revert his unilateral actions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The noticeboard discussion is right there on the board, it isn't a long conversation, and having read it to begin with might have prevented a lot of incorrect assumptions that've been made about how this mess happened to begin with. Two editors were trying to resolve a dispute, they thought they'd found a solution without realising the broader fallout, and because Chris forgot that it needed go to WP:CFD that didn't get flagged before the shit hit the fan. It's not exactly news (including to Duncan, given their history) that Chris gets stressed and doesn't exactly react the best way when people go nuclear on him. There's still an obvious solution: undo the depopulation, talk out the content issue without the aggro, and if anyone still thinks that's the best way forward (which I think is unlikely following a calmer conversation) then it can go back to WP:CFD. Problem solved, no drama necessary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not "go nuclear" on anyone, again please stop your insinuations and misrepresentations. I used an edit summary to point out WP:CFD, I raised it appropriately on Chris's talk page, and only after his "nuclear" response of threatening me with Arbcom did I come here. I'm glad you agree with me that repopulation and WP:CFD are the correct thing to do. DuncanHill (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @The Drover's Wife: Sheesh, you are still at it. Stop trying to blame DuncanHill for Chris.sherlock's anger management issues. If Chris can't handle the normal rules of engagement here, that doesn't mean he should get a license to go on a rampage.

Multiple editors asked Chris to stop. He ignored them.

DuncanHill asked Chris to stop. He was rebuffed with a threat and a bogus allegation of harassment.

Then Duncan quite properly took this to ANI, where he made a well-formed and well-founded complaint, free of hyperbole.

Your decision to describe this as other editors deciding to go nuclear on Chris is not just nonsense; it is a blatant fabrication which inverts the reality of a gentle and civil escalation which followed the proper procedures. The only nuclear response has been from you and Chris, who have repeatedly tried to smear and malign Duncan for acting entirely properly. That's thoroughly nasty conduct by you, for which you should be sanctioned.

It seems that you now agree with the substance of the objections to Chris's conduct, and that you are trying to help Chris to climb down gently. But the honourable way to do that is to engage privately with Chris ... but instead you have chosen to be an attack dog against Duncan. That doesn't help Chris, and it does't help the community to resolve this issue; you are just pouring petrol on Chris's self-started fire. Round my way, that's called shit-stirring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not constructive and I'm not engaging with it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

At last, we can agree: your repeated smearing of the messenger is thoroughly unconstructive. I hope that your latest post means that are now going to stop it.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Observations by BrownHairedGirl

• I come here in response to a ping[241] from @Floquenbeam:.

(TLDR: categories emptied and tagged for speedy-deletion in a flagrant abuse of process, ignoring established consensus, and with none of the characteristics of proper consensus-formation. There should be mass-reverts).

The issues here are:

• Substance: The impact of WP:EGRS on the categories concerned
• Process: how and where the community makes a decision about that.

My thoughts:

Substance

It seems that Chris.sherlock has depopulated many of the subcats of Category:Australian women by occupation. I choose as an example Category:Australian women writers.

Category:Women writers is a well-developed category tree, with subcategory trees by format, by historical period (including by century), by nationality.

Note that the intersection between nationality and century is well-categorised: see the Category:Women writers by century, where there are 105 subcategory trees of women-by-nationality-century, e.g. Category:American women writers by century and Category:Irish women writers by century:

Of that set of 105, Category:Australian women writers by century is now empty.

There have been many discussions about these categories over the years, some large and heated. most notably WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American_women_novelists which arose out of a huge media storm (I think it even got as far as the New York Times). The solution agreed 7 years ago has remained stable since, and avoids ghettoising women writers (per WP:EGRS#General item 5).

Process

For as long as I have been editing en.wp (since early 2006), decisions on whether to delete a category have been made at WP:CFD. This is a community-wide noticeboard like the other XFD processes (AFD, TFD, MFD, MFD), all of which share these five characteristics:

1. all pages being discussed are tagged with a clear link to the discussion. That way, any editor who has watchlisted the page or who visits it can see that discussion is happening.
2. the discussion is at central location, where all similar locations are listed on a daily log, and indexed in various ways. That allows any editor interested in this type of discussion to scan the list and decide whether to offer their input.
3. the tagging is picked up by the WP:Article alerts system, which generates notifications for any WikiProject which has placed its banner on the talk page of the article concerned
4. the discussion remains open for at least 7 days
5. the discussion is closed by an uninvolved editor according to established guidelines.

This Australian case

In this case, there was a discussion at WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Australian_women_categories, which had none of those five characteristics: no tagging of the pages under discussion; discussion not at one of the central XFD venues; no article alerts; discussion lasted only about one day before categories were depopulated in a long series of edits by User:Chris.sherlock: see the relevant contribs[242].

This is outrageous. A significant category tree has been removed by discussion between only 4 editors, without using any of the established processes, and with zero notification. Editors who monitor WP:CFD will be unaware of this discussion; worst of all Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers had no indication.

It should be mass-reverted, and if anyone wants to pursue this idea, then they should use the established process: WP:CFD.

In addition, sanctions should be considered against User:Chris.sherlock, whose statements are repeatedly problematic:

• Counterfactual assertion: [243] in Australia we don’t have an occupation of “Australian women writers”. Fact: scholarly sources disagree: see e.g. 128 hits on JSTOR for "Australian women writers". This is important per WP:EGRS#Special_subcategories: "the basic criterion for such a category is whether the topic has already been established as academically or culturally significant by external sources". There is at least a prima facie case that scholars do find this a significant topic.
• WP:OWNership and a rejection of WP:LOCALCON: It appears a few uninvolved parties have decided that we, as a bunch of Australians, don't know how to structure categories around Australia. They have been reverting the changes we agreed on. WikiProjects do not own the articles within their scope, and there is absolutely no basis in policy for Chris.sherlock's view that these decisions should be made only by a group of Australian editors with zero notification ... and it is especially disruptive to try to assert some sort of nationalist basis for a decision, to the exclusion of e.g. WP:WikiProject Women writers, who editors would likely have something to say about this.
• WP:LOCALCON rejection of WP:EGRS: [244] The issue is that we don't want Australian women + occupation. That's appalling: "we" in this case is 4 editors who have made decided at WP:AWNB#Australian_women_categories that all the nuances set out in WP:EGRS and applied by long discussions at CFD over many years, with broad community input, can be overridden for Australia by 4 editors in an un-notified huddle with zero evidence to support the dogmatic assertion of Australian exceptionalism.

I am also horrified by Chris.sherlock' hostile responses to User:DuncanHill, who has quite properly being trying to uphold long-established process.

I suggest a mass reversion of Chris.sherlock's recent categorisation edits. Crating and populating these categories has involved many many hours of work by many editors over a decade or more. It is outrageous that they have been depopulated on the basis of unividenced assertions by a small group who appear to reject both a long-established guideline and the established consensus-forming processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This move came out of an ill-advised compromise attempt in relation to an entirely different category issue discussed at WP:AWNB and (unwisely) rapidly implemented in an attempt (which, as one of those "four editors" I expressed no opinion on since I vaguely preferred the status quo). I suspect the non-use of WP:CFD by Chris was a more an issue of forgetting the right process, given that he has long been absent from Wikipedia until relatively recently. He's tried to come to a compromise resolution to a dispute with one editor who he was in a disagreement with, and inadvertently stumbled into a wider issue he hadn't been aware of, unintentionally antagonising some other people in the process. As I said above, the instant-nuclear approach here is really unhelpful: he's clearly offended some sensibilities he didn't even know existed, Duncan seems to have some sort of longstanding issue with Chris that is motivating an unduly aggressive response here, and it's easy enough to discuss the issue, undo the depopulation, and take it back to WP:CFD if anyone still thinks that's the right way to proceed. I suspect, with some further discussion, the answer to that last question might be "no", for all the grand accusations of "rejecting long-established guidelines" - he was just trying to find a mutual agreement with a difficult local editor and probably went the wrong way with it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: I think you've mistaken the sequence of events. Chris was bold, I reverted, Chris did not discuss but re-reverted. I raised the issue on Chris's talkpage and he told me to go away. It was only then that I came here. There was no "instant nuclear" or "unduly aggressive" response from me. I have consistently said the right thing to do is to go to WP:CFD and frankly that is ALL I want here. Your insinuations about my motivations and mis-representation of my actions are uncalled for. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that he told you to go away because you've got some intense prior history (which is clear from your own comments to him if nothing else). This is something that seems to be to be extremely easily resolvable if everyone dials back on the aggro - there's been some misunderstandings in a few different directions, but I don't think there's actually much of an underlying substantive dispute underneath that aggro if people talk it through. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So when he told me to go away after I asked him to use WP:CFD, and threatened to take me to ArbCom, what do you think I should have done? Nice of you to apologise for misrepresenting my actions, by the way. Oh, you didn't. I think that makes your position rather clearer. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @The Drover's Wife: the aggro mostly comes from you and User:Chris.sherlock.

The substantive dispute is about the fact that User:Chris.sherlock has emptied a whole bunch of categories without using the established process (i.e. CFD) ... and that Chris.sherlock ignored requests from multiple editors to stop this. (See e.g. User:14GTR [245]; User:DuncanHill: [246]; User:SlimVirgin (aka SarahSV): [247])

The aggression here consists primarily of User:Chris.sherlock acting outside process, ignoring requests to sop, and asserting some sort of Aussie exceptionalism as justification for doing this. There is secondary aggression from The Drover's Wife, who appears to be trying to gaslight the objectors, and in particular seems to be engaged in a shoddy smear campaign against DuncanHill.

The solution is simple: restore the status quo ante by reverting Chris.sherlock's edits, as DuncanHill was trying to do ... then anyone who wants a change can open a discussion at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that's the obvious way to proceed, yes - but the general aggro in all directions is making that resolution more difficult. Duncan, you're making the argument that you and Chris probably need an interaction ban (however that be implemented) all for yourself. If you'd stepped back and let someone like SV with less personal history try to deal with this, it probably could've been resolved a whole lot easier for everyone. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I am making no such argument, please stop misrepresenting what I have said. DuncanHill (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife, please stop your repeated misrepresentations of @DuncanHill. As I noted above, other editors did try to resolve the issue, but Chris brushed them off. So Duncan acted quite properly by taking the issue to ANI.

Your are making repeated efforts to turn the heat on Duncan, and deflect away from User:Chris.sherlock's disruption. DuncanHill has acted entirely properly here, so please stop shooting the messenger. Your persistent smearing of Duncan reinforces the strong impression that you are trying to create trouble for an editor who has done the right thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not playing this game. These two editors clearly have a long negative history and great difficulty interacting in a helpful way, which has obviously contributed to this getting unnecessarily messy. This much is obvious from this thread, and lashing out at me for pointing it out doesn't make it any less true an observation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, The Drover's Wife: throughout this discussion you been playing a nasty game of repeatedly making false accusations against DuncanHill. Duncan has done this by the book, but you are trying to make Duncan responsible for Chris's anger management issues and Chris's repeated dismissals of established process. That is gaslighting, which is a thoroughly nasty practice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

These vicious and unwarranted personal attacks at someone whose entire engagement here is to try to solve the content issue and keep Chris and Duncan away from each other are beyond uncalled for. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no personal attack. There is criticism of your vile conduct of repeatedly smearing and mis-repesenting DuncanHill's entirely proper actions. I am alarmed at your bizarre statement that your entire engagement here is to try to solve the content issue, most of all by the possibility that you genuinely and sincerely believe that your sustained smear campaign is an appropriate path to resolution. If you really do think that your repeated false assertions (e.g. that Duncan has gone nuclear by opening an ANI thread when user-talk discussion was rejected, then the problem is significantly more severe than the trolling which I had feared was driving this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You mischaracterised TDW and cast aspersions. Specifically you wrote “you’ve been playing a nasty game all along”. That’s not assuming good faith and is in fact an attack on their character. You were outraged that I felt DH was bullying and baiting me, now you are making similar statements. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly stated, this is an easily resolved content dispute if these moves are reverted, a discussion takes place as whether and how people want to proceed with any category changes and whether it's worth going back to CfD at all (probably not), and, given that it seems unlikely to lead to any positive outcomes based on the above, Duncan and Chris Stop interacting with each other. This is not something that's changed by fifteen rounds of personal attacks on your part: in the end, the category changes still need to get reverted, some sort of discussion about what to do about the categories still needs to take place, and further engagement (on either end) between Duncan and Chris is unlikely to be helpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

For goodness sake, this is daft. You have repeatedly smeared Duncan with your bogus allegations ... and now claim that it is a personal attack to ask you to stop making these bogus allegations. WP:NPA is not shield which you can hide behind behind while turning the muckspreader on another editor.

You seem determined to cast this as a personal dispute between Duncan and Chris, but that is demonstrably false. Two other editors had tried unsuccessfully to persuade Chris to desist, and when Duncan became the third editor to object, he was civil and followed all the recommended steps.

Here at ANI, multiple editors have backed Chris'sDuncan's approach, and you are the only editor to try blame Duncan or portray this as a personality clash. Chris's anger management issues are not evidence of misconduct by Duncan, and Duncan's civil and proper attempts to stop Chris's mass disruption are no grounds for requesting that Duncan desist from anything. On the contrary, it is important for the health of the 'pedia that an editor such as Duncan who challenges blatant disruption should be encouraged rather than rebuked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• List at WP:CfD. CfD is a funny place, but don’t by intimidated. It may appear to be run by a clique, but on examination they are having long running arguments with themselves in jargon. A new clique of four who are agreed on wanting to do something on the categorisation of Australian women might overwhelm the CfD clique. Or, the CfD clique might make an unexpected interesting suggestion on an alternative way of doing things. Bigger picture, CfD needs more diverse participants. This is a categorisation discussion. Everyone interested should go to CfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I'm completely uninvolved with this, but there are two aspects here. 1) A content dispute and 2) a conduct dispute arising from it. The correct way forward regarding the content dispute, according to every policy and guideline I could cite, is to discus it at the appropriate forum. In the case of proposed changes to a category tree that is WP:CFD with notifications on the relevant categories and to relevant WikiProjects. The speedy deletion criterion for empty categories explicitly only applies to categories that have been empty for 7 days. All speedy deletion criteria apply only to uncontroversial cases, when there is a good faith objection from an uninvolved editor that means it is not uncontroversial, even more so from multiple uninvolved users. Making edits for the sole purpose of making a page or pages qualify for a speedy deletion criterion it otherwise not do is also against very long standing practice and consensus (I've been around CSD for the best part of 15 years and it predates my involvement). So the status quo ante should be restored and matters discussed at CFD (to make it clear I have no preference about the relevant categories, but whether they are kept, deleted or anything else needs to be decided by a wide consensus). Relevant policies and guidelines include WP:FAITACCOMPLI, WP:BRD and WP:EW.
  Regarding the content dispute, I'm frankly appalled by the behaviour of Chris.Sherlock - new editors have been indeffed for far less than this, so for an experienced editor to behave in this manner is frankly atrocious and at the very least needs a final warning that any more edit warring, personal attacks or refusal to engage in discussion will result in blocks. Drovers Wife should be strongly warned that their behaviour here is also inappropriate. I'm not sure if they are intentionally attempting to gaslight other editors, but based on the evidence presented here I cannot rule it out. I don't know Duncan Hill's history, but I see no evidence in this dispute of them harassing anybody or violating content policies with regards to these categories. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree fully with BrownHairedGirl. Emptying a category without discussion and then proposing that the category should be deleted is the height of circumventing the proper and transparent process for disputing the existence of a category. Edits to that effect should be mass-reverted so that the requisite discussion can take place. BD2412 T 00:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with both of you the content issue (though I do think it was a case of not remembering the proper process rather than intentionally trying to subvert anything). @Thryduulf:, as an editor who hasn't interacted with anyone else in this thread besides Chris before, I formed opinions of the behaviour I've seen in the above thread - threatening editors for coming to a different conclusion about the behaviour of others and suggesting that they de-escalate said behaviour is completely inappropriate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @The Drover's Wife: ANI is not a public pillory where the complainant is restrained wile everyone is encouraged to hurl manure at them.
      DuncanHill did this by the book, but you have repeatedly smeared him without offering any evidence of the alleged misconduct.
      The sequence of events was simple: 1/ Chris made an edit which Duncan contested as being out-of-process. 2/ Duncan reverted it. 3/ Chris undid the revert. 4/ Duncan posted on Chris's talk politely asking Chris to stop and use CFD, becoming th third editor to make such a request; 5/ Chris dismisses the substance, refuses further discussion, and makes a threat; 6/ Duncan quite properly takes the matter to ANI.
      For that you repeatedly monstered Duncan, and falsely accused him of going nuclear both here at ANI and on Chris's talk. That is outrageous behavior: an editor who properly uses the dispute-resolution processes should not be subject to this sort of repeated smear.
      As to your claim that was a case of not remembering the proper process rather than intentionally trying to subvert anything ... that too is easily disproven. Before this even came to ANI, no less than three editors had posted on Chris's talk asking Chris to use CFD. And then when it came to CFD, Chris still didn't listen, and instead make an unevidenced (and apparently bogus) allegation of harassment. Not remembering doesn't describe repeatedly rejecting reminders from highly-experienced editors.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks BHG. Deletion must follow proper procedures and opinions expressed at a wikiproject are irrelevant. I propose to block anyone who continues depopulating categories as part of this process without first getting consensus at WP:CfD as explained above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with BrownHairedGirl's observations and her proposed remedies. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Me too. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I, too, agree with BrownHairedGirl's observations and proposed remedies. MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I too agree with BrownHairedGirl's assessment of the situation, and am perplexed by The Drover's Wife's repeated defenses of Chris.sherlock's misbehavior. The theory seems to be that Chris took a long wikibreak and cannot be expected to be familiar with the proper procedures. I guess Chris edited under different accounts in the past but under their current username, they have accumulated 6500 edits in the last eight months so are not exactly a newbie. But even if Chris was a fresh newbie back from a multi-year wikibreak so long that it impaired his memory, any reasonable person would hit the pause button when not one, not two but three editors informed him that the procedure was wrong and helpfully pointed them to the correct venue. But Chris chose to forge ahead with his "aggro" as they say in The Land Down Under, and TDW chose to function as Chris's chief enabler and excuse writer. BHG has explained quite concisely and articulately the reasons why CfD is the proper place to discuss these issues. That advice is so crystal clear that it is a mystery why this disagreement continues. I guess some people just enjoy arguing, even if it reflects poorly on them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Chris has well-known mental health issues that means he doesn't always deal with stress and conflict terribly well when he feels attacked, but has long proven perfectly capable of resolving stuff easily and getting on with things if cooler heads prevail and sort things out. These attacks on me ("chief enabler", "excuse writer") are completely unfair for trying to do three things: a) resolve this absolute mess of a content dispute that sprung up overnight, b) try and clarify how it happened because there has been a lot of misconceptions about how it did, and c) keep Chris around as an editor who does some great work as long as people step up and mediate these situations every now and then. No one in this thread is arguing that WP:CFD was the appropriate place to discuss these issues, and I'm not sure why you've suggested I'm arguing with that when I've repeatedly said otherwise from the get-go. Most of this blew up overnight Australian time and Chris hasn't edited this morning, but I have great doubt that Chris, having slept on it, would want to "forge ahead" either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • 1/ Chris's mental health issues are zero justification whatsoever for The Drover's Wife to run a lengthy smear campaign against DuncanHill, who has acted entirely properly throughout.
      2/ Chris's ability to handle any mental health issues is undermined by TDW's efforts to distort his perception of reality through TDW's repeated false claims that Duncan "went nuclear" on him. That's a very destructive thing to do, both for Chris and for the community, because it reduces the chances that Chris will learn the lesson that he screwed up big-time and increases the chance that he will develop an unjustified sense of paranoia.
      3/ Three cool heads did prevail, on the talk page; @14GTR, SlimVirgin, and DuncanHill. Other cool heads have prevailed at CFD. The hothead is The Drover's Wife, whose first contribution to this ANI thread (at 22:57[248]) was an attack on the conduct of DuncanHill as an unwarranted and aggressive escalation that clearly seems to be motivated by some longstanding personal history. TDW repeatedly claims to be trying to cool things, but is consistently acting in ways that are straight out of playbook of trolls such the old alt.syntax.tactical crew from the 1990s.
      4/ TDW's statement No one in this thread is arguing that WP:CFD was the appropriate place to discuss these issues, and I'm not sure why you've suggested I'm arguing with that when I've repeatedly said otherwise from the get-go is yet another TDW falsehood. TDW's first comment to this ANI thread (at 22:57[249]) did not mention CFD, and instead focused on the attacks on Duncan.
      By doubling down on aggressive falsehoods, TDW is not just disrupting ANI, but also is deploying a well-documented technique for screwing with the mental health of two editors. That conduct deserves sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
      • These accusations of gaslighting because I dared to have a different opinion of how this has played out are malicious, unfounded and disgraceful. This is a level of abuse that in a workplace context would lead to a complaint to HR for workplace bullying, and for a manager would lead to calling in the union, and it is not fair to expect volunteers to put up with it. My continual effort here has been to try to resolve this mess, explain how it went down (BrownHairedGirl repeatedly falsely accused me and Gnangarra of having something to do with the original decision until I had to continually point out otherwise), and do my level best to defuse it, and at every turn I've been met with an absolute barrage of personal attacks from someone who's already been subject to Arbitration Committee findings for bullying once before. Can we get on with trying to find a generally agreeable way forward out of this mess now? Or am I going to have to face another five, ten, fifteen of these rounds of personal abuse because I dared have a different view? The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
        • The Drover's Wife, once again I sincerely hope that you don't really believe any of that, and that hope that you are consciously fabricating it all for some reason … because if you really don't recognise what you have been doing, it will be hard for you to stop.
          I stand by my observations about your gaslighting conduct, and would be delighted to defend them against any lawyers or unions or managers — or Arbcom, if you prefer. You made a series of allegations against DuncanHill of misconduct and bad faith, and throughout the whole process you offered zero evidence for any of them. On the contrary, DuncanHill scrupulously followed the BRD cycle … yet you have been repeatedly bullying him with bogus allegations of misconduct, including twice accusing him of going nuclear. In any workplace, DuncanHill would have a strong case against you not only for your sustained workplace bullying, but a civil law case for aggravated defamation.
          It is a sad reflection of the times we are in that there no great novelty in your decision to be a serial bully and then complain that being asked to stop your bullying makes you a victim. Sadly, that sort of reality distortion is not new to our times; it visible on much more prominent stages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Bhg, Thryduulf Johnuniq & User:BD2412. These blatent abuses of procedure are too easy to get away with, and need to be stamped on hard. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• bigger issue<ec> Chris has wrongly been singled out here, the issue arose because of one long time disruptive editor who never does enough to get banned. The editor has a long history of attacking outreach projects, of acting as pedant even when it shown his knowledge of the subject matter isnt consistent with that of reality and of making unique interpretations of policy. Unfortunately too many editors are have wasted to much time working civilly with an editor who has had a chilling effect on contributions. Chris did jump too early in the discussion as it hadnt been full clarified but the reason was the problematic user had given the change a green light. There is nothing that says a person cant change categories, and what decision happen with relation to US novelist has nothing to with Australian writers they two different groups both culturally and practically, the under lying issue being women writers being an occupation which it isnt becuase it characteristic of the person not the occupation. My apologies to @Chris.sherlock: for not being aware of this discussion and defending his actions earlier. Gnangarra 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Gnangarra is just doubling down on TDW's follies.

  The fact that a problematic user had given the change a green light is zero justification for bypassing CFD. No one editor has any right to give such a green light.

  Gnangarra says There is nothing that says a person cant change categories. Wrong. Here's para 1 of the lead of WP:CFD:

• Categories for discussion (CfD) is the central venue for discussing specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories and stub types in accordance with the guidelines for categorization, category naming and stub articles.

  . Emptying categories out-of-process has long been treated as disruption.

  Gnangarra's writes goobledygook; what decision happen with relation to US novelist has nothing to with Australian writers they two different groups both culturally and practically, the under lying issue being women writers being an occupation which it isn't because it characteristic of the person not the occupation.. Insofar as any sense can be made of that, Gnangarra seems arguing that despite writing in a shared language, no decision made about American writers can have any relevance at all to Australian writers. This assertion is made with zero evidence, and no mention of the guideline WP:EGRS. It would have taken only a few seconds for Gnangarra to go to Category:Women writers by nationality and see that there are 105 by-nationality subcats. The claim that Australia is somehow unique amongst those 105 nationalities is an extreme proposition which needs proper discussion.

  With friends like this, Chris.sherlock doesn't need enemies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I was going to post to agree with what BrownHairedGirl has written, until I noticed a post that confused me. BrownHairedGirl, in this post, you wrote, in addressing The Drover's Wife: "Here at ANI, multiple editors have backed Chris's approach, and you are the only editor to try blame Duncan or portray this as a personality clash." Do you really mean that Chris' approach has been backed here at ANI by multiple editors, because this seems to me to contradict what you have written and the comments that I have been reading? Is meant to say "... multiple editors have backed Duncan's approach ..."? Because if it is, you might want to make a correction, and if it isn't, then I'm confused and would appreciate an explanation of your reasoning. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem, yes that was a typo: I did indeed mean "Duncan's approach". Thanks for spotting it; now fixed.[250] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Assuming that BHG's post is in error and means that Duncan has support here at ANI, then I have to say that my reading of the situation is entirely consistent with the majority of editors who have commented. It seems clear that:
  • The local "consensus" from the WP:AWNB discussion is neither strong enough to justify the category depopulation that has occurred, nor did it address the broader consensus that existed (and probably still exists). The suggestion that (to paraphrase) Australians know best about Australian categories strikes me as awfully parochial for an international project like Wikipedia, and I write that as an Australian. The lack of consultation with a WikiProject who could weigh in on the gendered aspect of the issue is particularly disturbing, more so than the disinclination to consult with those with expertise in WP categorisation or with WP coverage of writers, but all of these groups would obviously have perspectives that should be considered in making any decision.
  • Consequently, the actions taken by Chris to depopulate the categories should be reverted in their entirety, either by Chris or by someone with the appropriate tools for mass reversions.
  • Chris and others from the AWNB can then decide if they want to leave the status quo as it was or start a proper discussion at WP:CfD in search of a proper consensus on how to address the concerns that led to the AWNB thread.
  • Duncan acted entirely reasonably, as far as I can see – reverting an edit that seemed unjustified, seeking a discussion, and asking that an edit war not be continued. Given the past history, maybe it would have been wiser for Duncan to ask a neutral admin to post to Chris on Duncan's behalf, but that does not mean that Duncan did anything either inconsistent with policy or reasonable WP behaviour.
  • Chris.sherlock, you have over-reacted here, both in threatening ArbCom and since. The Drover's Wife has posted here to defend you, but has run into the problem that the facts that can be established and supported with diffs do not support the position being advanced. In this thread, Duncan has offered to stay out of any ensuing CfD discussion, which is a reasonable offer made in hope of separating personal conflict from the content issues here. Chris and The Drover's Wife, if you both want to avoid any nastier outcomes from this ANI thread that a sternly worded warning, I urge you both to stop commenting on Duncan, reflect on the situation with consensus on WP and take note of the detailed information about WP categories that BHG has provided, and move towards a resolution of the content questions.
  • Chris, I also recognise that editing WP can be stressful and accept that you have medical circumstances that can make it difficult to make the wisest choices in personal interactions at times. That's ok, we all make mistakes and these can arise in plenty of ways. However, you need to be able to reflect when it is suggested that you are heading in an unwise direction and to change direction if you see that the advice is good. Please, recognise now that this situation has got much more heated than it needed to and that you need to act to redirect it in a more productive direction. You may have a bad history with Duncan, and the situation may have triggered difficult and powerful issues for you, but Duncan has not acted in an unreasonable way in asking you to stop implementing the AWNB decision and hold a wider discussion. Please, as an uninvolved editor who generally avoids issues around categories, consider my input that your actions were hasty and need to be reverted, and the issue considered again with broader input.
  • The Drover's Wife, I recognise your motivation in trying to protect and support Chris given his condition, but your actions are not helping. You are managing to portray yourself as not only partisan, but as unable to recognise the facts revealed by the diffs, that Duncan has acted reasonably. Please: stop, reflect, and seek a way to help and support Chris that does not require reflecting on Duncan or casting aspersions. Helping and supporting Chris is good, and what you have written on the content issue seems ok, so I ask that you stop commenting on conduct before you find yourself in a worse position than you are in currently.
  • EdChem (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • For the record, I dropped that particular stick (with DuncanHill) a while ago given Duncan having backed off during the day, and, as you cite, the reasonable offer not to engage. I don't think it was the wisest way to bring it up given their history, but it's increasingly obvious that it's small fry in the scheme of this mess, and given that I'd rather try to de-escalate things, there's nothing to be gained from arguing it further. It still doesn't excuse the absolutely off-the-scale level of personal attacks from BrownHairedGirl. Having said that, I'll bow out now - and probably would have earlier if it hadn't been for some of the ugliest and most uncalled-for abuse I've ever received in all my many years on Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Since TDW still describes as "personal attacks" the repeated requests of multiple editors to stop running a smear campaign, TDW is wise to drop out of this discussion. I still hope that they will be sanctioned for their appalling conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Those twenty-odd diffs of extraordinary abuse for having a different take than you were not a "request", you are beyond out of line and you are engaging in now precisely the same type of behaviour that lead to arbitration findings regarding your bullying conduct and your subsequent desysopping. They say "the standard you walk past is the standard you accept"; whether other people will walk past it this time, when you're targeting someone with less clout than those who led to your desysopping, is up to them. Now I'm genuinely out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
          • Go to Arbcom if you want to. You are entitled to take a different view; you are not entitled to make repeated bogus allegations with no evidence, and to assert without evidence or qualification that Duncan acted in bad faith, as you did in your opening post (at 22:57[251]). You have had ample opportunity to strike and retract those bogus allegations, but you haven't.
            I stand by all that I have written about your disgraceful campaign of bullying, smearing, and misrepresenting DuncanHill, who has followed the advised procedures to the letter. Your continued attempt to cast yourself as a victim of bullying is just more gaslighting, and sadly you seem to be completely unware of the fact that multiple other editors have also criticised your sustained misconduct here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) TDW, stopping casting aspersions against Duncan is good... withdrawing them would have been better. But, changing to casting aspersions against BHG as you have done is really bad. Your behaviour is well outside the bounds of being acceptable, your characterisation of BHG as having engaged in "absolutely off-the-scale level of personal attacks" that are "some of the ugliest and most uncalled-for abuse I've ever received in all my many years on Wikipedia" is hyperbolic and unsupported by the comments that BHG has actually made in this ANI thread. I believe you should withdraw your inaccurate and unfair descriptions of BHG, and I believe that a sanction is justified if you are unwilling to walk back your rhetoric. EdChem (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
            • I'm entirely serious when I say it's "some of the ugliest and most uncalled-for abuse I've ever received in all my many years on Wikipedia". I've made tens of thousands of edits, worked with thousands of editors, I've dealt with countless conflict situations over many years, but this is quite seriously in a league of its own. If we were in a corporate or more normal organisational context, I'd have filed a formal complaint about her behaviour in a heartbeat, because I know of no other organisation where it would be tolerated. If the situations were reversed and Chris, myself, Gnangarra or anyone else who has disagreed with BrownHairedGirl had spoken to her in the way that she has spoken to us, I have no doubt she would have been banned here, now, today - and yet drastically tamer comments have been met with threats for speaking up, despite my being completely on board from the get-go with the consensus resolution to the content dispute held by most people here. If there is an attitude that this behaviour is acceptable, whether just because she's someone with a lot of political clout, whether because Chris having made a bit of a mess of things is seen to excuse literally anything, or whether the project culture when it comes to well-known editors has completely lost the plot since I last noticed, this is not something I'm going to play a part in. You've helped lead to an editor of many years standing, many thousands of edits, and more articles than I could count finally calling it a day. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
              • Wow. TDH make repeated bogus allegations of misconduct and bad faith against DuncanHill, whose conduct in this issue has been exemplary. Nobody backs TDH. Plenty of people tell TDH to stop.
                Yet TDH hears none of it, casts themselves as a "victim" of "bullying" when the only bullying has been by TDH … and now claims to have been driven out by a culture which refuses to endorse TDH's smear campaign. Are we in an Ingmar Bergman film? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
                • The abuse you meted out to TDW was incredible. I'm appalled by your behaviour. The ArbCom was right to have desysopped you. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
              • It's pretty amazing that TDW would sooner quit the website than apologize to Duncan for the repeated misrepresentations. ... or whether the project culture when it comes to well-known editors has completely lost the plot since I last noticed – Yes, they're no longer allowed to do whatever the hell they want, but I call this finding the plot, not losing it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that rhetoric like "vile" and "disgraceful" is very helpful, but aside from that it does seem that BHG's analysis of the situation is correct. Reyk _YO! 08:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I absolutely agree with BHG's assessment of the situation - Chris needs to read up on the procedure for deleting categories and TDW needs to look at the facts before defending Chris. And yes, I did try to fix the damage that Chris caused. MiasmaEternal^TALK 08:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I also (naturally, given the above exchange I had the misfortune to enjoy) support BHG's analysis of the overall issue, as I do Thryduulf's assessmernt of Chris.sherlock's behaviour and the likely consequences to them should it continue. By extension, I welcome Johnuniq's assurances in that regard. Although i first joined this discussion willing to see positives and negatives on both "sides", Chris.sherlock's exchange with me demonstrates at best gaslighting, at worse, trolling: when I plainly assert that "policy trumps guideline", I don't expect to be told that I am accusing anyone of "overturning policy". ——SN54129 12:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's not actually what you stated. You quoted the policy that consensus does not trump policy, which states that consensus should not overturn policy. Unless I have entirely missed something (and I repeatedly asked you to clarify) I wanted to know what policy I had violated. You chose not to respond. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • No, I chose not to be trolled, as I so choose now. ——SN54129 15:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry I caused you to feel that way, I was not trying to troll you. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Let us go back to the point

Irrespectively of who presumably was allegedly harassing whom, emptying categories (definitely emptying long existent categories, I am not not talking of categories created purely for vandalism or to push POV without any discussion) is not acceptable. If anyone wants to change the existing category structure, they must go to CFD. If a user has been pointed out to this fact but continues to empty categories out of process, their participation in Wikipedia must be restricted. I do not actually understand why this is at all being discussed. The category must be restored and nominated for CFD. I am sure if there is a Wiiproject behind the change they will be able to come up with good arguments to convince other users.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't wish to get into who attacked whom, etc, I'm certainly not engaging in the walls of text above, and I have no preferences for any specific category structure. But I just want to offer three opinions:

• Thryduulf is correct on the use of CSD.
• BrownHairedGirl is correct on the use of CFD for proposing the removal of category trees.
• Ymblanter is correct about the proper action now being to restore the status quo ante and seek consensus at CFD.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• What both those above me said. The interpersonal disputes are irrelevant to the central question here, which is "does a WikiProject have the ability unlaterally to declare those articles in its scope as exempt from Wikipedia's broader policies and guidelines?". We've been here before—most notoriously with infoboxes and with Wikidata—and the answer is always going to be the same; the only time a local consensus can override a global consensus is when there's a global consensus to allow the local project autonomy on a particular issue. "Ignore all rules" doesn't translate as a license for anyone to do whatever they want regardless of objections. ‑ Iridescent 09:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• Concur with Iridescent, Ymblanter, Boing! said Zebedee. Repopulate all categories emptied out of process, and take them to cfd (or leave them alone). Oculi (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Chris.sherlock

After reviewing the comments from a number of people who I know and respect, and a number of others who I don't know, it appears I have made a very bad error in judgement. I should have taken these to CSD, and not assumed that because we had discussed the categories on WP:AWNB it was fine to make the category changes. For this, I must apologise in particular to 14GTR. In all honesty, I didn't realise how central to the overarching category structure these were, and frankly I should have listened to you. This was also an error in judgement.

I will not apologise, however, for my assertions that DuncanHill is someone I want very little to do with, and someone who I avoid at all costs. I have now made it absolutely clear on my user talk page that I am requesting he not contact me - I have actually asked him not to do this on many occassions so I decided to make this as clear as possible. He is the only editor I have ever felt I need to formally advise to leave me alone in this manner.

In terms of what BrownHairedGirl has said, it appears she would like me to be indefinitely blocked. I am happy to be taken to ArbCom over this matter, and will accept whatever punishment they feel is necessary. I am hoping I won't be indefinitely blocked as I have a lot of articles I want to write for WP:WiR.

Finally, I would like to say some words about a few people who came to my defense. In particular, I am concerned that The Drover's Wife is being unfairly targetted and attacked, probably because of my ill-advised actions. In fact, TDW has made it clear she doesn't think my actions were correct. She has not objected to the categories being restored. I am absolutely dismayed that BrownHairedGirl asserted that she was "playing a nasty game of repeatedly making false accusations against DuncanHill", as I don't see she ever did this but did comment on the adversarial relationship the two of us have. I'm also deeply troubled that BHG accussed TDW of gaslighting, when I see no evidence of this at all. I also find it troubling that BHG responded to TDW that "I hope that you are consciously fabricating it all for some reason", which was unwarranted and unfair.

I would also like to say how troubled I am that BHG told one of our Australian contributors, Gnangarra that he "writes goobledygook", which whilst is not a racial slur, is a fairly vile way of speaking about another editor who didn't make any personal attacks and just expressed their opinion on this forum. I am absolutely amazed that BHG thinks that it is OK to write that "With friends like this, Chris.sherlock doesn't need enemies." That's an egregious personal attack, and in the ArbCom findings against her this sort of thing was particularly highlighted.

I would like to see BHG apologise to both The Drover's Wife and Gnangarra, regardless of what happens to myself. the way BHG went after my fellow Australian editors was vicious and uncalled for. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the rest of your statement, I'd challenge anyone to describe what decision happen with relation to US novelist has nothing to with Australian writers they two different groups both culturally and practically, the under lying issue being women writers being an occupation which it isn't because it characteristic of the person not the occupation as anything other than gobbledygook. It's not any kind of personal attack, let alone racism, to point out that a sentence is completely incomprehensible. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not well known, but in fact that word is actually an insult in that it means that they believe the person is making the sounds of a turkey (I had to look this up, I knew it was insulting but not why). It's inflammatory language and a direct insult, and if you disagree with Gnangarra's position or don't understand it then it would be best to simply say that you don't agree, you think their position is not valid, or you don't understand what they are saying. Interestingly, you didn't tell me that my assertion was "gobbledygook", you said it was "incomprehensible".

For what it's worth, I completely agree with Gnangarra. It's not at all incomprehensible that the intrinsic characteristic of being a writer is not one's gender. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I want to thank BHG for responding to my ping and very clearly explaining the technical/content-related stuff. That portion now seems to be completely resolved, after Chris' latest comment. I'm sad to see so many people on both sides venting so much bile. I don't think demanding apologies from anyone is going to help right now, as everyone appears to be convinced God Is On Their Side, morally if not content-wise. I also don't think it's useful to spend days arguing whether the consensus of ANI denizens is that Side A is 35.4% at fault for the bile, or 64.6% at fault. So I suggest someone close this; sometimes sweeping stuff under the rug is the best, albeit imperfect, solution. I would, but I've commented. Until that happens, please consider not picking at scabs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you Floquenbeam. I want to make it clear that I am not expecting to escape any sanctions. I believe BHG would like me to be indefinitely blocked from editing, I hope this won't be the case but if someone believes I should be taken to ArbCom I will accept this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have decided to refer myself to ArbCom, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review of actions of Chris.sherlock.. Whilst I realise some will consider this to be a time sink, I unfortunately am going on a potentially extended wikibreak and will be unable to rectify the category changes I made. As there has been some suggestion I be sanctioned, to the point where it was suggested it should be indefinite blocked, I decided that I should probably have my actions reviewed by an impartial body in an environment that has less conflict than here. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:47, 22 April 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.

Chris.sherlock's misuse of their userpage to make a prominent personal attack

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 a piece minor fallout from the mass-emptying of categories thread which was closed earlier today[252].

Chris.sherlock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted yesterday on their talk page a header note asking DuncanHill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to refrain from posting on their talk page.[253] That post is still there as of now.[254]

Such a request is fine in principle, subject to the constraints of WP:NOBAN. What isn't fine is that Chris.sherlock has chosen to use that notice to mount a personal attack against DuncanHill, alleging your vendetta against at me. No evidence is offered of the existence of any such "vendetta".

Per WP:NPA and WP:POLEMIC, the is an improper use of a userpage. If Chris.sherlock genuinely believes that they have been subject to a "vendetta" by another editor, they should assemble the evidence and use the appropriate dispute resolution channels. However, it is not acceptable to place what appears to be a permanent notice making such an allegation, without having that allegation subject to scrutiny.

Note that in the ANI thread about the mass-emptying of categories, Chris.sherlock alleged that DuncanHill was harassing Chris,[255]. No evidence was offered there in support of the allegation.

Nonetheless, the allegation was helpfully investigated by User:Serial Number 54129, who posted[256] that they had found no WP:HARASSment going on; [257] including this very discussion, you've only edited the same pages in the same month eight times—and of those, on five occasions DH was the first to post. And of course at least one of those edits—to your talk page—was an official requirement over and above the allowance made to editors per WP:NOBAN.

So the allegation appears to be a groundless smear against DuncanHill in retaliation for DH quite properly raising a concern about Chris.sherlock's massively disruptive conduct (the complaint was upheld, and even Chris.sherlock has grudgingly acknowledged that they were wrong not to use CFD). I posted about this[258] on Chris.sherlock's talk, but they did not even acknowledge my comment.

Please can some admin remove the allegation, and remind Chris.sherlock not to make unsubstantiated allegations? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I could write a lot but I will instead just say that I don't think this is "striv[ing] to be excellent to each other." to quote xeno quoting Bill and Ted. Consider how energy could perhaps be better spent in that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, is that a comment about my post here, or about Chris.sherlock's talkpage notice? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've removed the note. Let's call it a day, shall we? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I would very much rather not participate in this thread. Not for my own sake. DuncanHill (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks to Floquenbeam for removing the attack.[259]. So far as I am concerned, this has now been speedily resolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 23 April 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.

Roomba racial slur vandalism

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.

---

Roomba has racial slur vandalism in this edit. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Natureium reverted, and I've revdel'd and blocked the IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:50, 22 April 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.

• Roomba racial slur vandalism??? The mind boggles. EEng 04:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive single purpose account at ImeIme Umana

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Already blocked. Nothing more to do here. (non-admin closure) buidhe 04:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

---

At ImeIme Umana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an account called Umana stolemoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently adding BLP violations to the article, including claims she is related to a criminal with the same surname (unverified) and how at school she did not work rather than blatantly blame institutional racism for all of their woes. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say someone with that username editing that article isn't here in good faith. FDW777 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree; blocked indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

SPA tags on people that disagree with you

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.

---

Recently BD2412 went though and mass tagged SeriousIndividuals on Talk:Joe Biden here. This was reverted by SeriousIndividuals and then re-added by Muboshgu here citing Nope. Tag is appropriate. Added by an admin. After some discussion on Muboshgu's talk page I removed the tags here citing reverting challenged unhelpful tag shaming by opposition. Please stop edit warring over a user essay. which was immediately reverted by AzureCitizen here saying revert removal of valid WP:SPA tags. My issue is that the tags server no purpose other than tag shamming the individual and that it was inappropriate for BD2412 to go though and tag someone that they disagree with and has had previous issues with the Joe Biden pages in general shown here. Even per {{Single-purpose account}}, a comment should not be dismissed merely because it comes from a new account so if the tags are objected to why edit war them in? If there is a concern they are a sock, take them to SPI, otherwise it is not helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I have applied {{SPA}} tags literally hundreds of times, in all kinds of discussions, whether I agreed with the editor or not. I tagged an IP SPA that agreed with me in a discussion last week! The tag exists for a reason - because new accounts are known to suddenly pop up to aggressively press a position, whether it be to score a political point or to dispute the deletion of a non-notable business. This is a case clearly illustrative of that. User:SeriousIndividuals appeared on Wikipedia less than a week ago, and has done virtually nothing except opine in discussions on a highly contentious topic. Of course this is suspicious activity, and should be tagged as such, just as if the participation was in an AfD for a garage band or on a move request for a company to its assertedly preferred name. BD2412 T 22:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The issues that come up are WP:BITE and what does it actually achieve? Again if you think they are a sock take them to SPI, if they are disruptive block them or take them here. Just tagging does not and cannot actually achieve anything positive by itself. PackMecEng (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, they serve the purpose of alerting admins to examine a discussion more carefully and to consider whether to start a WP:SPI. There are probably other reasons I'm not thinking of but I am being called away. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 23:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This is also an interesting question - is there a prior discussion that states the authority of users to enforce individual SPA tags? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hard to say, I have not seen anything definitive but it is just a user essay. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is not really the purpose of the template though. Even in this situation it says Unless there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion (a typical sign of sock puppetry), there is probably no need to use this template; the user should probably be addressed personally instead. Which was not the case here and no talk was had before hand. PackMecEng (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've been wondering about this SPA tag for a while now. When I was new editor, I was accused of being a SPA, (I thought they misspelled spy) but I definitely am not. I'm all over the place on WP - all the way to Commons - but I do know we have veteran editors who appear to be SPAs in that they only edit certain articles in a particular topic area...like AP2, or GMOs, or CAM, etc. We don't tag them and if my memory serves, we have had long time editors showing up with 5 or 6 accounts and ivoting. Anonymity is a dilemma, but I think we should probably AGF first. Having said that, I have drawn attention to new editors who show up at an RfC - and in small text I will note that they have 4 edits total...or something along that line. I wouldn't doubt that we have lots of editors who prefer not to be known for taking a political position so they'll use a safe name - that's legal isn't it - as long as they don't abuse it? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

By "use a safe name" do you mean to edit with multiple accounts, without disclosing a connection between those accounts? BD2412 T 23:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We routinely use SPA tags when single purpose accounts WP:PRECOCIOUSLY jump right into the middle of RfCs, AfDs, etc. having done none, or very little, editing elsewhere. Given the canvassing, sock puppetry, and meat puppetry, at articles involving high profile individual in American politics, this should be uncontroversial. In almost every case, no one should remove a SPA tag that was placed in good faith. To do so is disruptive and ultimately works against our purpose. - MrX 🖋 23:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

When you say "no one should remove a SPA tag that was placed good faith," is that your personal view or is there some kind of rule that says you can't remove people's tags? I'm genuinely asking, and nobody seems to have an answer. — Sockpuppet comment of a community banned user

Thank you for notifying me, PackMecEng. I brought my concerns to Muboshgu's talk page here[260] but never got an answer to my questions unfortunately. I was disturbed to see that BD2412 chose to return to editing Joe Biden articles less than a week after agreeing to stop doing so[261], but I mainly just wanted to know if Muboshgu's justification for the tagging (B2412 is an "admin") was legitimate, and if I was permitted to revert Muboshgu's reversion of my reversion. Muboshgu nor BD2412 ever gave me an answer. My main beef here is that I feel like these tags are designed to undermine views with which BD2412 disagrees. I asked to be pointed to the policy page that says that I'm not allowed to delete these tags, but neither admin answered this question. I feel like it would have been much easier to help me understand the regulations behind tagging people's edits and whether admins have special privileges to do so, rather than simply use the "admin" title as a cudgel to intimidate me into keeping my views to myself. — Sockpuppet comment of a community banned user

The tags alert editors that there is reason to suspect that the account perhaps didn't come to Wikipedia to help build an encyclopedia, but rather for advocacy or some other purpose that is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Weren't you the user who had a new IP address every time you commented, and who's contributions were focused including Tara Reade's allegations in the Joe Biden bio? - MrX 🖋 23:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, the assertion that I somehow agreed to stop editing articles relating to Joe Biden is false. Moreover, SeriousIndividuals knows that this is false, because he protested on Muboshgu's talk page that the addition of SPA tags was an administrative action, and it was clearly explained to him there that this was a regular editing action. This should be dealt with accordingly. I should add that I have no allegiance to any political party, and that can be well-attested to my lengthy history of contributions with respect to politicians of all parties. BD2412 T 23:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and then you reported me to the admins trying to argue that I was some kind of "vandal"[262] (clearly false), attempted to dehumanize Ms. Reade as nothing more than a "staffer," claimed you "don't much care about Wikipedia," and were told to disengage.[263] Clearly, this instruction wasn't sufficient because you're still campaigning to undermine my views almost two weeks later. — Sockpuppet comment of a community banned user

• FWIW I recently had this disagreement in an RFC where I was the one placing SPA tags and others were removing them, to which I objected. My feeling on the matter is that it's covered by WP:TPG. If an editor posts This editor is an SPA. ~~~~, others may disagree, but if someone who disagreed removed that comment, it would be a violation of TPG. I think writing {{spa}} ~~~~ is the same thing, and this shouldn't be removed. If someone is habitually making improper tags, that's the same as someone habitually casting aspersions, and should be handled in similar fashion. Having recently had this argument elsewhere, I've looked all over, and could not find any policy or guideline or anything documenting global consensus on this issue. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll add that I think one tag per account per thread is sufficient. Tagging each and every comment an SPA makes in the same thread seems excessive and distracting. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: placing != plastering. In a single coherent thread, there is little reason to add a tag multiple times. Next, as alluded to above, there are a good number of ....”regulars” who are, when all is said and done, SPAs; they just have a longer history, which has allowed that narrow focus multiple targets. Cirt’s many later manifestations, for example, were (are?) political SPA accounts.

This isn’t, say, an AfD where the subject has alerted his friends, or borrowed their computers.

There may, of course, be other issues: canvassing, sockpuppetry, meat-puppetry, &cet. but the narrow POV problems being highlighted are every bit as big a problem when somewhen has done it a few thousand times. Larger, in fact. Qwirkle (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• BD2412 shouldn't have added that tag multiple times, after every comment made by SeriousIndividuals. It seems like BD2412 was acting in bad-faith here by trying to call an editor muliple times a "single purpose account". This admin has been warned before about using used his admin tools where he is clearly involved. I am not sure but I think this can be brought to WP:AE.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @SharabSalam: This is incorrect. I have not been "warned"; I protected a page and then voluntarily initiated a discussion here to seek evaluation of that page protection, and to advocate for protecting articles on all candidates and campaigns. I therefore request that you strike that incorrect statement. Also, I have not used any admin tools on any related pages following that discussion. BD2412 T 00:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I think the concern here is that Muboshgu reinstated your edit that had already been reverted, and seemed to imply that non-admins weren't permitted to revert admins by pointing out your status as an admin. Did you also lock the Donald Trump presidential campaign article through the November election, or was it just Joe Biden's campaign page? — Sockpuppet comment of a community banned user
      • I advocated for locking both. The community had no appetite for that step. BD2412 T 00:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I have strikes "warned". You have used your admin tools in articles where you are clearly involved. You have called an editor in that discussion a single purpose account under every single comment he has made. You should apologize to SeriousIndividuals and remove all of your comments except the one under the !vote.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I tagged the SPA where the SPA was being an SPA. Under what policy or guideline is that incorrect? BD2412 T 00:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
        • BD2412, You have violated multiple guidelines here. You have repeated your comment that this editor is a single purpose account under every comment he has made. See WP:TALK Avoid repeating your posts: Your fellow editors can read your prior posts, so repeating them wastes time and space and may be considered WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. Your repeated, unneeded, unproductive comments make me thinks that you are trying to bite newcomers, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account. Besides, it is discouraged to label any editor with such invidious titles during a dispute (see Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade). WP:BITE.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not particularly seeing the problem here. BD2412 did what we regularly do in contentious discussions, which is single out SPA POV pushing accounts. Such accounts are often vociferous on a single topic, but aren't engaged anywhere else, a sign of POV pushing, or sometimes shenanigans. Thus tagging them as SPA is a totally legit step. If there is any issue, it lies not with BD2412, but with the template itself. I see no misconduct from BD, and think that we ought not focus on them here. If there are concerns about how we use the SPA tag, then we probably need an RfC about how to use the tag, since we seem to be short on official guidance. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  You don't think it's disruptive to repeatedly call an editor a single-purpose account like more than 20 times in a single discussion?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying that for better or worse it's a standard practice, and that the fault perhaps lies in the system, not BD2412. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:13, 22 April 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.

JOJOJOJO1234567890

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.

---

• JOJOJOJO1234567890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Needs an indef. Only creation is User:JOJOJOJO1234567890/sandbox, a nonsense sandbox rant about a fake avengers movie. Once it got declined, they posted this legal threat. Hardly doubt its serious, but also doubt there they're here to contribute meaningfully. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:43, 22 April 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.

Hijacking of My User Talk Page & Borderline Harassment

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.

---

Having been reassured by @El C: I should no longer have any issues going forward over my talk page, I have effectively lost control of my own user talk page because of User: Dennis Bratland violating WP:HARASS and WP:3RR, while trying to respond to El_C. My recent AN/I over WP:Wikihounding, was regarding this. It has blown up into this situation, where nearly every and any submission I make anywhere, is stalked by the user in question and deliberately goading me into leaving Wikipedia [264][265][266]. I did not want to create an AN/I over this, as it felt over the top. However, having my talk page hijacked and edit warred to death, no thanks.
I brought to the table (in link 2 above), a removal of information from BMW, I provided to a BMW article 28 months ago by a fellow editor 14 months ago, which had been verified, agreed on, and supported by Wiki guidelines in 2017. I expressed disappointment on the BMW E21 talk page (link 2 above), because no explanation was provided for doing that and I required one, so that it wouldn't happen again. On another page (Nissan Navara, link 3), I gave thanks regarding public usage of Wikipedia paying off to any and all contributing editors. They followed it up with negative commentary, which I removed (not acceptable by me), being rightfully restored by the user (no matter how unwelcome). On another page (Ford Bronco, link 1), I expressed concern why an often active user (Sable232) missed a glaring error (yet does the opposite with my edits[267][268][269][270]), with no citation and misleading information?

Both User:Sable232 and User:Dennis Bratland are stalking my edits to varying degrees and are setting out to create an uncomfortable editing environment for me by "targeting", in hopes I will leave Wikipedia voluntarily, blow up at them, and/ or be terminated indefinitely. If I change a timeline format that has been poorly written, Sable232 undoes it to make a point (or be disruptive) and Bratland makes incendiary commentary in areas they had little to no previous involvement as long as it pertains to me. An Arbcom is ongoing regarding my previous conduct, in which these instances of antagonism and harassment are key factors. I am bringing it up, so I do not resort to unnecessarily rash action. (drawn out verbal fights, warring). I'm not an expert on what should be done to ensure, I am not being targeted by these individuals with every submission and edit I make, particularly Bratland. In terms of page protection for manipulation of a user's talk page and etc. The 3RR violating user is somehow annoyed by the fact that myself, Dr. James N. (known here as Carmaker1), of Ford Motor Company Product Development Center and formerly of Jaguar Land Rover at Whitley Centre Coventry, wants to expand automotive Wikipedia (when feasible), but not ashamed of my background and expertise, to the point I work within those articles. Reading previous comments on Talk Ford Bronco, will highlight I don't use it as a means to intimidate. A few of us engineers do contribute, as well as designers. I have been warned in the past (about attitude), so going forward I am focusing on content (expansion, in depth historical information) and preventing disruptive actions (deleting without consensus, introducing contentious information, vandalism). I cannot do so successfully, if I feel harassed by someone, who thinks they can hide behind WP templates via WP:Wikilawyering and actively insult me in the process for amusement or stroke their own ego.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't your first trip here, Carmaker1; not even this month. You should know by now that long emotional diatribes don't get you results. Concise evidenced reports will. X editor violated Y policy at Z diff. And so on. I don't know or care what the gist of everyone's bitching at automobile articles is about, and will not get involved. Don't do Wrestling either. And it's ridiculous that a serious primarily nuts and bolts subject like vehicles has descended to the level of something fundamentally meaningless like professional wrestling, but that's what it is. I see this is at Arbcom. Perhaps they can fix it. Betting pretty much no current vehicle editors will care for what they do. John from Idegon (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The ArbCom does NOT address this new development, so I am opening it up here to resolve it. As for: "I don't know or care what the gist of everyone's bitching at automobile articles is about, and will not get involved." Did you just state that? If you are an administrator, that doesn't read very objective, as this has nothing to do with content, but behavior and manipulation of another user's talk page. I currently have no new issues with content, that demands such mediation. If I did, it would appear at dispute resolution. I have recognized that your approach to this already shows a lack of objective care, as well as possible bias in overlooking the major aspect of hijacking a user's talk page (despite being requested to not be going there to edit, aside from warnings or notices/summons). I ironically was goaded into bringing to AN/I by the user in question, because they felt empowered to do as they liked on my talk page, so what choice did I have? Hope for magical interference? Your snarky response is unwelcome and disrespectful, as you know very well the subject matter isn't related to article content at this point. It is addressing for once, an underlying issue and ongoing harassment.--Carmaker1 (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have formally warned Dennis Bratland about the edit warring on Carmaker1's user talk page and advised them of places they could respond, including here. While this remains at WP:ARC there is some sentiment the community has not had a chance to adequately address this issue, a sentiment I share as I think the community is capable of addressing the issues at play here. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

All I have to say is that the user page guidelines and WP:POLEMIC don’t allow anyone to use their user pages as a safe perch to attack others with impunity. If Carmaker1 is going to use their talk page as a venue for a laundry list of disparagements, I have every right to reply on that page. Anyone who uses their talk page to badmouth an editor forfeits the right to kick them off their page.

None of this drama would be happening if Carmaker1 honored their repeated promises to focus on content, not contributors. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

No one attacked you in text within that discussion between El_C and myself. I was asking for advice. You've chosen to take that impression, while edit-warring on someone else's talk page by hijacking it from their own control. I have never hijacked someone's talk page :0. That right there is very, very telling. Signed Dr. James N.(BTY)--Carmaker1 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Carmaker1...besides wrestling and nationalistic editing, no single subject area consistantly lands here more than cars. I don't need to be involved in the details. I can see. If you don't want to follow good advice for how to successfully form an ANI complaint that's on you. I'm not an administrator and being an administrator isn't required to comment here. Your perception of having your talk page "hijacked" is not equivalent to another editor violating a policy. If you want action, you need to provide evidence. If you want it without a ton of drama and timesink, don't make your report dramatic and a long winded timesink itself. Listen or not, I don't care...it's not worth the grief. Frankly I hope Arbcom blocks the lot of you. Maybe the community can get some peace. John from Idegon (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

If you think being rude to me in the manner that you are exempts you from being accused of incivility towards me, you are quite mistaken. I am not above defending myself against a nasty temperament, provided that it's worthy of direct response. None of your points made, have solid credibility in being highly opinionated. I'm not interested in your viewpoint if it can't be objective and is essentially trolling, to insult an editor and not resolve a matter.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I echo John from Idegon's comment above. Carmaker1 is advised that from now on, they should focus on content, not contributors—no more mentions of Dennis Bratland unless at this noticeboard with evidence, and not unless the issue is something new and substantive. The same applies to Dennis Bratland. If any evidence of a new problem is presented, one or both editors can be blocked. Meanwhile, stop talking about the past or each other. The Arbcom case request will be declined and any new issues can be handled here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed sir, I genuinely mean that and will only refer to a user regarding content and not them as an individual going forward. Thank you for your input and I honor that by being 100% respectful, no more excuses nor any iota of snide behavior on my part.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Although Dennis Bratland should not have reverted your post to your talk page, you should also have not posted about them on your talk page, except to alert El C if there was a violation of your request to stay off. It's at a minimum extremely rude to demand someone stay off your talk page, then effectively talk about them behind their back, in a way they cannot directly respond. (This doesn't mean it's wise for Dennis Bratland to respond, often it isn't. But they should be able to.) I assume you're banning someone from your talk page to partly disengage from them, which clearly isn't happening if you then start talking about them. In other words, if you want someone to leave you alone, then you should be leaving them alone as well. If you have actual issues requiring sanction or whatever, then bring them to an appropriate noticeboard, with evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that's understandable, to a degree. Should have kept it simple and waited for El_C, but re-read why I made that request. It was due to unwelcome harassment, which finally took the cake at Nissan Navara talk page for the 3rd/4th time of "fending off" unwanted harassment. What can be done however regarding the tendency of what I mentioned above as WP:HARASS and provided examples in diffs above?--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

---

I'm dissapointed that Dennis Bratland broke their promise by not only editing Carmaker1's talk page, but actually edit warring there, too. Responding to multiple comments by Carmaker1 directly (rather than reporting any issues with these elsewhere) also comes across as provocation rather than dialogue. Had there not been a new warning issued by another admin, I would apply immediate sanctions. El_C 17:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In essence, Dennis Bratland cannot revoke his promise not to post on Carmaker1's talk page for any reason. He needs to report violations, if he believes these are occurring, not committing a violation himself. Which he did. More on that here. El_C 20:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You say I broke my promise but to me Carmaker1 is the one who voided the talk page ban by abusing it. That is something not everyone seems to be entirely in agreement about. I'm not the only one who thinks a talk page ban is contingent on the talk page owner not proceeding to use their talk page level accusations against someone who cannot reply there. Moving the discussion to another page was a better solution than either replying or removing their posts about me, but I didn't think of that at first. In any case, I'd suggest going forward we need to make clear to everyone that if you ban someone form you talk page, you have to find some other venue to post diatribes against the person you ostensibly don't want contact with. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland: Can I ask how you even became aware of that discussion? It looks like intentionally or not, Carmaker1 wrote it in such a way that you wouldn't be notified [271] [272]. Yet somehow 17 minutes later you were responding [273]? If you are still watching Carmaker1's talk page, may I suggest considering you've been banned from it, this is unwise? While you are not ibanned, given the relationship between you two, you shouldn't be following Carmaker1 around except specifically when you are building a case to bring somewhere in the immediate future. And you cannot comment there so what goes on on it should not generally concern you.

If you're going to use the fact Carmaker1 talked about you as an excuse, well I wrote a very long reply but decided against posting it and will just give a brief summary. May I suggest this is a poor example since you couldn't have known that before it happened, and Carmaker1 pinged El C, the admin who was well aware of request you stay away, and who therefore would likely have dealt with concerns over the appropriateness of what Carmaker1 was doing.

I don't know if my earlier reply was clear but IMO your best solution by far if you did somehow become aware of that discussion, was just leave it be and let someone else deal with it. Your second best solution, was to bring it to a noticeboard or with El C without touching Carmaker1's page in any way.

The options you chose to deal with it was close to the worse possible. Noting of course that even without a ban once per WP:OWNTALK and WP:UP#OWN, once you start edit warring with someone over what is on their talk page, most of the time you are clearly in the wrong.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A requirement to remove their talk page from my watchlist is rather novel. This is not an WP:IBAN. Carmaker1 can’t unilaterally declare an interaction ban, that’s for the community to decide, and they never requested one. If it’s unacceptable to criticize someone in a venue they are not allowed to reply in — and some of us think that’s a fundamental principle, even if the polemic and talk rules don’t explicitly say so — how would I be aware of it unless I watch the page? Again, I’ll at least admit replying on their page was not the best response, and copying the thread elsewhere, which didn’t occur to me at first, was better. If I hadn’t seen substantial evidence that Carmaker1 seems to have a unique immunity to community sanctions, I would have simply requested help in an appropriate form instead of taking action myself.

You could propose unwatching a talk page one has been kicked off as a new rule, perhaps in some combination with my proposal that you can’t criticize someone on a page you’ve banned them from. But all that belongs on a village pump proposal discussion. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

No, you were mandated not to edit that talk page, for any reason, and you contravened that. If you see a violation, you report it, you don't commit a violation yourself. It's that simple. El_C 18:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Is there anything going to be done about my concerns related to WP:HARASS, where the user wasn't mentioned, yet followed me to numerous talk pages, to counteract with antagonistic responses (cited above) or should this AN/I just be closed, if there is no interest in doing that? Thanks again for your sound input.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that is how you see it, and I can respect your reasons, even if I reach a different conclusion. But now I’m confused about where you’re going with this. Can you help me understand what you’re asking me for right now? Is there something you are asking me to say or do? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Asked and answered here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Carmaker1, I hope both of you will tread lightly from now on with respect to direct interaction with one another. As seen from Dennis Bratland's link directly above, on my talk page, he seems amenable to that, so I'm closing this report on that note (see also my closing summary at the top of the report). El_C 23:40, 21 April 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:PAID

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.

---

• Couple questions, Johnuniq. Is the comment immediately above a formal sanction? Second, as an employee of Ford, as he self-outed himself above, shouldn't he be restricted to talk pages only on automobiles? Being an important person in an important part of one of the major players in the automotive game is a clear cut conflict of interest and I'm betting also includes WP:PAID. If Carmaker gets profit sharing, a 401k contribution from the company, or stock options (all common compensation for key employees such as designers), then he's PAID and has no business editing automotive articles directly at all. John from Idegon (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm making that a question for the community. I strongly doubt Carmaker can honestly deny that his personal income is directly tied to Ford's profitability. Can our reputation afford having someone whose income is directly tied to an particular auto company's bottom line generally editing automotive articles at all? Many police departments have policy in place barring officers from drinking in public licensed establishments in their jurisdiction. It's not because it has caused problems; it's to avoid any public perception that it could be. Fraternal Order of Police posts frequently have private bars, for just that reason. With his revelation here, we have a huge perception problem. We need to act to maintain the public's perception of neutrality in our encyclopedia. As I frequently tell my son: "Reputation is our most important asset". John from Idegon (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  That's a common misunderstanding of PAID. If Carmaker works for Ford, then they are paid to do things with cars, not edit Wikipedia. PAID is specifically about paying someone to make edits to Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• And unsurprisingly, you are reaching over some wonderous, underlying reason. My interest is in the automotive project (globally), past, present, and future, not solely Ford products. I mentioned being a Jaguar engineer years ago and no issue was made of it for well over 3 years. How often did I edit Jaguar Land Rover articles? Hardly, compared to Japanese and German products, with various American brands thrown in. It's a hobby as an automotive collector, historian, and enthusiast since youth. It is all very interesting how personal you are taking this, to turn it into something extra and OFF-TOPIC. As someone that is a fan of spy and detective/investigative novels/films, I can read right through people with their intentions and certainly wasn't born yesterday...--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Carmaker1: You must comment with less emotion. Stick to substantive issues such as article content and the substance of your edits. Almost all of your comment is pointless, and talking about when you were born is a waste of other editor's time at this busy noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • It was a waste of my Sunday, to listen someone who is not an administrator (John from Idegon), gripe and insult me about over their irrelevant, negative opinion in a pointless fashion. I generally mind my business, rightfully so. In terms of my lengthy writing, yes I understand and I respect your request.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• I intended my comment above as an informal formal sanction. That is, I was planning to give one more warning to either of the two editors at the next problem, but then issue a significant block for any second problem. However, I don't think this discussion is ready to be closed, and I didn't want to be overly pompous. Nevertheless, my comment should be interpreted as a friendly threat. Re the Ford issue: I don't know enough about the background. COI is an important problem but in principle it's quite possible for an employee to edit helpfully. If they consistently puffed up Ford articles and denigrated competitors, an indefinite block might be appropriate. However, it would be good if they were using their knowledge to add neutral and sourced content. I wouldn't automatically say that a Ford employee must not edit a Ford topic or any car topic unless the edits involved COI issues. Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, a good friendly threat nonetheless. It is very obvious I've had a behavioral issue and yes, for good I am refraining from carrying on in any negative manner outside of defending myself on AN/I or my talk page. I solemnly swear to be objective about any corporate failures on the part of Ford and will remain 100% objective regarding all companies, to be solely informative and not intimidate anyone. The idea is to "help" people out, so if I know something, it can be found by anyone and brought back here via verifiable source. I am responsible for the leak of launch date for the 2023 Mustang, using a relative and not giving myself credit. That's how I work. If I can publicize every relevant aspect of the automotive industry (without harm), to the benefit of the public, that's my goal and nothing but that. I will leave it at that.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Again, Carmaker1, that's not how Wikipedia works. Administrators are not "the boss". They simply enforce the community's will. We are all the boss. Anyone can comment here. Wikipedia has a reputation and managing perception of that is 100% in the community's domain. I feel it is a major problem. Johnuniq, not as much. No one knows how you feel, because snark and verbosity have completely clouded your response. How about you clarify your communication in an unemotional way and then leave it be so the rest of the community can respond? I'm asking for a topic ban sanctions to avoid public perception of bias. Do others feel this better addressed at VPP? I think current policy allows it, and interpertation of existing behavior policy issues generally happen here. Comments please. John from Idegon (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's very rich and grossly hypocritical.[274][275][276]--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Personal attacks are definitely not warranted. Not to mention a glaringly bad idea in an ANI thread. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with any of your edits. I'm saying in general that someone editing pseudonymously claiming to be in a key position with a major player in the industry, one that commonly includes profit-based incentives and claiming to be in possession of insider information that he has used in his editing (or was that claim more snark? Cannot tell) is a detriment to the project on general principle. We cannot afford a public perception of bias. Something tells me we will be reading about this in a future issue of Wired. One single editor no matter who it is, is not indispensable to the project. Public perception of the project is more important than a single editor. If you were retired from multiple companies or were teaching automotive engineering or design in a university, no one would question your neutrality, because no conflict would exist. We simply cannot claim we are neutral and allow someone who has a profit to be had from an automobile company to be editing extensively in the area of automotive articles. A topic ban that removes any possible profit motive would solve that perception issue. Possibly not "automotive, broadly construed", but rather "contemporary automobile and automotive companies articles". That would still allow edits in the area of automotive that would have no bearing on the profitability of his employer. Like general articles on components, antique cars, history, etc. No diffs here. The issue at hand was raised by the OP himself in this very thread, and I'm not making an accusation of bias. I'm saying that public perception of the project is more important than the contributions of a single editor. Don't know how to state this any clearer than that. John from Idegon (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • And, as no one has yet replied, let me clarify further. I'm looking for paid editing restrictions, not a topic ban. His expertise is valuable. He can contribute to talk discussions and make edit requests, just not edit directly. We have to be able to deny bias by showing that the conflicted editor's work is reviewed. This is where this might need to be at VPP. We have to use our PAID policy not only to prevent non neutral editing, but also to avoid negative perception of our neutrality in general. The last may be pushing the envelope a bit, but it is certainly a valid discussion point. John from Idegon (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I have to say, not having looked at this in any great detail, but if he has disclosed he works for Ford then I don't think this completely excludes him from editing all automotive articles. I did some work for an Acquarium shop, disclosed this and was able to add some info on bettas without any issues. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Chris.sherlock, the argument is a red herring. Information on betas cannot give a competitive advantage to a particular seller of betas. They all sell other things, and all the competition also sells the exact same betas. However it does sound like you agree that his admission here create a perception issue. Am I reading you correctly? (BTW, I edit conflicted you posting my previous entry). John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon not a red herring, a betta splendens. but, actually, adding the wrong or slanted info on bettas could be problematic. There are hundreds of species of bettas, and thousands of varieties. The advise each shop gives can be quite different. You could influence what food people buy, for instance. This makes it very important to reference solid information, which I have taken care to do. The same goes with the automotive industry. If he is writing about automobiles and sourcing correctly (and I suggest he stays away from Ford articles as much as possible, which may not be easy or even fully feasible given Ford is massive) then I don't think there is a problem if he contributes in an NPOV, accurate way with proper sourcing to automotive articles. And he also needs to disclose his potential COIs, which he has done.

I'll admit I've walked into the middle of what looks like a complex and major dispute. Carmaker1 isn't doing himself any favours with his major screeds, but I similarly don't think you do yourself any favours by being so strident. I do know it makes it impossible for either party (or anyone else!) to find a resolution. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• • • • I have never hid who I worked for, having worked for Toyota USA as a paid intern in 2010, JLR in Mahwah, NJ in 2011, and UK as an intern in 2012-13, then full employment from 2013-16. And now this is becoming an issue? Am I no longer allowed to edit family members' Wikipedia pages, because of a conflict of interest? Wikipedia is not going to help the horrible Ford stock price nor is my nada effect editing.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Assuming this unsigned edit is Carmaker, you're clueless (regarding COI editing) post reinforces my opinion that you cannot manage your COI without intervention. You posted all this in the single most visable place on Wikipedia, asserting your position and title as if they had some bearing on the conversation, while at the same time admitting you've been editing in other areas where you have a COI. So please now disclose what articles about your relatives you have edited, so that other non conflicted editors can review them.--John from Idegon (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
          • There really is no need for such an aggressive message. Whilst you may be suspicious of COI, there is no need to be rude about it. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
          • What are you even talking about? What "visable" place did I assert my position and title? An article? Here? It's called "my background", on why I care to edit about certain subjects and being transparent (and not deceiving to flout COI). I clearly do not have my own Wikipedia article page like a politician or a celebrity, therefore, COI reduces quite a bit doesn't it? Ironically, I refrained from doing that (family articles) to not give away my ethnic background. You can check my edit history and come to that resolution regarding the relevant nationality and my edit summaries disclosing that on each differing page.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
            • And thank you Chris sherlock for your input.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a second-hand opinion here, but I would recommend that you do not, in fact, edit family members' Wikipedia pages, and perhaps review WP:COI. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite and respectful suggestion Dumuzid. Have a good day.--Carmaker1 (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• FYI, now listed at COIN, which is the proper forum for WP:PAID issues. I suggest this WP:PAID sub-thread be closed here, in order not to have two discussions about the same in two different places. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Is this a personal attack?

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.

---

So I lurked HHH Pedrigree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s user page and I discovered what appears to be a sweary rant inserted on Pedigree's user page by ForrestFuller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in October 2018, complete with a signature (suggesting this is meant for Pedrigree's user talk page). This appears to originate over a dispute over part-time members of Bullet Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). After FF inserted whatever these things that should have been on an user talk page, FF changed the message to say that he is done dealing with him, with two instances of the word "asshole" referring to Pedrigree. The suspicious placement (a user talk page material is placed on an user page) complete with the use of the word "asshole" makes me wonder if this could constitute a personal attack. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 12:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Calling editors "asshole"= very uncivil, probably a personal attack; something that happened over two years ago on a page neither party has edited in over two years=completely irrelevant of the non-event kind. ——SN54129 13:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Digging up a diff with no context, from two years ago, and posting it at ANI probably isn't the best thing to be doing. To quote Nigel Tufnel - "Authorities said... best leave it... unsolved..." Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with everything SN54129 and Lugnuts have said. Best we let it go. AryaTargaryen 13:51, 22 April 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.

Bgkc4444

• Bgkc4444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The evidence suggests that Bgkc4444 is a fan of Beyoncé. I grow weary of this user's addition of badly-sourced material to List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and his bloating of articles with relentless puffery.

I do not think that Bgkc4444 is paid to edit on behalf of Beyoncé, but the effect is the same. Only maybe worse: paid PR teams are probably better at pretending to follow NPOV. Guy (help!) 00:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Apologies, I reversed an edit by a user known for making unreliable edits to awards articles which mischaracterised an award as a poll, which it is not, but I did not recognise the source was a blog. Regarding the edits to the Lemonade album article, I was reviewing Featured articles for the Albums WikiProject and was trying to emulate those articles by creating the edits that I made. I don't see how it is "bloating of articles with relentless puffery". I'd appreciate it if you brought it up with me personally first if you had an issue with the article; I'm not sure why you always seem to want to try find mistakes in my edits. Bgkc4444 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

I'm honestly not seeing anything requiring admin intervention here; I agree that not all of the edits are quite right but most of them seem fine, and there doesn't seem to be any real pattern of major misconduct. Can this not be solved by constructive discussion? ~ mazca ^talk 01:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Mazca, the issue is a WP:SPA edit-warring against consensus to include bloated lists of badly-sourced and non-notable awards. Guy (help!) 10:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: The reverting edit I made on the page wasn't "edit-warring against consensus to include bloated lists of badly-sourced and non-notable awards", and I have not added any new content to the article. As stated, I reverted an edit by a user who removed information for an incorrect reason, not because of the topic of non-notability that was previously discussed and that we reached consensus on. You also raised an issue with my edits on Lemonade (Beyoncé album), calling them "bloating of articles with relentless puffery", which, again, is completely false. I ask again for you to start a discussion on my talk page or on the article in question's talk page if you want to question my edits. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

AldezD

AldezD (talk · contribs)

This user keeps undoing my good-faith edits without explaining why, and when I try to explain on both the Concentration (game show) talk page and his talk page, he just deletes them without explanation, then sends me a "warning", claiming my edits were "vandalism". That is going overboard. I request an explanation as to why. I told him that I clearly saw on first game of the May 12th, 1988 episode of Classic Concentration, a contestant used a Green Take to take his opponent's Red Take out of play. I saw it on Buzzr a month ago. Why does he not believe me? DawgDeputy (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

DawgDeputy has a well evidenced and documented history of disruptively editing, warring and sockpuppetry. This user has been given chance after chance following multiple blocks, and continues to add original research and edit war. DawgDeputy is an editor who has been on Wikipedia—not counting earlier socks which did exist or may still exist—for 11 years. "I clearly saw on first game of the May 12th, 1988 episode of Classic Concentration"—completely ignores WP:V, one of the most basic and simple content policies, and is further evidence of a lack of competence.

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DawgDeputy/Archive
• DawgDeputy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The edit I reverted was WP:OR and I removed content that did not meet WP:V. The edit summaries by DawgDeputy are yet another example that despite 11 years of editing, the user cannot edit competently: "May 12th 1988: A contestant used a Green Take to take a Red Take out of play.", "I saw it.", "Again, May 12th, 1988. It was not a joke. It was actually done."

AldezD (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

For the record, aside from that alleged "incompetent" edit to Concentration (see the May 12th, 1988 episode for proof), a majority of my edits have been in good shape for the past few years. And edit-warring has been severely lacking in my history for that same time period (and I was scarcely blocked as such). Plus, there has been no legitimate report of sockpuppetry involving yours truly for the past five years. Those 2017 reports-- Those were fakes. Gsnguy was the real culprit in that case.

But seriously, that was not vandalism. I saw the episode, yet AldezD refuses to acknowledge it, and claim it was vandalism, not good faith, even if the edit was wrong. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. You are making unsourced edits to articles that are then reverted by others. You continue to edit in this long-term evidenced pattern of ignoring WP:V and resort to WP:EW or harassment when your edits are reverted. This is not competent behavior.

Stop harassing me on my own talk page by reverting edits I have made within WP:UP#CMT guidelines. "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages...There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so." AldezD (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The article is mostly unsourced fancruft anyway (and has been flagged as such since 2011) - it probably needs a good going over with the pruning shears. DawgDeputy isn't helping matters by adding more unsourced stuff, but it's not vandalism - AldezD, 4im vandalism warnings are more usually given out for inserting abusive profanities into BLP and that sort of thing, not adding unsourced content about game shows. I know that it's almost never actually productive to tell someone to calm down, but both of you should probably chill? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I will leave the article as it is for now. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Further comment I've given both users some advice on their talk pages. I don't think any further administrative action is warranted at this point, but am happy to field questions or complaints from either party if there is any further disruption. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk:81.154.188.111

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.

---

81.154.188.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is abusing their talk page after being blocked. Please revoke TPA. --MrClog (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 21:33, 23 April 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.

Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

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

---

There are several problems with the article on the Amendment II to the U.S. Constitution. The article seems to be controlled by writers who have a decided bent toward greater gun-ownership and have made the Supreme Court's Heller decision--a recent & very close decision, which is something of an outlier in the history of decisions concerning the Second Amendment--definitive. For example, the article's first line states that Amendment II "protects the individual right to keep and bear arms". This is an inference from Heller--and only Heller. It is not from the amendment itself, which is not about "protecting" a right and does not employ the word "individual" or "person" or even "persons". Rather, Amendment II uses the words "militia" and "people".

Heller should certainly be a part of this article--as should all cases involving Amendment II--, but it should not color the entire article. I do not want to get into an edit war about this article, so I hope that some executive editors--so to speak--could step in and keep the article neutral. Thanks.

James Nicol (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@James Nicol:, this board not for discussing content disputes. Please discuss them on the talk page of the article in question, not here. funplussmart (talk) 20:02, 23 April 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:Can I Log In use of AWB without authorization

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 I Log In (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not really big on the whole AWB authorization thing and how we deal with it, so bringing it here for people who actually know about those things, but it appears that Can I Log In has reverse engineered WP:JWB to give himself access to AWB without actually having permission to be on the AWB checkpage, see this diff and this diff. This kinda goes both against what the script says, the spirit of having an AWB control page, and the idea that we want people to be experienced before they use highly automated tools. Thought I'd bring it here for people who are more familiar with this type of stuff to look at. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes. I did fork it from User:Joeytje50/JWB.js. Here's what it says.

Extended content

* @licence * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the * GNU General Public License for more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along * with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., * 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. * http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html * @version 3.1.1 * @author Joeytje50 */

I have voluntarily disabled it as soon I saw this. I only used it for fixing the worst thing on Wikipedia. Crappy spacing. And that's why I reversed engineered JWB to do that.

My defense, well if the user script source code is availiable on Wikipedia, then it can be mirrored or forked. Turns out, it's now problematic that JWB can be accessed without AWB access. So either JWB has to be destroyed, which is hard and unlikely, or now we have a free JWB problem we'll have to suffer if more people know about this.

I do pledge to refrain from using JWB while this AN/I thread is active. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 00:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Note

Yes, it is problematic that people are able to copy JWB and make an endrun around the authorization checks. Usually this problem is solved by blocking the people who do this sort of thing. – bradv🍁 01:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be he's doing exactly what the license told him to do. He honestly could've taken it a step further and deleted the auto edit notice suffix if he wanted to be subtle about it. We're going to block someone for being smart?--v/r - TP 02:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The point isn't whether or not something can legally be done. There are lots of things that can technically and legally be done on Wikipedia, but shouldn't. In this case, we have collectively decided that people doing mass edits of the sort done by tools like JWB and AWB need to be vetted by the community and approved to use the tools. While it is technically possible to circumvent that approval process, it should not be done. I see now that the offending script has been deleted, so this can probably be closed with a warning. – bradv🍁 02:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The warning should be placed in the script file and/or WP:JWB. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:JWB already says Note that, to use this script, you must be listed on the checkpage located at Project:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage (ie. this page on this wiki), if that page exists. but I’d be fine with adding a more explicit warning in addition to letting Can I Log In no not to try to game the system on automated type edits again. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well I don't think that the edit summary lead up to me being discovered becuase it was clearly shown on the now deleted page which was probably discovered by Tony doing new page patrol. Also, I could ultimately even take it a step further by making a Bookmarklet and take your advice and no one would even have a clue. But I also shouldn't be doing that since this is a scar on my behavioral record meaning there would be easy suspicion, and I shouldn't be doing this overall. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 03:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In, most of the above discussion is irrelevant, IMO. The simple fact of the matter is that JWB specifically says you can't use it without approval. You ignored the rule, appearing to do so in a deceptive, gamey way. I don't see you addressing that at all. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I said But I also shouldn't be doing that ..., and I shouldn't be doing this overall. Is that not addressing the issue? Also, I turned off my JWB and said I do pledge to refrain from using JWB while this AN/I thread is active. Is that not enough?

Click show if I have not addressed the issue
White flag Use To indicate I have surrendered, therefore addressing the issue of my unauthorized use of JWB. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page Adopted {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 04:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I Log In No, that's definitely not enough. This is not about you "surrendering". This isn't a battle nor is it about winning. I see no explanation here beyond you basically saying, "yeah, you got me, I give up". Should we take this to mean that you intentionally circumvented the rule? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I clearly have implied I did. Could I claim WP:IAR? Yes I think I can, but clearly it's not recommended. All that occured was fixing excess spacing with reference footnotes. To do that, I reversed engineered the source code from JWB to bypass checkpage verification and the authorization procedure. What did it cost: a report at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (which I question, should this be at the regular AN or here? My issue isn't chronic).
If I have to keep explaining that I have addressed the problem, by the time I "do" address the problem even though I already have, it will be the size of a poem. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 04:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Can I Log In: Just to answer your question: WP:AN is for matters that concern admins (RfPP is backlogged, why is this page protected, etc). WP:ANI is for when admins might need to intervene with an onsite incident. Anarchyte (talk • work) 04:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Can I Log In: Could I claim WP:IAR? Yes I think I can. No, you could not; IAR applies to rules, not behavior. ——SN54129 05:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You omitted the following clause; but clearly it's not recommended. Also to be clear, I do not declare IAR. To think is different from acutally. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 05:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I omitted nothing of relevance: IAR was never on the table. ——SN54129 05:20, 24 April 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.