Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WMSR (talk | contribs) at 18:11, 13 February 2020 (OneClickArchiver archived YourNanTasteNice to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1029). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:Uditanalin

    User:Uditanalin is bludgeoning respondents to the MFD for a Wiki-space article he has created, resorting to personal attacks[1] and generally taking a recalcitrant and combative attitude towards established Wikipedia policy[2]. Suspect that this is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT issue, as it has been explained to him repeatedly what WP:OR is and yet he believes that Wikipedia should change its policy and structure to accommodate what he believes to be ground-breaking research.--WaltCip (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    He's claiming that he has no more to say there, and if that's true I don't think it requires any sanctions against him. Would be fine if someone wants to hat the tl;dr bludgeoning comments there, though, right now that MfD looks like a complete disaster. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The MfD will quite obviously end in deletion, or I'm a banana, and I don't think that this editor is interested in anything else other than this research, so why not just let that person bludgeon away without any reply? I don't see any need for administrative action here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm okay with doing that, I'm just concerned and wondering if preventative steps need to be taken to ensure he doesn't attempt to recreate his work in other spaces. I may be reading too much into it, though.--WaltCip (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they are very insistently putting the deletion notice at the bottom of the article, but other than that they appear to have stopped commenting at the MfD. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Creffett, but not adding it to the article in mainspace I see. I have issued a rather blunt warning. Please report iof this continues. Guy (help!) 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: I think we're done here.--WaltCip (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WaltCip, Well, someone is done. I don't think it's one of us though...
    Banninated. Guy (help!) 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Katugampola fractional operators,

    Propose a Formal Site-Ban

    Actually, Guy only indefinitely blocked Uditanalin. In view of their threat to create multiple sock accounts, I propose that we formalize a community site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I will note that at MFD I originally proposed to move their paper on eigenvectors and eigenvalues to draft space to give them time to publish it. There may be various reasons for the fact that they didn't take up that offer, but those include that perhaps it wouldn't pass academic peer review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Assuming their threats are legitimate (they claim to be an admin in disguise!) then it seems like a community site ban would be the best way to go. But I have my doubts that they would be able to act upon those threats. Seems like an awful lot of hassle to go through just to get eyes on your thesis.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'm tempted to ask Bbb23 if this Uditanalin has any other socks they operate under.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Today I've seen somebody get autoblocked because the IP was used by Uditanalin... Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 13:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... If that's true, we need a site-ban pronto.--WaltCip (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, it's Autoblock #9573566. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cambial Yellowing

    User:Cambial Yellowing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There have been some ongoing issues with this user and ongoing WP:TE at Douma chemical attack. Any warning or feedback regarding their behavior has been ignored or dismissed as "sanction gaming".

    They have escalated the behavior a bit recently, with the accusations of bad faith bleeding into article talk space, [3]. They also recently advised a newer editor to ignore warnings, telling them that they "have done nothing wrong" after despite their recent WP:ASPERSIONS violation, [4], and sarcastically awarding @Berean Hunter: with a goat in article talk space after Berean bluelocked the article, [5].

    I don't know if this level of disruption warrants sanctions, though from what I have seen the bar on sanctions for Syrian Civil war topic areas can be pretty low (they were notified of the subject-area sanctions, [6]). I am hopeful that a clear admonishment from the community and a warning will be adequate to get the disruption and habitual, casual accusations of malfeasance to stop.

    Examples of TE:

    Additional examples of accusations of sanction gaming by Cambial:

    Notifications: [21], [22]. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I'd issue a partial block if I was able. Especially with this edit where he dismisses claims of tendentious editing as absurd and not worthy of serious discussion in his edit summary. InvalidOS (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is attributing the actions of other editors to me, presumably in an effort to somehow bolster the lack of substance to their case. I have not "sarcastically awarded [anyone] a goat", nor do I know what that means. VQuakr also mischaracterises a talk page message as "advising a newer editor", though the editor in question has roughly 7 years editing experience to my ~9 months. This is not the first time editor VQuakr has attempted to use false reporting of actions as requiring sanction, as a tactic to try to keep editors they disagree with away from certain articles.
    The diffs provided as evidence of TE (and the edit summaries) speak for themselves; they were fully explained, linked to policy, and the majority were reversions to status quo. This editor has already brought some of these same diffs to the ANI as supposed "evidence" but again there was no violation of policy. In my view bringing these same diffs again months later suggests "admin shopping". My warning to the editor, the content of which was entirely fair, against abuse of talk page templates was prompted by an accusation and warning template about pretended 'edit warring', after I made a single edit; this was my first article edit in more than a week, and the first ever regarding the particular material involved. (An edit immediately following was to restore inadvertent wiping of an admin template).
    This ANI post is the latest in a string of ongoing behavioural problems with editor VQuakr. They refer above to "accusations of bad faith bleeding into article talk space", citing a diff of an edit which came after, and was a direct response to, their spurious accusation of canvassing , and similarly groundless accusation of tagbombing — in the article talk space. To enumerate fully the occasions on which this editor has mischaracterized actions to make them appear improper:
    [23] ("ownership" following the reversion of the addition of a source which, at the time, was considered unreliable by RSN, a fact which was linked to in the edit summary)
    [24] ("edit warring" following VQuakr continuing to add material from this same source without discussion)
    [25] ("edit warring" following a single edit, material on the U.N. website)
    [26] ("personal attack" following a comment on a source being considered unreliable in 'Perennial Sources')
    [27] ("canvassing" following a 'reply to' sent to the last editors to comment roughly one hour prior)
    [28] ("personal attack" following my pointing out that the previous accusation was not acceptable)
    Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper is the definition of WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Attributing one editor's actions to another is WP:GASLIGHTING. I have asked VQuakr to please stop this on more than one occasion:
    [29]
    [30]
    To their credit, VQuakr suggested I take this to ANI previously, but as I stated then, my understanding is that ANI is for "chronic, intractable behavioural problems". Perhaps I should have done so: but at that point, VQuakr had not actually tried to obtain a sanction against me a second time using these mischaracterizations and spurious accusations. They are now doing exactly that, and I ask that admin pageblock VQuakr from my talk page (presumably they can still ping me on their own talk page (?) if they feel the need to contact me) and temporarily from the article under dispute.
    Regarding this block; the admin has not actually given their justification for it. My recent editing on the specific article has been sporadic, and always with direct reference to policy in edit summaries and/or notification in talk:
    [31] — [32]
    [33]
    [34]
    [35]
    [36]
    I assert that there is no justification for a block in the edits above.

    Cambial Yellowing❧ 14:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The goat was misattributed. El_C 15:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: I missed the last sentence before. I requested they receive an admonishment for their behavior (for which Cambial remains unapologetic), not a block from the article to "win" a dispute. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Cambial's relevance to the goat was that Cambial encouraged FrankBierFarmer that they had done nothing wrong, after FrankBierFarmer posted the goat. I should have phrased that better in my OP; I was not attempting to mislead. VQuakr (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr: that is not what you said, though — phrasing aside. As for encouragement and so on — that is not good enough. You need to attach diffs when you make claims like that, especially for a correction. I also would have expected a semblance of an apology to Cambial Yellowing for the misattribution, but oh well. El_C 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: an indefinite block from the article is possibly too harsh. I would be inclined to give them another chance to self-correct their behaviour. I'm just concerned that concluding the report in this way effectively is deciding a content dispute by administrative fiat. El_C 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: since it appears everyone parsed my OP statement in a way differently than I intended, yes I apologize for being unclear in such a critical situation. It was a good faith mistake, but in such a stressful situation I don't think Cambial's accusations of gaslighting should be held against them. Diffs were indeed included in my OP (and my notifications included FrankBierFarmer), including the diff of the posting of the goat, but I see that that specific diff included the admin's response. VQuakr (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, my problem is with behaviour not content. I am happy to adjust the thing if people reckon that should be done. Guy (help!) 16:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr: Cambial's relevance to the goat was that Cambial encouraged FrankBierFarmer that they had done nothing wrong, after FrankBierFarmer posted the goat — again, diff? Please don't make me look for it. El_C 16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: gotcha. Goat. "Done nothing wrong". VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the diffs you provided were more than a week apart discredits the — false — assertion that this was in response to the addition of a goat image to the page. I don't actually know why adding a goat image to a talk page would be wrong - other than that it makes no sense - but that is beside the point. Perhaps my Englishness is showing. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Please indicate which edit summaries you felt justified a block. I myself linked to the last 6 of mine above and genuinely don't follow. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cambial Yellowing: yes, the warning on FrankBierFarmer's for his casting aspersions was more recent, and it was much more concerning to me that you appeared to be egging him on regarding that (regardless of any plausible deniability you tried to establish for yourself). I mentioned the goat mostly because it was the only other source of feedback to which you possibly could have been referring. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I unblocked - the entire history of the article is a clusterfuck so unilateral sanction seems unjust. I will fully protect it instead, as those involved all meet the ECP limit. Guy (help!) 17:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr:It was — I thought quite plainly — a response to this extremely tenuous assertion that the editor had broken WP:NPA, when he did not name or refer to any specific editor in his comment. A personal attack has to — by definition — be personal, and thus directed at a specific editor(/s). You appear to be pursuing an attempt to intimidate through the use of the threat of sanction based on mischaracterisation — similar to precisely this ANI notice. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cambial Yellowing: I actually mentioned WP:ASPERSIONS not NPA, though that info page does in turn reference NPA. If you see nothing wrong with Frank musing on an article talk page about whether those that disagree with him are paid propagandists, then you have no business editing at all. Your advice to Frank was terrible. VQuakr (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr: Aspersions is not a policy, but "an information page. It describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks" policy. Thus your accusation was one of a breach of NPA.
    As you have just admitted, FrankBierFarmer was "musing" about the existence of paid advocates, given the "fustercluck" of POV that the article has become. "Musing" about something is not a personal attack, and your false "warning" is not justified or excused. Cambial Yellowing❧ 18:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of the diffs relate to the Douma Chemical attack article, where I am one of the contributing editors (and have myself been the object of VQuakr's ire ... see, for instance, a message left on my user talkpage: [37]). I would recommend looking carefully at the talkpage and its archives to judge whose editing is the most problematic. Currently, right from the start, the article states as facts matters which are, increasingly, in dispute, such as that there was a chemical attack at Douma and that it was carried out by the Syrian government. In my opinion, double-standard tactics such as exagerrating the reliablility of some sources while deprecating others are being employed. Given VQuakr's own contributions, the accusations of tendentious editing are pretty risible, as are complaints about Cambial Yellowing's talkpage comments, given VQuakr's own rather aggressive and personal ones.     ←   ZScarpia   15:41, 9 February 2020‎.

    Thanks for your input, ZScarpia. I get the sense that both sides could benefit from taking a step back and relying more on dispute resolution requests to resolve their disputes. El_C 15:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. With a bit of luck, the publicity here and at the NPOV Noticeboard may inspire some fresh, bold-spirited, editors to join the fray.     ←   ZScarpia   00:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SchroCat

    Disrupting an RfC at Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#BLP RFC: include or exclude social media numbers.

    • Restoring disputed info to a BLP [38] apparently unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information. [39] [40] [41]
    • Dismissal of the policy, dismissal of all the discussion for exclusion, and obviously upset at me over my attempts to bring attention to policy on his talk page [42]
    • Dislike of policies being brought up, assumption that the policies may not apply, ignoring discussion to date, and assuming burden is on those seeking removal [43]
    • Moved a discussion [44], then assumes I'm making a bad faith accusation about him [45] after I restored my comment to the RfC. It took me a while to figure out what had happened, while he continued to assume I had commented about him. [46] [47]
    • When faced with my clarifying that my comment wasn't about him: I will leave it here; you are being deliberately obtuse, as you have been continually on the talk page. Your approach is uncollegiate and obstructive [48]
    • Dislike of sections of policies being linked in response to his requests for more detail about the policies, accusations of communication problems directed at me [49]
    • More complaining about communication, while not understanding why multiple editors identified YouTube as a primary source [50]
    • Accuses me of not liking the information in the primary sources [51]
    • Moves the goalposts by coming up with potential sources [52]
    • And back to wanting policies quoted [55]
    • Accusing me of lying, misconstruing policies, and identifying policies in bad faith [56]
    • Accusing me of offered nothing but tendentious obstruction and identifying policies in bad faith. [57]

    I've done some quick refactoring of my comments [58], and am happy to do more.

    I'd like dig through the potential refs offered by Isaidnoway and SchroCat without the constant harassment. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ronz has been disruptive and tendentious in the pre-RfC stage and since it has begun. He has thrown around plates of alphabetti spaghetti of policy/guideline names without actually seeming to understand what he is relying on. (The most obvious one is his first diff here "unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information": this is untrue, I am both aware of what the guidelines say, and they do not say to keep the information out of the article - all that I reverted is cited to reliable sources and acceptable within our policies). He has accused me of removing comments from an RfC (untrue, and I see he claims above he "restored" it to the RfC: also untrue - it was never in the RfC to begin with, which is why I moved it), edit warred on my talk page, accused me of "Projection and disruption" when I have asked him to quote the relevant part of the guidelines he is relying on, misconstrued my comments (more than once) and been dismissive and disingenuous when dealing with anyone who disagrees with him. His second point here ("Dismissal of the policy, dismissal of all the discussion for exclusion") is another untruth: I have not dismissed the policy at all - I have not dismissed any policy. The whole basis of these points are incredibly dubious. I have provided a stack of sources to counter his claims on the various talk page threads (dismissed by him as "is there even one good ref in that unlinked list? Guessing the answer is "no" otherwise it would be identified"). Stonewalling on talk pages is rarely helpful, and the !votes in the RfC do not support his position. If you want me to go through each of his points in order to refute the silliness, I'll happily do it, but it all seems such a waste of time. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. If anyone wants me for further comment/explanation, you'll have to ping me. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading the RfC it seems Ronz is primarily the one being stubborn and inflexible. SchroCat is giving as good as he gets, but that's the worst you can say of him. Reyk YO! 19:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As an onlooker, I've got a feeling that there's going to be a WP:BOOMERANG effect going on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing:

    • [59][60] - Apparently SchroCat doesn't realize that I'm arguing against undue weight, not against complete removal based upon the two of the seven sources that aren't irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      If you participate in a discussion it isn't harassment if somebody responds to your comments. What admin action do you want? Somebody to argue on your side? I don't recall "please help me win my argument" being one of the administrator functions. Yomanganitalk 16:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I want the harassment and disruption to stop. The battleground behavior, the incessant assumptions of bad faith, the flooding the discussion with misrepresentations and dismissals. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone wondering whether Ronz's obsession with Grace VanderWaal is recent may like to examine a November 2016 discussion on my talk. A topic ban might be required to allow Ronz to focus elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Who's obsession?! --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have notified both editors of discretionary sanctions for edits related to biographies of living people. If disruption occurs on the talk page in question, any administrator may unilaterally impose restrictions that they believe will prevent further disruption. Beyond that, I don't see much else to be done here and now except remind the two not to bludgeon the process or personalize disputes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a lazy resolution, akin to keeping the entire class behind when someone doesn't own up to setting fire to the classroom paper bin during a chemistry lesson. The admin corps would be proud of that one. CassiantoTalk 08:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ronz's constant wikilawyering is disruptive to Wikipedia. I've been editing here for almost 14 years, and of all the editors I have ever met here, I feel that Ronz is the one whose contributions have most harmed Wikipedia and wasted other editors' time the most, usually by citing sections of policies and guidelines without understanding the spirit or meaning of those policies and guidelines, and then insisting on his/her interpretation of those policies and guidelines despite numerous other editors trying to explain them to him/her. This has been going on for years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Re editor Ronz's statement "Restoring disputed info to a BLP [73] apparently unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information." True, but a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the policy previously cited as the rationale - WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE in my opinion. The very name of the policy link should make it clear. Section 8.3.3 is part of "Role of Administrators". If material has been deleted by an admin, and an editor requests an admin restore it, then 8.3.3 is triggered. There's no policy stating that non-admins have the power to delete the material then cite 8.3.3 in preventing its restoration. That said, I could be just as wrong as I think editor Ronz is on that matter. In my time here on WP, I've engaged in the formal lawyerly side of the process about as rarely as I find gold nuggets in my Cracker Jacks. Anastrophe (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SchroCat hasn't made any subsequent comments directed at me, so I consider this closed. The potential refs offered by SchroCat and Isaidnoway didn't pan out. I've made some alternative proposals. I'll give it a rest at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad you consider it closed, but it should be noted that the refs offered by SchroCat certainly do pan out. You owe SchroCat and everyone who reads this notice board an apology for bringing this baseless ANI and continuing to waste everyone's time, when they could actually be working on the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We disagree on basic facts and policy. Your assertions are backed with nothing. Your harassment towards me is inappropriate. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad Ronz has backed down, but their passive-aggressive poor-ickle-bullied-me approach here sits ill with Ronz's battlefield approach on the page in question. Tim riley talk 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please drop it. We're here to work together to improve this encyclopedia. Harassment and disruption are enforceable by ArbCom. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Request from G.-M._Cupertino for unblock/unbanning

    Consensus is clearly opposed to unblocking at this time. Consensus is in favour of a one-year prohibition on unblock requests; further unblock requests from G.-M. Cupertino may be declined unless at least one year has passed since their last edit (either logged in or while evading the block). Yunshui 雲水 11:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am reposting the request made at User talk:G.-M._Cupertino here for a community discussion, as the editor is in effect sitebanned through WP:3X due to numerous block evasions through sock puppets (See the full list here).

    "Since the decision belongs now to the Community and not to individual Administrators, I present the previous argumentation to the Community and add that, regardless of having assumed any edit attributed to me until November 2019, even the ones who had little importance in content and no personal attacks whatsoever, and, to make my word my credible, I promise, with the risk of being blamed for making one or another edit, there will not any more edits that can be attributed to me for a given period of time to be defined, even if I do not see any reason for the most recent edits to be attributed to me. Therefore, I ask for this request to be reposted to the appropriate discussion board. There will not be any more personal attacks issues and I will not create any other account. In fact, I also ask to be able to be able to use my user page, the one where I should be making any appeals rather than this one, the User talk page, and, at the same time, to merge all the accounts attributed to me with my main account. I wish to solve this problem for good. I submit an appeal to UTRS and ask an Administrator to post it to the appropriate discussion board. This is a voluntary act and, in order not to use it in excess, I ask for the guidance of the Administrator in order to present it the most proper and least excessive way possible if it is not accepted the first time. About my banning, I believe I should explain to the Arbitration Committee that blocked me that, despite being right in the initial blocking, I was unable to defend myself that time because I've made an edit and only after that I've read that I would be blocked if I did another edit and, since I was blocked, I wasn't able to reply to the Arbitration Commitee. It was not in bad faith that I didn't reply or defend myself, but because of that. I have no grounds to appeal for past mistakes, the only thing I can do is change in Present and Future. Afterwards, though, I have been blocked by an Administrator until today, despite already being unblocked by the sentence applied by the Arbitration Commitee, which makes it strange: how can I have been fred from an Arbitration Commitee blocking and then need the intervention of the Community because of a blocking made by one single Administrator. In any case, whatever I have to do to be accepted back by the Community, I have accepted: I will be peaceful and, again, will not create any new accounts. People who might have been blocked because an Administrator believed it was me without being me is something I can't avoid 100%, it's a risk of using Wikipedia, but that will not happen again from my part.
    G.-M. Cupertino (talk|TB|) 12:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC) (reply)"

    RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, and I suggest the user should be prohibited from making another unblock/unban request until at least one year has passed since their last edit. Favonian pointed out on the user's talk page that they've been evading their block as recently as November 14, 2019 and in my opinion, this alone is sufficient to reject the request. I personally suspect this comment from an anonymous user was an attempt to mislead us and was actually made by G.-M. Cupertino. This user has a history of abuse stretching back more than a decade and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive is a testament to their unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this user has been socking for eleven years. Their unblock request is a jumbled mess of blaming others and avoiding responsibility for their own abuse; I suspect they have not even looked at WP:GAB. I also endorse Yamla's suggestion of a moratorium on unblock requests until one year has passed from their most recent sockpuppet edit. If they can respect that then maybe I'll trust that they can be a constructive editor, but nothing less is going to cut it for me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – the editor needs to face up to their past disruptive behavior and convince us that it will not reoccur. The present request fails completely in that respect. Concur with the one-year moratorium. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-admin comment. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of G.-M. Cupertino - 27 pages.
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive - 18 entries from March 2009 to June 2019.
    Hmmmm.
    Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. Jer.13:23. Narky Blert (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I did say I would post this discussion to the community and I did. That being said, there is no indication that unblocking the user would be a good thing for the encyclopedia. The one year AT MINIMUM moratorium or requesting unblocks is a good thing in my eyes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Horse Eye Jack

    See: User:Horse Eye Jack reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: no violation) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

    User:Horse Eye Jack's focus is to purge several media sources from all articles, for not a WP:RS or even remotely close. (see here). According to Horse Eye Jack, an editor should not revert this purge, since [u]nless you can make an argument for them passing WP:VERIFY than stop using them. When you make a revert you are responsible for the content of that revery, please review WP:CHALLENGE. (see here). According to me, this is ridiculous. WP:CHALLENGE tells us, that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The content deleted by Jack was sourced. However, since this user doesn't believe in the reliability of the given sources, he deletes the sourced material again and again. Thus, in such a way, I cannot make edits, unless I make a case that AND the content is sourced, AND give conclusive evidence that the given source is flawless beyond any doubt in the eyes of EVERY individual editor of Wikipedia. This severely violates the "anyone can edit"-ideology of Wikipedia, and it drains the fun of editing it.

    At the edit-warring-noticeboard, someone advised: "if there's a need for admin intervention, WP:ANI is the place to detail the issues." This I am doing now. And I want to ask the administrators: is User:Horse Eye Jack's way of editing an acceptable method? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Its worth noting that when i interacted with Horse Eye Jack he repeatedly re-added content, claiming the burden was on me to justify removal. He then reverted the last hand full of things in my history example. Its worth noting that he did respect the eventual consensus from an RFC i submitted about the disputed template page, so there is that. Bonewah (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah I remember that one, still can't believe that Who's Nailin' Paylin? gets almost 7,000 page views a month. Who the heck watches that sort of thing? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that the source Jeff5102 is going out on a limb for is Middle East Media Research Institute, and they wanted to use it on a WP:BLP page. The relevant talk page discussion (which Jeff5102 abandoned back in January) can be found at Talk:Gerald Fredrick Töben. I note that despite the talk page discussion being abandoned over a week ago I have not imposed my preferred edit on the page. Anyone can look at my editing history, the idea that my "focus is to purge several media sources from all articles” is simply untrue. My focus is on building an encyclopedia using high quality sources, my work speaks for itself [61][62]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A link to all your contributions is hardly convincing, you will have to do far better than that. You obfuscate when given the chance, not going unnoticed, opening the question to whether you ever discuss any political matter in good faith. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thank you for the notification, Jeff. Before the AN/EW thread is archived, here is the perma-link to the thread that was opened. For now, the only thing I have to add beyond the thread contents is: when he had sided with a user whom I had reported on at AN/EW, and said user turned around to launch what is indisputably a sordid personal attack, HEJ had not only failed to condemn said user, but turned around to use WP:NPA as a battering ram against Zanhe's mildly worded criticism of HEJ's knowledge. Insidious double standards and WP:GAME to escape sanctions at AN/EW. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yny501’s comment and Zanhe’s comment (see User talk:Zanhe#Reliable sources for Chinese articles) were months apart, kind of far apart to say I turned around from one to the other. My leaving their comment on my talk page isn’t an endorsement of their language just as I’m sure you taking me to task on Zanhe’s talk page while ignoring their language wasn’t an endorsement of it. I don’t delete any comments on my talk page, can you say the same? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Failing to condemn" ≠ "Endorsement", as you know well, but choose to obfuscate yet again. Also, review WP:NOTTHEM. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my point, you were the one who argued that my failure to condemn the language and my request that Zanhe not continue to refer to me as "one of those naive youngsters who never read more balanced academic publications and are easily caught in sinophobic hysteria.” was grounds for administrative action against me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the only conclusion I drew there was to correctly describe you as a top-notch WikiLawyer, which is not itself sanction-able. But thanks no thanks for the usual blatant distortion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m talking about your argument here on ANI not on Zanhe’s talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about your horrid record, not what any sanctions should be; neither has anyone else, so far. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm not an admin, and I believe that I am uninvolved, but can't stand the sight of back and forth argumentation. Isn't the onus on Jeff5102 to achieve consensus for the inclusion of disputed content? I very well may have misread the situation, but it seems to me that HEJ challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed. (Although, perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the policy definition of "disputed," in which case, I'm wrong). Surely reinstating the content from the source being challenged is not enough refute the initial challenge? The idea that the only alternative is to give conclusive evidence that the given source is flawless beyond any doubt in the eyes of EVERY individual editor of Wikipedia strikes me as both a strawman and against the very principles of determining things through consensus building. Additionally, to quote WP:BLPRS, any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source - it sounds like there is no consensus about MEMRI as an RS, meaning that it's inclusion is indeed unacceptable. Lastly, a minor point, but I was under the impression that WP:NOTTHEM was solely for use in unblock requests? I sincerely apologize if writing this comment was inappropriate of me, but I felt compelled to do so by what I read as a misuse of policy. If it was indeed inappropriate, I gladly retract it. Darthkayak (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. This is my problem indeed. Any right-wing editor can make a case that CNN fails WP:RS while presenting some Fox News-, Project Veritas- or Russia Today-references to prove that. Then, CNN is disputed, and since "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed," that is a free pass to remove all CNN-references from Wikipedia. I am all for building consensus. However, if an editor plays the role of prosecutor, judge and jury simultaneously, and is not prepared to change his opinion towards the majority view, then things get very tiresome. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is indeed focused on removing the sources, even if it's accompanied with other RS. Such as at [63] and the numerous other edits (as brought up at the Administrators' noticeboard discussion). The users focus is purging sources and has less focus on material, as is seen in his/her rapid speed in which the user removes sources without regard to the article's content. --Cold Season (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, CGTN... Who recently published a report entitled By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang[64]. As for the text vs material question if the material is sourced to multiple sources and only some of them are unreliable or of disputed reliability why in the world would I ever remove the material? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff5102: Just to make my previous comment more clear, I'm agreeing with HEJ that removing solely MEMRI-sourced content is the appropriate course of action - as noted, there is no consensus as to its reliability, and I think it's on you, Jeff4102, to try and build such consensus before the content can be added. As for your CNN example, it is not comparable to MEMRI. Perennial sources indicates that there is consensus regarding the general reliability of CNN - it would take your hypothetical right-wing editor a lot more than some Fox News, Project Veritas, or Russia Today references to remove all CNN-references from Wikipedia. There is no such consensus on the reliability of MEMRI, and as such (if I'm understanding BLP correctly, which I might not be), editors have the duty to remove solely MEMRI-sourced content from BLPs, and likely from other contentious applications if they doubt its veracity. Darthkayak (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This contradicts your earlier point, that "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed." Anyway, my idea is that we shouldn't disqualify any "questionable" source at face value, or delete all text that is referenced by it. After all, even the works of a noted fraud as David Irving is used as a source when it comes to the Nazi viewpoint of WWII. Jeff5102 (talk)
    Ah I see where the confusion lies; I worded it poorly. By, "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed" I only meant in the absence of consensus on a source's reliability, and for BLPs specifically, in which case, I think it's on you to establish that first, or it should be removed (though I may be wrong). Of course we shouldn't blindly remove questionable sources, but if their appropriateness in a BLP is disputed, we should. Darthkayak (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already expressed my opinion about Horse Eye Jack's behaviour at WP:AN3, and EvergreenFir suggested that it's more suitable for ANI than AN3. Since someone else has now started a complaint against him on a different issue, I'm just going to repeat here what I said before: I agree this is strictly speaking not a violation of 3RR as there were only three reverts on Fan Bingbing. However, this article is just part of Horse Eye Jack's larger campaign to mass remove Chinese sources from dozens of articles and edit war when reverted by others. This is despite the fact that he was just recently involved in a discussion on the reliability of Chinese media sources at WP:RSN (see archived thread), and did not get any support for his view that they should be considered unreliable in all contexts. And this is not an isolated incident: during his relatively short editing career, numerous experienced editors have issued warnings on his talk page for editing warring and personal attacks, but he has almost always responded by arguing incessantly until others give up (the Wikilawyering CaradhrasAiguo was talking about). -Zanhe (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone takes the time to read the RSN discussion Zanhe linked its a good one, my favorite part is this argument from Zanhe for why we should consider Chinese state media to have editorial independence and a reputation for fact checking "Governments are presumed to exercise editorial control and fact checking (censorship is an extreme form of editorial control).” Zanhe you’re mischaracterizing my argument (which was the uncontroversial "Chinese state media is general unreliable, especially when it comes to domestic reporting."), I note that we were the only two editors who participated in the end of that discussion so yes technically neither of us got any support for our positions. Per our conversation on my talk page User talk:Horse Eye Jack#Please stop removing sources you already know I object to your characterization of my argument on the RSN, why would you repeat it? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROPE That is quite the deflection. This administrative thread is quite clearly not about the merits of sources involved (purported editorial independence and fact-checking), but rather your wantonness. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darthkayak already pointed out to you that WP:NOTTHEM only applies to blocked users, the same goes for WP:ROPE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another gross example of wiki-lawyering. As guides are not policy, I only care for their spirit, not their parameters. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks,Caradhas. That is weird...when I discussed with Horse Eye Jack on Talk:Gerald_Fredrick_Töben#MEMRI, he literally told me, after my appeal to WP:PUS: Thats an essay not policy... WP:RS is a guideline and WP: Verifiability is policy. But now he is appealing to an explanatory supplement (WP:NOTTHEM) and an essay (WP:ROPE) himself. I do not understand why his postion on this has changed so quickly.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe HEJ is appealing to either NOTTHEM or ROPE; he's admonishing (perhaps wrongly), CaradhrasAiguo for invoking them in the comments above. Darthkayak (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But he is counting them as rules that apply to the situation, and appealing to their content; something he did not do previously in my discussion with him. I do believe now that CaradhrasAiguo is right when he is talking about wiki-lawyering. Jeff5102 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was specifically saying they don’t apply in any way to this situation and I made no appeal to their content. I wasn't ambiguous either. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote: "Darthkayak already pointed out to you that WP:NOTTHEM only applies to blocked users, the same goes for WP:ROPE." That is an appeal to their content.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darthkayak has pointed it out to you multiple times, including on your talk page User talk:Jeff5102#Regarding Horse-Eye Jack and MEMRI. Per their comment on your talk page (which you dismissed) "Lastly, and mostly unimportantly, regarding [65] I'm very sure that HEJ is not "counting them as rules that apply to the situation" - the opposite in fact - he is saying they are rules that do not apply to this situation at all. HEJ is responding to these two edits [66], [67] in which CaradhrasAiguo attempted to apply (incorrectly in my opinion), the two guidelines against him.” Please WP:AGF, if I’m telling you clearly that I did no such thing and other editors tell you the same then continuing to make the exact same assertions without acknowledging the sincerely held beliefs of the other editors is wrong.Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darthkayak:@Horse Eye Jack: DarthKayak, I agree that Perennial sources indicates that there is consensus regarding the reliability of CNN. However, my comment on CNN was more a criticism on your "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed,"-argument, which, when used by the wrong people, can have nasty consequences.
    As for the other discussed sources: I did see MEMRI, as well as some Chinese media popping up at WP:CITEWATCH. However, it was on the same list as, among others, Holocaust studies (the complete scientific field, apparently), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America, although sources with a clear habit for distorting the truth are mentioned too.. And, as the page clearly states: this list is a starting point to detect unreliable sources which are cited by Wikipedia, but it does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them. It also rightly mentions the somewhat arbitrary nature of what exactly constitutes an unreliable source, and that the CiteWatch cannot determine the full context in which a source is used, therefore use common sense and judgement before removing a citation from an article. When in doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard (especially before a mass purge of a certain source).
    Therefore, I do believe that blindly deleting sourced material, just for having an "unreliable source," is a road too simplistic to travel. As WP:CITEWATCH states, please discuss the discussed sources thoroughly before deciding to purge them. That would have saved everyone time and frustrations. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff5102: WP:CITEWATCH (formally Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1) is for academic journals only and was not the appropriate tool to use here (nor do its instructions apply more generally), go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and use the provided search box to "Search the noticeboard archives.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had read the article, you should have seen it discusses "publications", not just academic journals. But for the record: the only time there was a vote on the reliability of Memri, it was here, and a majority opposed the idea that Memri was unreliable. For the Chinese sources, please look for yourself if there was anything that resembles a vote. Jeff5102 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not an article its a bot generated list. What you presented from RSN is in no way a consensus that MEMRI is a reliable source, which we do need to have to use them as a BLP source. Not being deprecated is not the same as being ruled reliable. You have also mischaracterized the majority opinion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for acknowledging that WP:CITEWATCH is not for academic journals only. Anyway, that an article-page works with bots is not relevant at all for the rulings in the disclaimer, which I thoroughly and approvingly quoted. Here is it again: the CiteWatch cannot determine the full context in which a source is used, therefore use common sense and judgement before removing a citation from an article. When in doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard (especially before a mass purge of a certain source).
    There is a big difference between those words and starting a mass purge, based on the logic of “on wikipedia sources are considered to be unreliable until proven to be reliable,” as you wrote here], erroneously suggesting that this is part of the WP:Verifiability-policy.
    I prefer the first position for 3 reasons.
    1. As we can see at RSN, a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard seldom ends with a peaceful consensus, the consequence would be that we should disqualify almost all sources.;
    2. WP:RSP says: Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. That is common sense.
    3. If sources need to be proven to be reliable to be used on WP, there should be a list of acceptable sources. There is a lis on WP:RSP, but it is very incomplete: only one Chinese outlet can be found on it.
    Thus, mass purges of certain sources, because there is no consensus that such sources are reliable sources, is in general a very bad idea.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in fact consensus that for WP:BLP articles almost all sources are disqualified. Only WP:RS are allowed with minor exceptions. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in fact consensus that for discussions almost all of HEJ's replies are self-disqualifying as responding with over-the-top irrelevancies to frustrate "discussion". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to what Horse Eye Jack suggests, this is not only about WP:BLPs (or, Biographies on living persons). I became aware of this user after his edits on Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, the Turkish Armed Forces, and on Cinema of Saudi Arabia. Others pointed out his edits on the articles concerning World Heritage Sites by country, Qatar Airways, Lapis Lazuli corridor, Sheep Without a Shepherd, WeChat and the Death of Luo Changqing. Neither of these are about living persons. All I can do here is agree with Caradhras, when he talks about the "over-the-top irrelevancies" that pose as arguments here. But another thing: shouldn't an administrator read this, and come to a judgement? After all, at the Administrators' noticeboard one might expect an administrator to jump in. For the record: my original question was: is User:Horse Eye Jack's way of editing an acceptable method? Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA repeating actions of a recently created/blocked SPA on the article "Grsecurity", COI?

    Greetings, for "disclosure" I am a reader and rarely an IP editor of Wikipedia who knows my way around.

    I noticed a section missing in the article Grsecurity and investigated the edit history to find it was originally removed on January 24 by a brand new user "Trollcleaner" who edit warred and was subsequently blocked. Another account "Vox araneae" then repeated this removal with a long edit summary, and this account has also only edited the article Grsecurity and its talk page. This account made similar edits to the page as long ago as June 2018 and was created on "17 June 2018 at 20:16" according to Special:ListUsers.

    If the content removed is actually inappropriate to the article or not is up for debate, but the fact that more than one single purpose account is POV-pushing may warrant at least a block if not a sock investigation to see if there are any more accounts. Someone should take a look at this and possibly reinstate the removed content for now (including that removed in 2018, if appropriate in light of these odd editors). May even be worthwhile to do a minor rewrite, but that's neither here nor there right now.

    Looking further into the page's edit history right now, there are actually more accounts that have done similar and only edited Grsecurity, including "Juniperridge", "Altheacynara", "Spender2001" (has also edited Address space layout randomization), and IP 188.235.237.93 (but just one edit).

    Someone should also notify the user(s), according to AN policy at the top of this page, but as an IP who can't be bothered with wiki politics I'll leave that to someone else.

    Please forgive any faux-pas in my posting, and thanks.

    50.32.224.60 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Users notified:
    Article details: Grsecurity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. The removed section and the associated edits contained false facts for several months, such as "Spengler lost the appeal" (that didn't happen until just recently) and "GPL2 with restrictions", that none of the so called contributors to that section bothered to fix or substantiate. There clearly is POV-pushing, but from those accounts that edited just that section or have suggested and/or attempted similar edits only, actually contributing nothing or misconceptions at best (which I had to fix) on the actual subject. I also resisted the attempts to remove the relevant technical content and tried to discuss changes. But time have shown that the removed section attracts too much people that just push their agenda, and that it doesn't belong to the article dedicated to software. I suggest all the genuinely interested contributors to start an article on OSS, Inc. and/or the "controversial" court case, and contribute there in accordance to the established Wikipedia standards.
    As for calling my account single purpose, I do confirm that it actually is. The purpose is to prevent slander and vandalism that keeps being done to the article about the software I actually use professionally and know well (unlike the many other so called contributors with multi-purpose accounts) for more than a decade.
    Vox Araneae (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I may be missing something, but nothing in the article (regardless of which recent version) appears to me to do anything to establish that this 'set of patches for the Linux kernel' meets Wikipedia notability criteria. Most of it reads like an advertisement, listing endless unexplained features. Rather than waste time trying to figure out who is right regarding this content dispute, it might be simpler to delete it entirely. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You're missing the basic fact that many other articles on specific information security subjects lack third-party sources just as much, due to the very limited number of competent writers and therefore publications on these subjects out there. Besides, most of those "endless unexplained features" are, in fact, minor, have very limited scope and pretty much self-explanatory descriptions. All or most of that is rather obvious for a reader interested in systems security. And just like the great many articles e.g. about mathematics don't have a 101 math course as a part of every one of them, grsecurity article doesn't explain e.g. how chroot works, what scope/limitations/flaws it has as a security measure and how grsecurity chroot restrictions address/affect some of those. Not that it shouldn't reference any other articles or external sources, and not that those sources are non-existent (e.g. see this list: https://grsecurity.net/research - care to investigate and contribute links?). But of course none of the "concerned" anti-grsecurity people are interested in actually making the article better. They would rather have it trimmed down to a few description sentences and a "GRSECURITY BAD" section that retells Bruce Perens' opinion and alikes, preferentially (for them) taken out of context (as was attempted before, with Linus Torvalds' opinion (see this talk thread) and present them as facts for readers with less technical background and factual knowledge.
    Anyway, if you have any particular suggestions about which features need to be explained or folded into more concise descriptions and how, don't hesitate to make them. For example, with my recent edits I tried to make the PaX section more comprehensive and comprehensible for the reader, and the same could be done to the rest of the article, even though more information also needs to be added in the process.
    Vox Araneae (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    vox_araneae You make a great case for removing badly sourced junk from those other articles. I made a start on this one, removing material that was sourced to WikiBooks (which is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia) and the company's own website. There are now two sources other than grsecurity.net, one is PRWeb (so not independent), the other is a ten year old piece in LWN.net. Please add reliable independent secondary sources or this article is likely to be deleted. If you add further unreliable or affiliated sources, you are likely to be banned form that article for promotional editing. I note also that you have no edits to any other subject: that often indicates a connection to the subject, which you must declare. Guy (help!) 10:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on JzG's suggestions, any expansion of the article needs to start by telling the reader why this particular bit of software is of any significance. Has it been the subject of third-party reviews? Is it actually in widespread use? As it stood, the article told us a great deal about 'features', while doing nothing to establish that anyone really cared. Evidence for that comes from third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. Not passing mentions in technical papers, but in-depth coverage. The sort of coverage that justifies inclusion in an encyclopaedia. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of connection to the subject. As I said, I'm a grsecurity user, for more than a decade. Everything I ever got from the project (i.e. the patches themselves) I got for free, without undertaking obligations of any kind. I also contacted them on IRC and via email and always received free support, again, without undertaking obligations of any kind. However, I have a deep respect for the authors of grsecurity for their self-integrity and the work they have done and continue doing, as well as for that they did it for free for about 15 years. I believe such experience is common among the other long-term grsecurity users that didn't happen to rely on intermediary party (e.g. Hardened Gentoo) support only, and that it doesn't create a conflict of interest for me. I also don't think that grsecurity needs any advertising, especially in a form of promotional edit on Wikipedia. However, I also think that it doesn't deserve to have its page being vandalized by the people promoting a hateful agenda. Yet since that's exactly what happened to the page in the past couple of years (and the past few months, btw), as I see it, and since no one else tried to prevent that at the time, I decided to do it myself and registered the account shortly afterwards.
    If the above circumstances are enough to create a conflict of interest according to both the letter and the spirit of the Wikipedia standards, then I really wonder what kind of motivation a volunteering editor should have, not to be accused of COI.
    Vox Araneae (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "I ... don't think that grsecurity needs any advertising, especially in a form of promotional edit on Wikipedia". Good to hear, since as of now the article doesn't contain any. What it lacks however, is third-party sourcing that establishes its notability per Wikipedia guidelines. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you accuse me of promotional editing? What parts of my edits are promotional and why? What are the criteria? Among the other things, I've removed the section with false facts. Is that too a promotional edit? Besides, most part of the content that JzG have removed and the agenda-pushing trolls was calling advertisement is from 2008, when (and as for many years after that) grsecurity was publicly available and free of charge. Was that content promotional too? Has it become promotional at some point? When? Is "reads like an advertisement" an actual criterion? Vox Araneae (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is entirely possible to promote things that are free of charge. People try to do that on Wikipedia all the time. Religion, politics, which end of a boiled egg to remove, etc, etc and so on ad nauseam. The best defence against this is to insist that the notability of article topics is demonstrated through independent sourcing, and that the article content complies with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. A policy which I'd have thought makes clear enough that articles shouldn't read "like an advertisement". Even more so when what the article is promoting is actually a product now being offered for purchase, as grsecurity now is. So even if you have no COI, and are writing about this product out of the purest of intentions, the article still needs proper third-party sourcing, and still needs to read like something other than a sales brochure. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This answers none of my legitimate questions. Those are just words of an IP commenter who implicitly tries to claim some authority. You imply that the article indeed contained promotional/advertising material, yet when I asked you about the criteria, you provided none. And your opaque reference to NPoV doesn't clarify anything. Anyway, I think I should comment on that point of view, regardless of who expressed it (so the rest of the you's in this reply are generic).
    Being a person who actually interested in practical information security, I can relate to potential readers of this article. So, what an interested reader would rightfully expect? Have you asked this question to yourself? He/she would expect a concise, yet comprehensive description of what the software actually does, how it does that and with what relevant properties: scope, drawbacks, limitations, side effects. And most parts of that "endless features list" served that purpose just fine, for most of the minor features it contained. Even though it did need some editing, claiming that it did read like an advertisement speaks more in favor of your disinterest in what the article is about and/or what it said, rather than about if it contained anything undue. In other words, as long as the subject of the article and the field of practical systems security in general aren't among your interests, your feelings shouldn't matter in the context of any decision making - unless you're going to elaborate your concerns (i.e. actually start caring about the content, not an agenda or any side issues like "the GPL case", which, by the way, isn't about GPL at all).
    What really would be reading like an advertisement, are empty words and promises without the essential technical details, i.e. a common marketing bs, like a feature list that would list opaque promises instead of technical descriptions. That's why I asked about particular criteria. Obviously, none of the Wikipedia concerned readers or admins have to be interested in the field of systems security, but if you don't, then your uninterested person's opinion is naturally irrelevant.
    I understand the requirement for 3rd party sources, yet it's obviously wrong (or just dishonest) to imply that grsecurity only has passing mentions in technical papers, which the above IP commenter did. There, for example, a research paper on formalization of grsecurity RBAC policies: http://secgroup.ext.dsi.unive.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PID2308633-camera.pdf - is it in-depth enough for you? ;) I'm aware of many other similar sources that scrutinize different parts and aspects of grsecurity, as well as of the sources that indicate its relevance. But at this point of my Wikipedia editor experience I'd rather have the article deleted, than do the work to assure its existence, being restricted in it to the set of outdated external sources only; and for what, to maintain a playground for trolls? Seems like grsecurity founder Brad Spengler happens to have a similar view: https://twitter.com/grsecurity/status/1226485832686632960. So go ahead, Guy, delete it. I would only participate if any one else does the work to keep the article alive.
    Vox Araneae (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with User:Kingboyk's indefinite NOTHERE block of User:Trollcleaner. The others listed above may or may not have a COI. It would be beneficial to have an article on Grsecurity, though it would take some patience to produce a well-sourced core of material that would actually be informative. If the article were fully reviewed at AfD my guess is that it would be kept. The Register is interested in the GPL licensing court case and keeps reporting on it. The Register gets a pass from WP:RSPS ("The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles..") I believe that LWN.net should be usable as a source for technical material. Pulling in long lists of features from the Grsecurity web site is not going to be useful. If the article is going to mention any court cases it should probably insist on using genuine third party reporting, not any court pleadings or any statements from the parties to the case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Ed; this should easily pass AfD given the depth of coverage from The Register. The other side of that coin is that the GPL licensing case merits coverage in the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it's not a GPL case at all, but a defamation case "about" expressing "a mere opinion" (according to Perens and his lawyers).Vox Araneae (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's role is to simply note what third party reliable sources say, not interpret them based on the wishes on someone's lawyer. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. And what the "reliable source" says in this case? There are no mentions that GPL, any part or aspect of it was tested in court, because it wasn't. Vox Araneae (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex-h

    Edits by Alex-h show a repetitive pattern such as adding falsities to articles, use of trash sources and the unbiased source, Radio Farda (most of the time).This shows that he has consistently violated neutrality and his edits are destructive. I want administrators to check this user more closely because edits are standing in the articles.

    • First: adding falsities to articles
    1. The source says that A group of prominent Iranian writers, poets, playwrights, and actors have asked two Italian stage directors to stay away from the Islamic Republic's official Fajr drama festival, but He wrote that They have taken this decision on the request of some Iranian artists who have already boycotted the festival. The source does not say the festival is boycotted. There is nothing about the effect of this request by Iranian actors on making a decision by Italian directors!
    2. The Source says that Ali Khamenei has said Iranians should fast Ramadan style to show “the enemy” they can resist its sanctions. but he just wrote that Ali Khamenei, said that under the school of thought of Khomeini people should fast like in Ramadhan.
    3. The source says that "Several members of the victims' families have been forced to participate in interviews with the regime-linked media and stress on their allegiance to the Islamic Republic Supreme Leader," a foreign-based Persian website, Zeytoun, reported on January 23, but he wrote that Iranian regime’s agents force families of victims of the downed Ukrainian airliner to have interviews on state TVs declaring their total support for the Iranian government and the Supreme Leader, Khamenei. Otherwise, the government won’t deliver them the bodies of their loved ones.. It is the claim of Persian website, Zeytoun reported by Radio Farda, but he mentioned it as a fact instead of the claim of Zeytoun.
    4. The source says that Some injured protesters, including those with painful wounds, did not seek hospital treatment for fear of arrest, Amnesty International (AI) reported, but he wrote that Human Rights organizations, including Amnesty International, report that ‘’’many’’’ Iranian protesters wounded in November demonstrations, still cannot use hospital attention as they may get arrested. the source doesn’t support “many”.
    5. The source says that Mohammad Maleki, died of a bullet wound he had received on January 25., he wrote that Two injured protesters, Mohammad Maleki, 23 and Amir Ojani, 43 years old, died in last days of January, of acute infection and respiratory problem. There in nothing in the source about Mohammad Maleki died because of acute infection.
    • Second:using of trash sources

    While he was warned for using trash sources, he repeated the behavior again and again, see these edits cotton, themediaexpress, ncr-iran, ca-news-forum. He uses unreliable sources for stating extraordinary claims which need extraordinary sources. Saff V. (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Saff V.: this noticeboard is for intractable behavioral problems rather than content disputes. Neutrality and original research issues are the domain of dispute resolution and accompanying requests. El_C 13:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C:thanks for attention, but it seems that you didn't read my complaint carefully. I am not here for posting content disputes, I talk about intractable behavioral, writing lies and attributing them to sources repeatedly. I am here to report that Alex-h persistent vandalism such as adding falsities to articles. Some evidence was provided above.Saff V. (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saff V.: you should condense your complaint if you realistically wish for it to be reviewed by participants here. Also, please avoid accusations that involve terms like "lies" and "vandalism" (see what vandalism is not), as these constitute personal attacks. El_C 14:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: how should I condense my complaint while all the above material is needed for making a decision on him?Saff V. (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saff V.: my advise to you would be to limit yourself to maybe two examples of what you consider to be the most egregious violations. Perhaps retain the rest of the documentation in a hatted, collapsed field...? El_C 14:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C:I give it try, does it look better?Saff V. (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Saff V.: better, yes — but I'm still skeptical it's condensed enough to solicit further participation. El_C 14:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: You can check the contributions of user. I only brought his a few destructive contributions.Saff V. (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Saff V., yes, it does seem from those examples that Alex-h tends to play fast and loose with the facts and with proper attribution, and with proper sources. That is a problem that they need to acknowledge and address, otherwise some IRANPOL sanctions may need to be applied, up to and including a broadly construed topic ban from the Iran topic area. Please respond at your earliest convenience, Alex-h. Thanks. El_C 16:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @El_C, sorry about this. As you can see, I have made many good contributions to Wikipedia in the past. In this particular case, I admit I have failed to look at the sources carefully. I will do so from now on, attributing and fact-checking with great care, especially in these controversial articles. Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding challenged material that sources doesn't say anything about them (such as boycotting of the festival or Mohammad Maleki died because of acute infection), doesn't mean "you have failed to look at the sources carefully".In addition, It is not clear why unreliable sources were used repeatedly while you was warned before because of that. Also I think, to response to the discussion which was reported 5 days ago, saying sorry is not enough.Saff V. (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saff V.: I'm actually fine with giving Alex-h another chance, providing they are well aware that further misattribution and reliance on unreliable sources will almost certainly to lead to sanctions. El_C 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility help

    There is a lengthy discussion that has persisted on talk:DC Extended Universe. Editor @Darkknight2149: has recently decided to start accusing users that disagree with them of WP:SOCKpuppetry as well as WP:BLUDGEONing. They may or may not bring such accusations in another thread, but the user continues to contradict themselves simply to further along their proposed argument. Trying to be collaborative and civil with them is not working. Can we get some assistance, please? Thank you.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You were warned about bludgeoning because, even as the discussion was winding down and we were waiting for others to comment, you kept replying over and over to every single comment (often with two comments at a time) restating your position. As the discussion died down, you were told by both me and TheJoebro64 that there's no reason to keep going in circles and we need to allow others to comment, and you still kept trying to burying the thread with your replies because the discussion wasn't going your way. As soon as Joebro mentioned something about an RfC and I stated that I was about to open a fourth Arbitrary Break to wrap up the discussion and gather final comments/votes, you immediately rushed to open an Abitrary Break yourself [68], [69], [70] [71] just to restate your position (for the umpteenth time) and rant about how "But consensus is not based off of votes!!!"
    Then, almost immediately after you opened the Arbritary Break, Popfox3 shows up to the discussion and becomes the only user to strongly support you in that entire thread. This user only has six edits to their account. [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77] and they're all recent. Every single one of the accounts edits are at Talk:DC Extended Universe, taking the same position as DisneyMetalhead in discussions. The only two exceptions were from yesterday, when the account came to defend DMH and then added a space [78], [79] to their username and talk page, to create those pages and get rid of the redlink (in order to look less suspicious).
    @DisneyMetalhead: Not only were you guilty of WP:BLUDGEON and opened an ANI report as soon as you were warned to stop, but give us one good reason why we shouldn't open a WP:SPI. Your only defense so far for bludgeoning has been "just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm bludgeoning", which immediately falls apart under scrutiny. DarkKnight2149 18:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As if that wasn't evidence enough of WP:SOCKing, DisneyMetalhead's account was registered in September 2016 [80]. Popfox3 was registered only a month later in October 2016 [81]. So far, Popfox's only defense has been "actually I'm not a sock because my account was registered in 2016 and I simply didn't use it until recently." [82] In other words, "I didn't use my account until I needed to support DisneyMetalhead at Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions." DarkKnight2149 19:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While that does appear suspicious, you need to be clear, DK - are you stating, without equivocation, that DMh and Popfox3 are the same user? If so, you need to come out and call for a SPI investigation and file the report. I get how, if it is true, it is infuriating (I've had the same accusation made about me as well, and it is a stain that - if not specifically debunked - remains forever), but you cannot even make the accusation as part of an argument without having created an SPI report. As upset as you might be at DMh, tainting their reputation is completely unwarranted without a truckload of proof. Submit the report, await the results and frame your argument accordingly. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: It is not just DisneyMetalhead's reputation that is being tainted. I finally have time to attempt to contribute, and I immediately have accusations hurled at me and a potential investigation into my account, all because I agreed with a user in a discussion. I am NOT a sock puppet, and it is infuriating and humiliating that I have to go through this and have my reputation tainted before I even really do anything. I actually welcome an investigation if that's what it'll take to get Darknight2149 to stop. This is ridiculous. Popfox3 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: I understand that, throughout the discussion, you have tried to be the middle man of the discussion who has tried to find a middle ground between everyone involved. However, there is no middle ground here. DisneyMetalhead's behaviour fits the exact parameters of WP:BLUDGEON. My point is that there is overwhelming evidence that Popfox3 is a sock puppet of DisneyMetalhead. I'm waiting for administrator feedback first, but I probably am going to have to open a WP:SPI at some point today. I'm not clairvoyant, but from what I can see, this more than warrants a checkuser. DarkKnight2149 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that DisneyMetalhead stop reply-spamming at Talk:DC Extended Universe, and give others a chance to comment. For the moment, unless someone addresses me or something I said, I will be doing the same. DarkKnight2149 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Popfox3 - I am not going to reply directly to your comments as, at best, you are an SPA, and not really worthy of comment. At worst you are a sock, and I literally will not waste any further time (apart from this single comment) to interact with you until you either build a more diverse set of edits and an SPI comes back as unrelated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkknight2149 I myself have been accused of BLUDGEON (even before the term came into fashion); it comes from being young and unwilling to consider other viewpoints; a person doing so is absolutely convinced that the other editors suffer from anterograde amnesia and won't remember the previous comments make. Its rather disrespectful and I cringe at the fact that I used to be that way.
    Understand that DMh is likely young and needs a bit more marinating in the Stew of Life before being taken seriously. If they are socking, they deserve every single awful thing that Wikipedia can do to them (please forgive my draconian view on this, but it will not be softening or changing - socks deserve the Swift Sword of Icky Death, imo). I would have suggested on their talk page that they give other the chance to respond before addressing the comments en toto and not piecemeal. If that failed to work, get an RfC; don't wait for it, just start one. Lots of eyes will come to the page and if DMh keeps doing that, their comments will likely boomerang back onto themselves.
    I think an ANI is bit much (as you skipped a step), unless you are seeking help on how to correct the problem. If you came here seeking punishment for DMh and Popfox3, you've done this incorrectly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: I didn't skip a step. I actually did leave DisneyMetalHead a message asking for them to cool it down, and they retaliated by filing this report. I didn't file it. This is a WP:BOOMERANG scenario.
    To be honest, I don't buy Popfox3's story at all. When I was a newbie, I didn't even understand what a talk page was or the discussion process until a few weeks or so in. Yet his/her supposed first (and only) order of business is to only reply to Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions? And they happen to take all of the same positions as DisneyMetalHead? And they happened to show up to the thread just as DMH was growing more and more desperate and overzealous, and the thread was seemingly leading to a close or a RFC? And as soon as they supported DMH, they created a blank userpage and talk page to get rid of the redlink and make their lack of activity less obvious? And their account was created just a month after DisneyMetalHead's? Yeah, everything about this smells fishy. I already have a WP:SPI tab open. I will alert this thread when the report is filed. DarkKnight2149 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you you following the necessary steps, Darkknight2149 dotting your 'i's' and crossing your 't's'. Maybe hold off on talking any more about your suspicions regarding the connections between DMh ad Popfox3 until after the SPI. The ANI is to deal with tendentious editing behavior or personal attacks, which DMh correctly did; accusing them of being part of a socking is a PA unless proven, as the lack of AGF is apparent. Others will offer far more wise advice than I. I am suggesting you don't make any further comments regarding the SPI until it is complete. Focus on what you feel is DMh's disruptive editing behaviors as you see them, because I can guarantee that the user is doing the same here.
    The hardest lesson I had to learn in Wikipedia is that trying to verbally annihilate another user in an edit summary or in talk is counterproductive; how can you even wrap your head around working with someone like that ever again, hating them that much? The short answer is that you cannot. You have to just walk away for a while and let them dig a big enough hole for themselves, jump in and start throwing dirt on themselves. You can sit by the side an eat popcorn or whatever. Just stay above their personal implosion. The point is that you point out a problem, and allow the larger contingent of very smart people here figure out how to resolve that problem. Anyone is prone to mistakes, but not a larger group of thinkers, like you see in Wikipedia. Give the system a chance to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    I have used and browsed Wikipedia for a very long time. Long before I made my account and after I forgot about it for several years. I always viewed the talk pages for articles that I was interested in to see the kinds of discussions that were taking place and how decisions were made for edits. When I noticed that New Gods had been removed from the In-Development section on the DCEU page and that there was an active discussion on the talk page that I desired to contribute to, I attempted to create a new account and in so doing discovered my old one. It wasn't too hard to Google how to edit on the Talk pages. I have been very busy recently and only had time to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the page status yesterday. Everything that you are pointing out is purely coincidental, and I'm glad that you are filing an SPI report because I look forward to being vindicated! Popfox3 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Darkknight2149 your vehement beliefs that User:Popfox3 is me through WP:SockPuppetry is humorous. File your WP:SPI and you'll just come to find that you were wrong. I'll wait patiently for your apology. User:Jack Sebastian, I awarded you on your page for being a mediator throughout the discussion and for trying to stay neutral. I've appreciated those things. I would point out that your response to Popfox3 is not the most welcoming comment to a recently registered editor, but your opinions are your own. It's unfortunate that Darkknight2149's behavior requires admin input. I will continue to provide input (with their reliable sources) in any discussion that I'm a part of. Regardless of whether DK2149 likes it or not.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) "It's unfortunate that Darkknight2149's behavior requires admin input." You mean asking you to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, or alerting the discussion to the indisputable suspiciousness of the Popfox3 situation? (I have around 10 notifications from you just from the last few days alone...) I'd say at least of those certainly requires administrator input. It just might not be the administrator input you want. The SPI will sort that out regardless, so there's no reason for me to keep harping on it here.
    I hope you and Popfox3 aren't bluffing, because if this turns out to be a coincidence and Popfox3 really is just a single-purpose account, that's one heck of a coincidence (or rather, multiple coincidences at once). So far, two other users have backed up the suspiciousness of the situation, so I'm not sure what result you're expecting by filing this report. DarkKnight2149 23:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, by their own admission, Popfox has been here for several years; they aren't a "recently registered user". I have little respect for SPAs and far less respect if they are indeed a sock account. As per BEANS, I'm not going to point out why Popfox3 is a red flag. I am giving them the consideration of not bothering to talk to them until the conclusion of the SPI.
    As well, you should hold off on commenting after every. single. comment. in a discussion. People are not stupid. Given folk a chance to compare your clearly stated view with others. No one is going to assume that you have magically dropped your objections if you don't say anything for a day or two. Let others weigh in. That is the advice I would give you on preventing friction in the discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As stated before, I will continue to wait for the apology. Funny thing is, there's one editor here who is jumping to conclusions and "pointing fingers" - and it's not me. Meanwhile I remain calm, and simply would like some assistance from an admin with the entire discussion. I have continued to respond to comments/placed input/and added new sources to the discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe. Though accused of WP:BLUDGEONing, that has not been my intention. I have simply attempted to respond to statements, and contribute to the article with reliable sources. As a sidenote: any and all users - whether non-ANNON/new/old/etc, can constructively contribute to articles. No one should discourage them anyhow. @Jack Sebastian: I'll be hot-tubbing in your Stew of Life with the Swift Sword of Icky Death, waiting for the WP:ANI to prove that User:Popfox3 is not associate with me at all **emphasis on humor intended**. I wonder however, what you think of the recent sources in the discussion - since you contributed to the discussion earlier. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My attention has been drawn elsewhere, DisneyMetalhead. I think that others can get involved in the discussion. I made my opinion known and that should be enough. I am sorry of you took offense at the 'Stew of Life' comment; I see a lot of how I used to act in your behavior, and I am not trying to shame you into being better, but I think its fair to say that the vibe you are putting out there is not having a positive effect on other editors. You don't need to respond to every comment. You just don't. Sit back and let the collaborative discussion happen without you having to reiterate your points (unless directly challenged or asked). There is no hurry. And I've said about Popfox3 all I am going to until the result of the SPI.
    Darkknight2149, please include a link to the SPI request, for the purposes of discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: Sorry for the slight wait. It will be up soon. DarkKnight2149 03:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jack Sebastian The Stew of Life comment I just made, was meant to be funny. To clarify I did not take offense, and I believe that some of my comments are being read/taken in a sinister/argumentative nature when they are not intended to be. I appreciate your candor and your peace-keeping angle throughout the discussion. I have no ill-will towards anyone on WP, and simply am trying to preserve the integrity of an article. I know that I don't have to response to every comment, but when I am the sole input out of 3 editors, stating why I disagree with the notion (up until @Popfox3: that is) - I was merely attempting to provide all the resources that support my argument. I will wait for that SPI 'investigation' to be over with, and I hope at that point there are some apologies that go around. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued bludgeoning from DisneyMetalhead

    The SPI hasn't even filed yet and DisneyMetalhead is continuing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion [83]. Both myself and Jack Sebastian have warned them about it at this point, and advised them to drop the stick and wait for others to comment. Even when the consensus is stacked against them and when everyone has explained why repeatedly, DMH insists on replying to every single comment to aggressively hammer the point in some more. I guess DMH thought that by filing a retaliatory report and spinning it as an incivility report (all because of this message and this notice, by the way), they would get some kind of "get out of jail free" card to continue exactly what they have been doing. I have well over 20 notifications from DisneyMetalhead from the last few days alone, and they're all from the same discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe. DarkKnight2149 07:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DK2149; your anger is evident on each thread. However, an ongoing discussion that has not reached remotely any consensus, can/should/will be continued with new and updated sources. There was no WP:BLUDGEONing in a message that was my attempts to ping various/additional users who have contributed to the article. I have not replied to "every single comment" nor has there been any "agress[ion]". If you choose to read my comments as such, that's entirely in your error. My attempts here are to preserve and article. I've already stated why I submitted this request to admins. It has nothing to do with the reasoning you just said. In the meantime, @Popfox3: and I are still waiting for you to file your SPI...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No one here is "angry" and WP:BLUDGEON is defined as "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for Deletion, Request for Comment, WP:ANI, an article talk page or even another user's talk page. Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view." You have absolutely been doing this in spades. There also has been a consensus so far, which you are trying to change by replying constantly with the same arguments over and over, while also trying to argue why the standing consensus isn't valid because you don't like it. Every time you have provided "sources", they have either failed to justify your point or failed to contradict the majority viewpoint in the discussion (for the same reasons explained repeatedly). Your more recent sources are no exception.
    The discussion is going in a literal merry-go-round. And as the thread died down and as soon as opening a RFC or wrapping the thread up by taking final comments/votes was mentioned, you immediately jumped in with a new section just to espouse all of the same points all over again and create excuses for why the consensus isn't a consensus. Everyone there understands your position perfectly well. Trying to burying the thread in comments (often at least two comments at once) to try and get your point across is highly disruptive. We get it. Until other users have had a chance to comment, you need to drop the stick and lay off the discussion. As previously mentioned, I have well over 20 notifications from you just from the last few days alone, all from the same discussion. Do I need to post a screenshot? DarkKnight2149 19:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock puppet investigation

    Main page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisneyMetalhead

    The sock puppet investigation has been filed.

    DarkKnight2149 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To note, the users have been found unrelated by a check user. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted (and I myself pointed it out at the SPI even before the CU was requested) that this could be a likely outcome of any CU as it seems that different IP addresses would be in use for each account in purpose to avoid detection, as per DisneyMetalhead's own acknowledgement that they knew Popfox3's IP address was "nowhere near mine" (sic) despite WP:WIA barring any user sort of a Checkuser from knowing such details, and their repeated taunts for a SPI to be filled – they simply knew any CU wouldn't work. Impru20talk 00:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also left an inquiry for Bbb23 on this topic. The evidence tells me that there is too much here for this to be a coincidence. The fact that others were able to dig up even more damning evidence of a connection (such as DisneyMetalhead being telepathically aware of Popfox's IP address) means that this has to be a WP:MEAT situation at the very least. DarkKnight2149 00:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree. Prefall just noted they've gotten away with socking while logged out in the past, so I have a hard time believing that there's genuinely no connection between DMH and Popfox. JOEBRO64 00:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All that I can say is that I do not know DisneyMetalhead and was actually taken aback by their IP Address comment because I wouldn't even know how to go about checking that (and from what I am gathering, is in fact impossible without Check User privileges). I took the same position as them in a discussion, it is as simple as that. All the "evidence" used to attempt to prove otherwise is completely coincidental, and nothing more. Popfox3 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like even more evidence is unravelling about DisneyMetalhead having possibly behaved similarly in the past, this time while logged out ([84]). This would correlate to them having acknowledged themselves in a past discussion on 24 January that "I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames" (sic). Aside of the presented evidence, any claim of editing with alternative accounts would forcefully require them identifying as such on their user page—or not trying to actively deceive other editors in the case of editing while logged out—which does not seem to be the case here. Impru20talk 01:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Popfox3: You were "taken aback" by DisneyMetalhead's IP address comment at 17:33, 8 February 2020, yet still said nothing about it until now, came to this ANI thread in their defense at 19:52, 8 February 2020 without making any mention at such circumstance and even replied by thanking them for their "kindness", "courtesy" and "warm welcome" at 05:22, 9 February 2020? I would surely not be "looking forward to work" nor would be so excited with someone with whom I am "taken aback" because they somehow know about my IP address. Seems odd to say the least. Impru20talk 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I would defend and be excited to work with Disneymetalhead, because they are the one user who have attempted to make me feel welcome at Wikipedia. Try looking at it from my point of view. I contribute to a discussion and am immediately attacked and accused of being a sock puppet account. Multiple times in this ANI thread I have endured personal attacks against the credibility of my account and explanation for the coincidences and was told by one user that I was not even worth talking to, and this was well before an SPI was even officially filed. So forgive me for being willing to defend the ONE user who has been willing to defend me and attempt to make me feel welcome as an editor at Wikipedia. Popfox3 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to clarify, that in my comment regarding IP addresses - I have no idea how these SockPuppetry investigations go. I would have imagined that there was a way to look at IP addresses. I, in no way, actually know @Popfox3:'s IP. Nor do I understand how the whole processes go. Needless to say, I am in no way tech-savvy. Furthermore my statement "I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames" (sic) is in regards to years ago when I had a different profile. The username was deleted, and I left Wikipedia for some time. A similar occasion happened shortly thereafter, before I registered my current username and have since stuck to it. I do not concurrently use multiple log-ins, as has been insinuated (and as my previous statement can be interpreted to mean). --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Then how do you explain this? Moreover, why did you claim that Popfox's IP address is "nowhere near" yours? I'm not alone when I say this - None of this adds up. DarkKnight2149 01:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How do I explain what exactly? I just stated that I don't know the user known as Popfox3. Assume WP:GOODFAITH, and understand that I misspoke - stating how I thought it would be proved...through IPs. I stated that they are nowhere near me - because they aren't me. Cheers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're not you, then how would you know where their IP address is? That's a very specific way of putting it. But back to my first question, how do you explain the strong evidence of socking between you and 206.81.136.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) presented by Prefall at the SPI? This wasn't a simple case of logged out editing, because you directly interacted with the IP as if it were a separate user. Also worth mentioning, Popfox3 made their first non-DC Extended Universe edits today by making some edits at Harry Potter articles and joining the Harry Potter Task Force, and even that is a topic area that you have been known to edit in the past [85], [86], [87]. As others have pointed out, checkusers can detect proxies and VPNs, but they can't necessarily detect if you are using a long distance IP from another computer or instances of WP:MEAT. DarkKnight2149 04:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DisneyMetalhead, would you care linking to your previous account(s)? The account isn't deleted, as it's impossible to delete an account. JOEBRO64 12:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to comment about this. DisneyMetalhead claims he had "a different profile" (singular) years ago and that "the username" (singular again) was then "deleted"; however, Wikipedia profiles can't be deleted as per WP:FAQ and WP:UNC. Further, they relate to just one previous account here despite having previously referred to "various usernames" on 24 January and claiming in their own userpage that they "have been for years as an unregistered editor, and previously other editing profiles that were since abandoned/unregistered". On this, it is remarkable that their userpage initially claimed, in March 2017, that they "have been for years under an unregistered editor name" only. It was not until June 2019 that they made mention to "other editing profiles". And they edited it again to add the "that were since abandoned/unregistered" bit at 01:51, 10 February 2020, this is, in response to my comment earlier at 01:02 where I pointed out that they had previously claimed having had several usernames.
    If DisneyMetalhead did use other accounts in the past, which do obviously still exist because they can't be unregistered or deleted, their identity must be disclosed. We can't have an user apparently having undisclosed sleeper accounts around here, as that's a potential hotbed for socking and even block evasion.
    On the IP issue, the concern is not that DisneyMetalhead claimed having a different IP than Popfox3 (that would be obvious if they are different people). The issue is that they claimed that Popfox3's IP was "nowhere near mine". You can't know where a IP range originates from without knowing such an IP address beforehand, thus being impossible to determine whether it is near or far from your own.
    It's also becoming very obvious that Popfox3 is only commenting in places where DisneyMetalhead is present. Indeed, their user talkpage discussions are becoming a near-insult at pretending they are different people. The way the two accounts are engaging to each other is not natural at all (Further, it wasn't DisneyMetalhead who opened this ANI thread? One would think they know nothing about it from this comment.... This has gone beyond WP:BOOMERANG already). Impru20talk 14:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We definitely need to get some admin involvement. I think it's safe to say there's definitely something fishy going on here. JOEBRO64 21:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Users: Impru20 and TheJoebro64 - an admin reviewed the case and closed it. I misspoke in the past when I said that I had various users. What happened in the past is that for years I made edits on Wikipedia without having a registered login. That was my choice. When I registered a user, it was in the early days of my edits. It was my impression that the old user was done away with.... unless I'm mistaken. I will look up my old username. Regardless of this past mistake, I have only ever used my current log-in/user since creating it. As for my comments on @Popfox3:'s page - I am free to congratulate them on the ending of this ridiculous witch hunt. I changed my user page to reflect what I had originally meant when posting the comment that IMPRU is referring to. I have re-stated and clarified what I have meant by each comment. I stand by my clarifications.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Honest question (this may perhaps show my lack of tech-savviness)... how do I look at when an article was created? There was one article created with my previous editor log-in.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, previously when I stated that I had used other 'log-ins' I was being ambiguous as to how many... and when I added that I did not know that it was not allowed to have multiple. That is why I have adjusted it to state what I had originally meant.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DisneyMetalhead, you should just go into the article history and keep going back until you get to the earliest revision. JOEBRO64 23:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from TheJoebro64

    I was pinged here, and while I've had nightmares about getting tied up at ANI before, it was rightly so that this discussion was started. So, here's the gist...

    DisneyMetalhead has a long history of disruptive editing and WP:OWNy behavior at the DC Extended Universe article. I'm not sure if this is a general problem with the user (although his talk page isn't too reassuring) or just happens at this specific article, but even so, it's been going on for a long time. To call DMH's behavior when it comes to the DCEU a pain in the ass is, to put it mildly, an understatement. Here's just one example:

    In April 2018 DMH had a minor dispute with Prefall over whether the films Joker and Blackhawk should be in the article (the former had already been confirmed to be part of a separate franchise, while it wasn't clear when it came to Blackhawk). Prefall correctly noted that since it wasn't confirmed, it shouldn't be included. Then in June/July (you can see it all here) DMH waged a days-long edit war to include both, claiming that Updated studio information overrides all consensuses on here (which, to be accurate, was complete BS. Nothing had changed in the intervening months). Another discussion was opened showing extraordinarily strong consensus against DMH (and, if you look at the links I provided, you'll see that DMH continued to edit war even after the discussion was opened).

    ... then, in November, DMH adds Blackhawk again, using the same exact rationale, completely ignoring the consensus from three months prior. I reverted and a new discussion was opened to which there was no consensus since only DMH and I participated. DMH takes "no consensus" as "it's OK to add disputed material back in" and does so around Christmas, resulting in another discussion (in which they tried to play the victim because I accused him of ownership). Then it ended again...

    Until January 2020, that is, when DMH adds it again using the exact same rationale as he did in 2018, even though there quite literally has been no news about the film since its announcement. Another discussion with a consensus against DMH is opened. Of course, they still didn't learn anything and, as Darkknight noted above, engaged in WP:BLUDGEONing.

    And let me tell you, that's just one case of this. Just look at the talk page and its history. It's mind boggling. I knew it would eventually make it to some sort of noticeboard one of these days, I just didn't know when. There. I said it all. I'm at peace now. JOEBRO64 23:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fun and games at Race and intelligence

    There's been some discussion about how this article should be. These major changes have been rejected with consensus in discussions on the talk page. I reverted once, but I'm not going to revert again. Seems like editors are taking this as a green light to gut the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&action=history Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Current discussion this sitch. Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Do_we_like_these_new_changes? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Most recent consensus on whether or not a chainsaw should be taken to the article (answer no). Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Let's_go_back_to_a_previous_version Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several editors, including myself, have removed a number of primary-sourced statements from the article. This has been met with a series of strange comments which seem to be based on a nonexistent "Consensus Required" restriction:
    These objections seem to boil down to "you didn't seek consensus before editing" and "we can't keep up with the pace of your edits", which are not valid reasons to revert. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My revert is based on WP:BRD, as explained on my talk page just now. Since you seem like an experienced editor, I don't understand why you don't seem familiar with this. Imagine if someone went to the page of Trump or Obama, and then started deleting large chunks of well-sourced material. This would immediately get reverted with a comment to go to the discussion page. Any important page with a lot of attention to it will require some discussion before any major changes are implemented, so one can profitably skip the BR part of the cycle, and go immediately to the D part. I think you are aware of this, so I don't know what to say. --AndewNguyen (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you justify the blanking of the entire section about mental chronometry? Nearly every secondary source that discusses race and intelligence, including the Hunt and Mackintosh textbooks, includes a discussion about comparisons of MC test results.
    If you were just removing individual primary sources, the rest of us wouldn't be objecting, but that isn't what's happening here. What we're dealing with is the blanking of entire paragraphs or sections, that have been in the article for most of the time that the article has existed, and demanding a consensus before they can be added back. 2600:1004:B11A:7B56:3CC6:3B68:B761:EAB6 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The small subsection was based around claims made by Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, and rebuttal from Richard Nisbett. There might be content worthy of the article about mental chronometry, but it wasn't that particular content. Feel free to propose new content regarding that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that some sanctions against the dynamic IP editor are warranted at this point. They write in the related AfD: I’m writing this from anonymous IP precisely to avoid the kind of “white supremacy” smears exhibited above [91]. Using a dynamic IP to edit in a contentious topic area seems inappropriate since the constantly changing address helps them evade scrutiny by making an entire editing history extremely difficult to trace. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That other IP isn't me. Please compare the geolocations; we're hundreds of miles apart. 2600:1004:B11A:7B56:3CC6:3B68:B761:EAB6 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The point about avoiding scrutiny with an untraceable edit history remains. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope everyone looking at this knows that the article has a bad history with socks. Some are well-known and caught pretty quickly, but not all. We have at least one open SPI, but the range is big and they've belatedly figured out how to stick to WP:CIVILPOV, so... As for the rest, it's clear to me that some editors are knowingly treating IP editing as a loophole, and are treating the technical details of their ISPs as a form of elevated privilege. Oh, and there are also the Arbcom blocked (or previously blocked) accounts involved... Until the community is willing to start making tough calls and supporting serious change, the topic will remain an embarrassment to the project. (Non-administrator comment) Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protecting the talk page could be an option, Category:Wikipedia_semi-protected_talk_pages shows that this has been done occasionally in the past. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was done on the fascism talk page, which suffered from pretty constant disruption as well. Nonsense edit requests, forum posting, crying about bias and so on. Looks like it is working quite well there if you look at the talk page history. A lot less volume at least, as to be expected of course. Just to give an example where semi-protection of an article talk page is used. Up to you lot what to do about it obviously. 2003:D6:270E:83AE:A5B0:13A4:AEFE:6F34 (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Grayfell Guy Macon collapsed the section and changed the title. Here's the permalink for posterity. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was actually Guy Macon, but I ain't offended. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't R&I as a topic area still under DS? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 20:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent anon-IP misuse at Lincoln, England

    During the last two days various anon-IPs are adding information about drug-use prominently at the start of the lead of Lincoln, England. This certainly isn't the right position in the article, but they insist. Additionally, the ref. they (eventually) used was an article from five years ago, which was very cautious about how the figures were estimated, but the attempted anon-IP/WP updates are misrepresenting these cautious estimates as hard facts.

    1. Does this five-year old estimate belong in the article at all?
    2. Should it misrepresent cautious estimate as hard statistics?
    3. Should it be prominent at the start of the lead?

    Advice and assistance would be appreciated. (I'm at risk of going 3RR.) Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Grand Delusion

    Hello again, I'm having another problem with editing on the List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons page. About almost two months ago, I agreed that I would start putting sources for the last air dates of certain shows on the channel, which is what I've been doing. However, The Grand Delusion keeps reverting my last air date source for the last air date of Back at the Barnyard and Breadwinners on December 25, 2019 because he's saying that it doesn't count because it's a "one-off airing" even though the source I provided was reliable and that is clearly the last time it was shown on the channel. (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    The filer has been trying to push the inclusion of the airdates for these one-off airings as the "last aired" date for weeks:
    February 8, 2020
    January 19, 2020
    January 15, 2020
    January 4, 2020
    December 13, 2019
    December 11, 2019
    Additionally, there is no consensus to support the inclusion of these air dates on the article's talk page - Talk:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nicktoons#Christmas_episodes_on_Nicktoons. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I posted a notice at The Grand Delusion - FlightTime (open channel)
    I have protected the page pending the resolution of the discussion on the talk page. It appears this is a content dispute; the two parties should try to work out the issue by discussing the matter on the talk page. If, after several rounds of back-and-forth discussion an impasse still exists, a seek help by following any of the procedures listed at WP:DR, including possibly WP:3O and WP:RFC. You could also ask from outside help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television or one of its daughter projects. Once both parties have reached an agreed-upon solution to their dispute, OR once it is clear that there is consensus among uninvolved editors, ping me and I will remove the protection. --Jayron32 18:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Not Rosguill

    Handled. (non-admin closure) Levivich 05:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Similar to previous recent incident involving Not Hog Farm apparently attempting to impersonate Hog Farm, who was subsequently blocked by kingboyk, I noticed this user's name show up at AfD and RfD. The user was just created today and its only contributions have been in threads in which administrator Rosguill participated.

    I've reported the user at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but am wondering, given the close timeframe between the impersonations and the modus operandi between the two imposters, is it worth requesting a quick CheckUser if not an SPI?

    Thanks,
    --Doug Mehus T·C 16:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't bother filing anything. I've blocked the user as an impersonator and, with some difficulty because of all your SPA tags to their edits, removed all their edits from the redirect discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23, Thank you. I wasn't sure if it was necessary to tag with SPA. I will leave off that step if I see something similar happen again. Doug Mehus T·C 17:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus, you have 8,000 edits, 40% of which are to Wikipedia space, and you keep breaking stuff and venturing uninformed opinions. I suggest you just edit articles for a while. Guy (help!) 17:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, I've suggested that before; doesn't work.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus, Bbb23, and JzG: I've tagged the accounts in case they come back with new sockpuppets. ミラP 21:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Miraclepine: I've removed the tags. You should not be tagging users as socks. Please don't do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23, Dmehus, and JzG: Thanks. Just to be safe, anyone wanna be on the lookout for WP:DUCKlings at RFD? ミラP 02:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Feinoa again

    I had previously mentioned User:Feinoa at ANI earlier (please read the earlier report for more detailed issues). Unfortunately, I don't think stuff has improved since then and the behaviour has continued despite multiple warnings. Here are some recent edits

    1. Persistent removal of templates without attempting to discuss
      1. [92] removing tag without any explanation or discussion. After the tags were restored, Feinoa removed them again [93] claiming These tags are not necessary. Discussing on the talk page is sufficient enough. (even though their participation in the talk page discussion was minimal)
      2. Despite being requested to restore the tags, and later warned about disruptive editing, they go ahead and remove templates [94] in another article I was editing with an active discussion (note that once again they did not participate in the discussion). There is no edit summary or explanation for removal.
    2. Slow moving edit wars (without no attempt at initiating discussions)
      1. (See the diffs at point 4 in the previous report. This is the same issue ("Malay as a national language")and it has continued in Jan and Feb 2020)
      2. [95] claiming "I think we can make do without this as 4 languages have equal status." Reverted by another editor [96]
      3. [97] Another edit towards similar aims, no edit summary. Reverted by another editor.
    3. Ownership issues and edit warring
      1. There are multiple times where they edit/revert without adequate explanation or even attempting to discuss, particularly on Singapore. This is highly disruptive and irritating, given that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Other editors have also explained it to them and requested them to self revert but to no avail.
      2. Bad faith accusations questioning my intent to edit the article and a refusal to collaborate [98]. It is interesting that they say "No one seemed to have had an issue with the original lead except for you. I don't understand why you hadn't brought up your concerns during the GA review." I didn't even know a GA Review was going on (and the honestly I still disagree with the reviewer's decision). Interestingly, the last time a GA Review was happening they said [99] " I just don't understand why unfamiliar editors to this article have suddenly piped in to put the lead under scrutiny only just when it's trying to become a GA". It's becoming clear to me that they would prefer to edit without the contribution and reviews of other editors, which is pretty much opposite to the collaborative idea of Wikipedia

    At this point I don't know whether this is a WP:CIR issue but it is highly disruptive and takes up valuable time which could be spent on improving articles. I have explained multiple times before and good faith can only stretch so far. I believe some admin action is necessary to stop this disruption.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you going to brush over the fact that you've been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for months? You've on numerous occasions reverted my edits with some really weird reasonings on articles with no direction connection with each other such as - [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105] and [106]. You're clearly doing this intentionally, waiting for me to get annoyed enough to seem like I'm in the wrong before you could make another post on the Administrators' noticeboard to try and get me blocked. I even made a post on your talk page all those months ago to leave me alone, but clearly you didn't. You were still tracking my edits, and would then try to revert those with a good enough excuse for doing so in an attempt to spark up another edit war and then claim innocence and get all patronizing when it gets out of hand, multiple times. Feinoa (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure where have I been "Wikihounding you for months" and reverted edits with "really weird reasonings". Kindly bring some evidence with diffs. You edits and behaviour is problematic and false allegations of Wikihounding do not discount it. Yes, I did revert some of your changes but these were limited to Grab (company), Mukim and Minami-Tori-shima back in September when you were removing references without any explanation. These were the only "unrelated" pages I reverted when I checked your recent edits at that time and I left explanations for them as well. As for the diffs that you have provided

    1. Hong Kong protest related articles - These articles were on my watchlist and I took part in multiple discussions and an RfC regarding these. I remember pointing out this edit of yours where you arbitrarily removed some content without any explanation for which I warned you and explained the issue. I would note that many other editors since then have also pointed out problems with your edits/behaviour on Hong Kong related articles on your talk. As for this edit, it follows the citation and I would note that you were involved in an edit war with other editors regarding this same point.
    2. Grab - As explained in the previous ANI you have been involved in removing information and a long running edit war. I note that another editor had reverted you for arbitrarily removing content and warned you on your talk (which you deleted citing "ill founded claims"). I left a note on your talk about Grab as well. I opened a discussion on the talk in on 23 November 2019 as well. Despite all of this, you never responded to any dispute resolution and simply redid the edit again on 31 January 2020.
    3. Mukim - You removed content saying the references is dead. I found an archived version and restored the information. I also explained our guidelines regarding WP:PRESERVE to you.
    4. Minami-Tori-shima - Same issue. You removed content without any explanation including categories, I reverted. I started a discussion explaining my edits in which you did not take part.
    5. Singapore Island I have a bunch of Singapore related article on my watchlist. I admit I reverted your changes based on a mistaken assumption. However I self reverted and restored your changes about 20 minutes later
    6. Colony of Singapore Same here. I disagreed with your edit since it was adding unnecessary information and was not an improvement. If you really preferred your version, per WP:BRD you could have opened a discussion and I could have participated.
    7. Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak Umm, I edited some content on this article [107]. Then you came and edited after that [108]. So who's Wikihounding now ;) By the way, your first edit on this article was removing a maintenance template without any explanation.

    I don't see any evidence of Wikihounding. I have tried to open discussions for many reverts and got no response. If any of my reverts above was unjustified, I would be happy to get feedback from the community and work on it. --DreamLinker (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Feinoa: your edits seem concerning. Would you please explain them? One should not remove maintenance templates if issues remain. Also, when in content disputes, it is important to discuss differences and seek resolution-- WP:BRD.-- Deepfriedokra 05:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Per @Oshwah: in the prior thread linked above, Then, stick to that ultimatum. I think that this will give Feinoa one final chance to stop the behavior (like you said, Feinoa seems to be attempting to edit in good faith - this will be an appropriate next step to take without jumping too far), and if this doesn't succeed and if it continues, he/she knows exactly what is going to happen. So I guess it's time to block. Now as to "sparking an edit war," that's nonsense. You just stop reverting and discuss. WP:BRD. And @Feinoa and DreamLinker: if I may be so bold, I would suggest that neither of you revert the other. Discuss instead, seek an third opinion, 'cause TBH I can see how Feinona might feel hounded.-- Deepfriedokra 13:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I understand you point. That said, I have tried opening a discussion multiple times without any response, hence I never proceeded to 3O.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I would like just to weigh in that I feel both sides are at fault here. @DreamLinker:, I wouldn't like someone breathing down every edit I do either. While many people edit the same popular articles, especially on topics within the same country or of international interest, I doubt Grab and the two Japanese island pages are within the same common denominator in this case. When I do see an edit by a frequent and reliable editor that I disagree with, my strategy is usually to let the matter rest and allow someone else to revert or improve it instead of doing it myself. DreamLinker, I would concur with the admin's advice to simply back off. For @Feinoa:, I do regard the person as a positive contributor to the Wikipedia, but with a tad of obsessiveness and unnecessary over-protectiveness of content. Feinoa's latest revert at Singapore on the basis of a "stable version", with accusations to DreamLinker as "disruptive" is completely unfounded, especially since consensus was achieved on the Talkpage between two editors. If Feinoa declines to discuss the matter out of (perhaps) legitimate irritation, he or she should too, step back, and respect the BRD process. Seloloving (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained, the changes to those "unrelated" pages were only done in September and are limited to those 3 pages, for which I also offered an explanation on their talk. I have never even look at their vast majority of edits. The bigger issue here is that Feinoa's edits are clearly not following Wikipedia's guidelines like removing templates, removing citations and refusing to offer any explanation or discussion.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Denisarona's repeated rollback misuse and failure to communicate

    I've recently had a perfectly reasonable edit of mine rolled back by User:Denisarona. Unexplained removal of sourced content happens to the best of us, not a big deal. As per usual, I went to the rollbacker's talk page and gave them a chance to explain themselves. Imagine my surprise when instead of taking me up on my offer, they deleted my message off their talk page like it's cool.

    "Surely, they must've just had a bad day," I thought and went on to search through their contributions to confirm my suspicions.

    Almost immediately, I found five additional examples of rollback misuse, all from February 2020, where Denisarona rolled back

    I wouldn't necessarily object too vigorously to the idea of any of these good-faith edits being undone, other than my own edit of course, but it's not what the WP:ROLLBACK tool is for, is it?

    With so many examples from just the last seven days, looking for additional ones seemed pointless so I decided to instead find out if anyone had attempted to discuss Denisarona's rollback misuse with him/her before I did. Sure enough, at minimum two such attempts had been made. I say "at minimum" because to find what I did find, I had to plow through Denisarona's talk page's history as none of these made it to the archive. Let's take a look.

    • In April 2019, we had this message from User:Sunmist, a fairly experienced editor and clearly not a troll/vandal, which Denisarona summarily deleted from his/her talk page with no response and a blank edit summary. The issue was quite tricky and I can't really fault Denisarona for using rollback in that instance; it's the complete lack of acknowledgement of stated concerns that rubs me the wrong way. At minimum, an embarrassed "whoops" in the edit summary would've been in order.
    • In June 2014, we had this message by an IP user clearly editing in good faith, which reads as follows: "Abuse of the rollback tool can lead to its removal. Do not use rollback to revert good-faith edits." Needless to say, it was deleted with no response. I had a very cursory look at the situation there and it seems the concerns were legitimate; it would seem that Denisarona was restoring copyright violations. The IP tried to discuss the issue earlier in a separate section but to no avail; his/her concerns were wiped off the talk page just one minute after they were posted.
    • And here's a special bonus to lighten up the mood. Found it in one of the previous ANI threads discussing Denisarona's editing habits. Here's hoping this one will be the last.

    To summarize, just in February 2020, we've had six examples of rollback misuse, and, since the time Denisarona acquired his/her rollback rights, at least three separate instances of good-faith editors attempting to communicate legitimate rollback-misuse-related issues to him/her only to have their concerns deleted off his/her talk page without even a pretense of a response. Something needs to be done. Either we revoke Denisarona's rollback access (courtesy-pinging @Acalamari: the admin who enabled the rollback flag on the account) or we have them recognize their mistakes at long last and come up with a way to move forward. As a bare minimum, we have to communicate to him/her and have him/her acknowledge that: 1) although editors have every right to remove messages from their talk pages, one must not use that right to discard legitimate concerns regarding his/her use of advanced permissions, and 2) rollback must not be used to revert good-faith edits. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a clear misuse of rollback. The edits in question may or may not have needed to be reverted (I haven't checked that) but they were clearly not vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the reversion of your good faith edit without comment was bad, and have restored it.
    The message you left on the user's talk page ought, in my opinion, to have been a little more friendly and a little less confrontational. In my experience, if you're friendly and assume good faith you're more likely to get an explanation and/or an apology. By saying this I am not excusing the rollback. --kingboyk (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true enough as a general rule, but I will note that the friendly approach was tried in 2019 and generated the same response from the user as my direct approach, i.e. a summary deletion of the message. Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone with advanced permissions, such as rollback, should be able to cope with robust questioning of their actions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious, Iaritmioawp, but why are you editing logged out, from an IP account? Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply put, it's convenient. Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an appreciable concern, though while the deletion of concerns from 2014, that is a major gap, so I've somewhat discounted that. However, the burst in February alone plus the lack of response (well, one very specific response) in your case is sufficient to require an explanation. The community has been pretty clear that tools require a willingness to answer to queries about their usage. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a vandal-reverting rollbacker, I'm moved to agree with the concerns expressed here regarding the February rollbacks being pointed to, along with the Talk page deletions. I'd suggest pulling the permissions asap unless there is a prompt explanation/contrition/understanding and agreement to improve expressed. Jusdafax (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The urgency may be exaggerated. Let's just wait for an answer, unless the user resumes editing without providing an answer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the urgency is exaggerated. And I find reverting talk page comments about one's edits as "cretinous" unbecoming. @Denisarona:, I think it best if you not edit further without responding here.-- Deepfriedokra 05:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The 'cretinous' edit summary is certainly unbecoming, but it was from 2014 so is probably a bit stale. However, this is a clear misuse of rollback, and Denisarona ought not to be removing legitimate queries about reverts from their talk page without a response. My advice to CVUA trainees is that mistakes with reverting vandalism do inevitably happen; when they do, and a good faith user comes to your talk page to complain, you should engage with them politely even if they are rude. Check the edit and, if your revert was a mistake, apologise quickly and profusely. Denisarona - I'm sure it would set people's minds at ease if you were to state here that you understand what people are saying, that you have refreshed yourself with WP:ROLLBACK, and that this won't be something we ned to revisit. GirthSummit (blether) 08:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Damn. 2014. Didn't see the timestamp. (need new glasses). But as Girth Summit says, back when I did a lot of RCP, I'd make the occasional mistake with rollback and apologize, 'cause to be blunt, it really pisses people off and rightly so. I'm inclined to just pull the tool and ask them to reapply after 6 months, 'cause their error rate is too high. I don't know if anyone still likens overzealous rollback to playing an active shooter video game, but one must take care to not give that impression. (When I was a lad, we had to carry our templates on our backs through the snow, going uphill both ways.)-- Deepfriedokra 13:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      On the other hand, 2014 suggests chronicity if the problems persist today. If we are going to hand out tools that once were available only to admins, we need to hold accountable those using them.-- Deepfriedokra 13:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Last edit 2020-02-10T17:57:34-- Deepfriedokra 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 to removing rollback - give them a day or so to communicate (as far as I can tell they last edited before this thread was opened), and if no explanation is forthcoming, pull it. Speaking as a fellow rollback-equipped editor, this doesn't look like appropriate use of the tool (fails WP:ROLLBACK's appropriateness criteria), and I'd encourage Denisarona to consider using Twinkle's rollback and providing an edit summary instead of using the built-in rollback tool. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Deepfriedokra that would be WP:MMORPG. Creffett I'm with you on recommending Twinkle rather than standard rollback in most circumstances - the ability to choose one of the options that allows you to tap out a quick edit summary, which is much better practice when dealing with anything but obvious sheer vandalism, is very convenient. That wouldn't help with the refusal to communicate when questioned about a revert though. Looking back through the history Denisarona's user talk page, I'm seeing a great deal of trolling and abuse going back a long way - that comes with the territory if you do RCP, but it isn't pleasant, and it might have affected their ability/willingness to discern between good faith editors questioning a revert, and trolls coming to harass them. Removing the perm won't help with that - it might even make things worse (I take all this abuse for years and this is the thanks I get?). What I'd like to see is for them to log in, see this discussion, re-read the relevant guidance, and make a statement to the effect that they understand the concerns and will strive to improve their practice moving forward - a driver awareness course, rather than revoking their licence. GirthSummit (blether) 14:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point. I mostly use twinkle so as to explain my revert. I have little use for the revert button that comes with the tools. As to the trolling, it goes with the territory-- one must take it as an indication of a job well done. The vandals aren't happy with being reverted. We still need to look at what we've done and fix our mistakes. And that's what I hope to see- a willingness to take responsibility for the inevitable errors and not a shrug and dismissal of concerns. -- Deepfriedokra 16:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kbb2

    I've contributed to an article regarding the Gronings language using my own reputable source, and then it kept being undone by this user User:Kbb2. I have since then reverted the edit, but this user has been constantly reverting my edits of cited information, and it has been rather disturbing. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fdom5997, Have you tried discussing the issue with said user? I see no evidence of any discussion. It may be a simple misunderstanding, or basic point that could be easily cleared up with a bit of talking. Also, anytime you mention someone at ANI, you must notify them, which you have not done. I have done it for you. In general: ANI is the last place to run in a dispute. It is where vandals and trolls, and bad behavior is dealt with. Before coming here, you should generally have thoroughly exhausted dispute resolution, or have evidence of misdoing. So unless you believe there is misdoing, this appears to be a content dispute that should be discussed by you and Kbb2. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fdom5997 and Kbb2: This is a content dispute with edit warring. Please both of you stop reverting and start discussing. Please see WP:BRD. I echo what CaptainEek says.-- Deepfriedokra 05:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm done with reverting them, yes. I'll take the issue to Talk:Gronings dialect. I'm noticing some issues with WP:OWNERSHIP, when they say things like "do not debate" [109] and "leave my tables alone" [110] and bear in mind that Fdom hasn't addressed a single thing I said in the edit summaries and that the vowel table (the one with monophthongs, meaning the middle one) is unsourced. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I thought I saw some OWN as well. @Fdom5997: over to you.-- Deepfriedokra 13:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Devi2003

    Devi2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    User:Devi2003 is a relatively new user whose edits seem to largely consist of linking major country names such as United States or Germany. These edits are contrary to the Manual of Style, and he has been subsequently warned and reverted several times. As he continues to make similar edits, even after receiving their latest (final) warning, I suggest that a short suspension of editing privileges may be required in order to stem additional clean-up requirements. Loopy30 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Welp, I've left them another message. Just between you and me, I hate MOS related disputes. I certainly don't want to bite the new user. I'll rely on our collective wisdom to see us through.-- Deepfriedokra 05:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been involved in Devi2003's edits, and while some of them are WP:MOS issues, not all of them are. For example, this edit (which I warned them about) introduced a significant factual error into the article and this edit is highly problematic. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    wow. cyrillic?-- Deepfriedokra 05:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lovely. Final warned them on what looks like vandalism.-- Deepfriedokra 06:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Last edit 2020-02-10T15:22:17.-- Deepfriedokra 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's not "just" an MOS dispute either, it's a total absence of communication from the user that is off-putting. In their five-month history, they have edited across 20 projects with an immediate understanding of Wikidata entries and Wiki-markup, but not once posted to a talk page on any of the projects. They have been warned a couple of times for copyright infringement on other wikis, but no other problems noted. Loopy30 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment of editors by User DBigXray

    Editors involved-

    First of all I have no involvement in this. I am just concerned with Xray's conduct.

    Soman- There seems to be some dispute in AFD between these two parties. Xray templated[111] Soman for Personal attacks per this AFD[112]. Soman made these entries here[113] and here[114] to that AFD. It can not be construed in any way as a personal attack. They threatened to take Soman here.

    I disputed there being any personal attacks and asked Xray for differentials at both their and Soman's talk page. He has evaded these requests multiple times. See here[115] and here[116].

    Yappy2bhere- Xray is claimingYappy made a personal attack here[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Yuva_Morcha#frontal_org. I don't see it.

    What I see is Xray biting/harassing two editors unless they prove otherwise....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not evading anything, I have been travelling for the last 4 days [117], ...William seems to be imposing some sort of unmentioned deadline to give him all the diffs of attacks, and when I asked him to clarify the deadline [118]. he threatened to drag me to ANI [119] and then promptly posted here [120], without even waiting for my response [121]. I will respond on the meat of the matter later, but just wanted to clarify on the accusation of evasion.  DBigXrayᗙ 13:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No EEng, I believe this is what they were looking for. GirthSummit (blether) 14:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No EEng Girth Summit, it is the Differential amplifier being referred cuz clearly there is a lot of amplification DBigXrayᗙ
    Please note that Xray made over 40 edits in the last 24 hours[122] and after my first request for differentials....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if it's differentials you want... : EEng 14:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng, a divisive one though. Could you find one for unity? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe we’ve struck a particularly rich vein of low-grade math/science puns. EEng 15:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment of DBigXray by User Soman

    • Soman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • [123] User had been alerted about the Discretionary sanctions on the topic area.
    • Please see his comments on recent Afd [124].
    • [125] *Keep, this is slightly ridiculous.
    • [126] Spams the AfD with 78 links and then says,
    • [127]Why don't you spend a few minutes extra and review the posted links? You seem to have little problem in wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs
    • [128] I posted an NPA template on his talk page for the above WP:ADHOM comment.
    • [129] Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate.
    • [130] Templated again for this WP:ADHOM
    • [131] he replied to the above template stating "Look, I've been along long enough here to detect empty postures. If you have an example of a personal attack, please bring it up in the relevant forum. I stand by the comments I made in the BJYM AfD, which were directed at your actions and behaviour and not your persona or person per se."
    • [132] Inappropriate canvassing at a user's talk page about an article on AfD.
    • [133] ... If you have concerns over the contents of the article, edit. AfD is not the place to address content issues.
    • [134] Inappropriate canvassing at WP:INDIA with accusations against AfD noms stating There is a number of ongoing AfDs that break all logic and a wider community involvement would be of interest. A number of articles on entities ... are being nominated for deletion supposedly based on WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which is really weird ... Regardless of how one feels about political events in India today, arguing that organizations ... are non-notable defines common sense.
    • [135] After successfully mobilizing Carrite to vote keep in the previous AfD, he made another inappropriate canvassing for another AfD
    • [136] On Talk:Priashevshchina (which is on AfD) he attacks the AfD Nominator stating, DBigXray, whose googling skills aren't particularily impressive, has tagged four reference in this article.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, those dif's certainly seem snippy and rude. Do we give new users a bye on WP:CIVIL on WP:AGF?-- Deepfriedokra 13:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone gets a bye on WP:CIVIL. The reason Wikipedia is in the mess it's currently in with regards to civility is its lack of consistent enforcement. The other shoe needs to drop.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Deepfriedokra and WaltCip I have said all I had to say on this thread. It is over to admins and ANI to decide on the issue now.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to respond in the table below;
    Comment from DBigXray [137] Comment from my side re from DBX
    *[138] User had been alerted about the Discretionary sanctions on the topic area. Honestly, I found the assumption of bad faith by posting the DS notice on my talk as, well, an assumption of bad faith.
    *Please see his comments on recent Afd [139]. Notably, DBigXray began his AfD nomination with the accusation (against me, article creator): "Article had been created using party website with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers" [140] [141] I realized after nominating that it was the recent updates that were to be blamed for WP:PROMO and not the creator and I had already struck off my comment before Soman (creater) commented there. Soman seems to have deliberately hidden this fact.
    *[142] *Keep, this is slightly ridiculous. Yes? Tagging BJYM, the youth wing of one of the largest political parties in the world, for deletion due to supposed lack of notability, is ridicolous. 'Slightly' was added for sake of civility in the conversation
    *[143] Spams the AfD with 78 links and then says, Sorry, but here DBigXray was clearly the one who contributed to the deterioration of civility. He requested proof for notability, I posted a number of links, and when receiving them he refused to respond in mature way, and instead rebuffed the evidence of notability altogether.
    * [144]Why don't you spend a few minutes extra and review the posted links? You seem to have little problem in wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs Whereby DBigXray answers: "What you did above is nothing but blatant trolling of this AfD. Posting 75 links and asking others to click all of them is not something one expects from someone with good intentions. I looked at the first 5 and they are shit. Based on scores of deletion notices on your user talk page. is obvious that you have trouble understanding our WP:Notability criterias specially WP:ORGCRIT." (emphasis mine). Whilst the debates here aren't terribly uncivil, this clearly shows that DBigXray is hardly innocent in the this discussion.
    * [145] I posted an NPA template on his talk page for the above WP:ADHOM comment. Again, the posting of NPA warning was hardly helpful for the debate climate.
    *[146] Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate. Considering the editing pattern of DBigXray and his associate S. M. Nazmus Shakib over the past days, I have no doubt that WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies. I cannot find any other sensible explanation why BJYM would have been tagged for deletion. I am a regular at AfDs. I am not related to S. M. Nazmus Shakib in any way and I take strong exceptions to this baseless accusation of connivance and a blatant violation of WP:ASPERSION.
    *[147] Templated again for this WP:ADHOM Again, issuing warning templates, saying "this is your final warning" etc, is hardly the hallmark of a mature editor
    *[148] he replied to the above template stating "Look, I've been along long enough here to detect empty postures. If you have an example of a personal attack, please bring it up in the relevant forum. I stand by the comments I made in the BJYM AfD, which were directed at your actions and behaviour and not your persona or person per se."
    *[149] Inappropriate canvassing at a user's talk page about an article on AfD. This hardly qualifies as inappropriate canvassing. Carrite is an experienced, high-quality editor, with interest in history.
    *[150] ... If you have concerns over the contents of the article, edit. AfD is not the place to address content issues. AfD is not for clean-up. This is clear as per policy, and is a point often clarified in AfDs that complain about low-quality articles.
    *[151] Inappropriate canvassing at WP:INDIA with accusations against AfD noms stating There is a number of ongoing AfDs that break all logic and a wider community involvement would be of interest. A number of articles on entities ... are being nominated for deletion supposedly based on WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which is really weird ... Regardless of how one feels about political events in India today, arguing that organizations ... are non-notable defines common sense. Inviting broader participation is hardly inappropriate canvassing. And the underlining problem with POV issues of the AfD nominators remain, in my opinion.
    *[152] After successfully mobilizing Carrite to vote keep in the previous AfD, he made another inappropriate canvassing for another AfD See above
    *[153] On Talk:Priashevshchina (which is on AfD) he attacks the AfD Nominator stating, DBigXray, whose googling skills aren't particularily impressive, has tagged four reference in this article. Sorry, but tagging 4 out of 5 references in one go, on an article that he himself nominated for AfD, doesn't exactly indicate the ability to verify sources.

    For me, the bigger issue, which I feel was an expression of WP:HOUND was the fact that DBigXray tagged 4 other articles created by me for AfD (edit diff on talk page [154]) in one go, seemingly without respecting WP:BEFORE. I'm not going to elaborate on the merits of each article here, but I fail to believe that he came across these 4 articles by coincidence. All 4 AfDs followed accusation of personal attack. I find this behaviour disturbing and unconstructive. --Soman (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of whether it is ever advisable for one editor embroiled in a dispute to issue a civility warning to a fellow disputant, it certainly wasn't necessary for Xray to jump from an initial warning to a final warning. The added snippet of "since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the content and not attacking others" could, without much difficulty, be construed as a personal attack. When you also consider that Xray nominated four of Soman's created articles for deletion in between the two warnings, it all begins to come across as a bit heavy-handed. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made 2 comments in the table above. The rest is quite easy to understand so I dont feel the need to respond to them. Lepricavark, They were given 2 warnings, on NPA, you can call it with whatever names one would prefer to. They have been editing here for more than 16 years, and if they still decide to disregard first WP:NPA warning, I dont think a second warning was really needed, but I gave it anyway. Now we are here, so hopefully this will be addressed and no more warnings needed. I have already given enough diffs where this user despite being warned about NPA continued attacking others on AfD. Accordingly my line in the warning where I said, "since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the content and not attacking others" is appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 19:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's how I see it. You can either nominate four of an editor's created articles for deletion or you can issue that editor a final warning for incivility. Doing both is very ill-advised, especially since you are not an admin. Your line in the warning may seem appropriate to you, but it was an unfavorable personal comment uttered during the course of a dispute. In that sense, it's not so different from the comments made by Soman to which you took offense. Lepricavark (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lepricavark, I don't agree with any of your opinions you shared in the last comment above. I would leave it at that. DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I don't see any point in leaving this subthread open. Neither your nor Soman has done anything to warrant further action, although I do hope you will reconsider your tactics as they do come across as heavy-handed IMO. Could Soman have handled this a bit more graciously? Absolutely, but there's no need for sanctions or any sort of formal warning. Lepricavark (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lepricavark, That is again your opinion with which I disagree. I have given clear evidence of issues here. Being in content dispute does not give you licence to breach civility and attack/harass the other editor. Soman's replies above shows that the problem still exists and needs a resolution at ANI. DBigXrayᗙ 05:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be blunt, if someone gave me a civility warning, took four of my created articles to AfD, and then gave me another civility warning, I would feel like I was the one being harassed. Remember that after Soman's first so-called personal attack (accusing you of bad faith), you responded with an accusation of trolling. You also said the following: Based on scores of deletion notices on your user talk page. is obvious that you have trouble understanding our WP:Notability criterias specially WP:ORGCRIT [155]. At the time that comment was posted, there where a grand total of four deletion notices on Soman's talk [156], two of which were for files and thus had nothing to do with ORGCRIT. So much for the scores of deletion notices that served as the basis for your personal comment about Soman. As for Soman's second personal attack, it was bit more blatant and might have merited a remonstrance from an uninvolved administrator, but you couldn't have expected that a final warning from you would be well-received. I'm sure you still disagree with my opinion, but at this stage it's not you that I'm trying to convince. Lepricavark (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    if someone gave me a civility warning, took four of my created articles to AfD, and then gave me another civility warning, I would feel like I was the one being harassed - I wholeheartedly concur. There seems to be a vendetta here. starship.paint (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment of DBigXray by Yappy2bhere

    • Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • [157] User had been alerted about the Discretionary sanctions on the topic area.
    • This user was involved with me in a minor content dispute over copy editing a text, where something was added that was not supported by the source. I raised the matter on article talk [158] and accordingly a std template on WP:OR [159] and a std DS alert on WP:ARBIPA (which covers all Indian articles) was given [160].
    • [161] He responded to the template stating Don't waste your time, son -- you're not in the right, you're not an admin, and you either don't understand WP policy or cynically contort it to achieve your own ends. Whether it's stupidity or audacity, you'll need more than chutzpah and a template to bully me.
    • [162] on the talk page thread he responded calling me a "A diller" ( defined here as "The word 'diller' is a Yorkshire term for a boy who is dim-witted and stupid ")
    • [163] I posted an NPA template for the above comment.
    • [164] doubled down and continued his personal attacks on me on his user talk telling me You're a WP:BULLY with a big axe to grind. Take care that it doesn't fall on you, friend.
    • [165] Calls me a boy, stating "Don't cry wolf, boy. You've not been attacked, neither there nor at AfD."
    • [166] fed up with his personal attacks, I warned that continued attacks on me will be reported at admin boards.

    As I have clarified in the diffs and the quoted comments, my warning were not frivolous and I have been needlessly harassed in the middle of my trip in real life. I hope an admin takes some sort of action on these diffs as the topic area is covered under WP:ACDS and the users were already alerted about it. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing any kind of problem in DBigXray's behaviour toward Yappy2bhere. Putting a DS notice on someone's talk page is standard practice, it is not an attempt to bully them. Yappy2bhere's response was condescending and unambiguously rude - if anyone's behaviour needs examining, its theirs, not XRay's. GirthSummit (blether) 15:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with Girth Summit. I think Soman and Yappy2bhere need to address these concerns before editing further. I think the next incivil edit should certainly result in a block. Not averse to blocking now.-- Deepfriedokra 16:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait we must. DBigXrayᗙ
    • @Girth Summit and Deepfriedokra: - do you see any kind of problem in this comment by DBigXray: [167] Yappy2bhere, keep yapping. That's the full edit. Definitions for yapping: barking / yelping / talk noisily / talk foolishly. The way I see it, the incivility is not one-sided. starship.paint (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Starship.paint, under normal circumstances, I'd see that as an innocuous joke (a play on the editor's username - a bit like me telling you to keep on painting). Given that an atmosphere had already developed, I'd say that it probably wasn't ideal, but look at the comments that preceded it - Yappy2bhere is condescendingly mocking his choice of words, aggressively telling him he's guilty of fabrication, and making the 'a diller, a dollar' remark. Even if the incivility isn't entirely one-sided, it certainly isn't evenly balanced. GirthSummit (blether) 07:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Googling yapping gives "talk at length in an irritating manner." And obviously you have to see its context to decide on the meaning. It was a response to this [168] comment by Yappy that was zero on content and all about accusations. DBigXrayᗙ 09:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Girth Summit, while I do not see Yappy2bhere's approach as optimal, I see some reason to be aggrieved and frustrated. The actual cause of the dispute between DBigXray and Yappy2bhere is due to DBigXray making this edit, resulting in the text: According to Poonam Mahajan BJYM hopes to play a major role in taking Narendra Modi Government's policies to the grassroots level, with the edit summary per source. Unfortunately, that's not what the source said: Poonam Mahajan presided over the workshop. She said the BJYM will carry out campaigns at the grassroots level and on the social media. <end of article> DBigXray added an inaccuracy leading to Yappy2bhere's accusation of fabrication.
      • DBigXray then tries to explain his edit, and gives a questionable statement: It was there before I arrived. I merely tried copy editing it. So please do not blame me. First, if he was copy editing, which on here means correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout, why did he need to write per source - that seems to be ensuring WP:V is followed, instead of a copy edit. Second, his copy edit changed the meaning of the statement, from the original BJYM ... now playing a major role to Mahajan ... BJYM hopes to play a major role.
      • The icing on the cake is that after DBigXray adds inaccurate information, he goes on to warn Yappy2behere that no original research or novel syntheses is allowed. Surely, you can see how that would not have been well received. starship.paint (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Starship.paint, I dont remember if I had ever interacted with you, and I am puzzled why you are fabricating lies falsehoods against me. Though, ANI does not discusses content dispute but here you are accusing me of adding inaccurate information. To rebut this falsehood I would need to quote the source and my edits. The article before I arrived stated this in Wikipedia's voice

        BJYM has been the frontal organisation for BJP since its inception and now playing a major role in taking Narendra Modi Government's policies to the grassroots level.

        The source never mentioned frontal and actually said this

        BJYM's national president and BJP MP Poonam Mahajan presided over the workshop. She said the BJYM will carry out campaigns at the grassroots level and on the social media.

        I removed frontal and attributed the quote to Mahajan instead of stating it as a fact in wikipedia's voice.

        According to Poonam Mahajan BJYM hopes to play a major role in taking Narendra Modi Government's policies to the grassroots level.

        Yappy reverted me and restored the unsourced frontal part, made the content back as fact stated in Wikipedia's voice and accused me of misrepresentation of source. It was removed with an appropriate edit summary [169] and a template on OR. Since this was a content dispute, sensing an edit war, I then moved the entire line to the talk page for getting a consensus version following WP:DR with a neutral tone comment where I was attacked again [170] and called a diller ("dim wit and stupid".) DBigXrayᗙ 08:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        DBigXray, I realise that having this thread open is likely stressful, but please don't start using phrases like 'fabricating lies against me' - it won't help your case. By all means put your side of the situation, but adding to the heat will not help us arrive at a solution. GirthSummit (blether) 08:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        They are lies and have been called out appropriately. I am fine with striking it off and replacing with falsehoods. You still get the idea. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        DBigXray a lie is a deliberate falsehood, and is an outright accusation of bad faith - it doesn't allow for the possibility that the other person has the wrong end of the stick, or that there has been some miscommunication or something that they've overlooked. TBH I don't think that 'falsehood' is much better, I think that your case would be better served by trying to bring down the heat rather than crank it up. GirthSummit (blether) 08:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Girth Summit, this is indeed an open display of bad faith on his part instead of AGF. If someone has the guts to fabricate lies against me to throw some muck on me, on an open and public noticeboard, I reserve the right of response to call out what it is. Ask Starship to strike of the false accusation and I will strike off mine. DBigXrayᗙ 08:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Starship.paint I don't have time right now to read through the edit history and the sourcing closely, but on the face of it I can't really see what was so wrong with XRay's edit that it should attract the level of scorn that it did. In the diff you provided above, the initial version was vaguely written and ungrammatical - at least XRay's version of it was written in decent English. If there was a shift in meaning, which meant that XRay's edit had moved our content further away from the sourcing, I don't see why that couldn't have been raised in a civil manner. GirthSummit (blether) 08:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Girth Summit - Yappy2behere twice raised the concerns without incivility Misrepresents the cited source [171] and "hopes to play a major role"? Nowhere does the article say that [172], albeit in edit summaries an revert war. DBigXray also reverts, this fragment is correct but it misses the point The source nowhere says "frontal" org ... Do not add WP:OR, while making an inaccurate statement that is her statement. Yappy2behere attempts to fix the situation, [173], but probably introduced a different inaccuracy, in my view. DBigXray then deletes the entire sentence despite Yappy2behere's efforts. Essentially, we have an edit war where both sides feel aggrieved and wronged. starship.paint (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @DBigXray:, I do remember interacting with you, without any problems between us, so I have no axe to grind. I'm here as a neutral party - Soman or Yappy2behere are not my friends. Unfortunately, you apparently still cannot see how your edit is inaccurate. The source does not explain what the campaigns at the grassroots level and on the social media that Mahajan talked about are. What you added, According to Poonam Mahajan BJYM hopes to play a major role in taking Narendra Modi Government's policies to the grassroots level is not in the source. What is in the source, which if you read it may have confused you, is this earlier part which you haven't quoted: Jaitley added. He emphasised the need to publicise the work of the Modi government at the grassroots level. I would say one learning lesson for you in this whole story, is to be more careful, especially when you edit war, and definitely especially when others are telling you that you have misrepresented the source. A second lesson would be to avoid warning templating long-term editors - you can read that on your own. starship.paint (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Starship.paint, if so then I am still puzzled why you are going to lengths in painting me as a villain here (may be you are hiding something). What are you actually inferring here ? Are you saying the content that was before my edit was correct ? are you claiming that Yappys revert where he restored the inaccurate content in wikipedia's voice was appropriate ? Are you claiming that my edits left the article in a bad shape ? if one had issues on content there is a way and place to discuss it , where i started a thread and instead of a wP:CIVIL discussion on the issues, I was called a "dimwit" and stupid and what not. but that is all irrelevant for you. I used the word "yapping" there (which means "talk at length in an irritating manner.") and for that you deemed fit to give me a level 3 warning on Personal attack including a threat for blocking immediately complete with a well phrased finishing line that said "Not so fun when you're on the receiving end, huh? , and of course nothing [174] to the user who actually attacked me calling me all sorts of insulting names. You claim that you are neutral and uninvolved here but in fact as I showed above you are clearly biased against me. You are (deliberately) closing your eyes to the main issue here and are aggressively harping over a "trivial" content dispute, ( which you were not even a party to). And this is the reason why I am questioning your motives in coming to my talk page and then on this ANI and throwing muck on me. I would advise you not to advice me and force your personal opinions on me in a condescending manner. You may not like templates, doesn't mean you will go around asking others to not do it bcuz you hate it. Go start an RFC get consensus and I will be glad to follow it. The templates are here for a reason and should be used whenever and wherever necessary. If you feel I wrongly templated someone point it out and I will discuss. You have no right to ask me not to template someone. DBigXrayᗙ 09:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DBigXray, while you probably did not intend for this to happen, your actions, as well as Soman and Yappy's, have perpetuated this conflict. You control your actions - by all means, continue templating other long-term editors, but know that templating can come off as heavy-handed, abrasive, dismissive, and even threatening, which may worsen conflicts - I templated you in an attempt to make this very point apparent to you. The thing is, even after William and I called you out, you don't seem capable of admitting error in this situation. You also utterly rejected Lepricavark's criticism above. That's as villainous as it gets for you. The content before your edit was wrong. Yappy's revert was half-right, half-wrong. Your edits on the article were partly right and partly wrong, but you can't seem to see or acknowledge the part that is wrong.starship.paint (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I never asked anyone to call me dimwit or attack me (and other noms) over AfD and content disputes. They chose to do it and despite warning continued repeating it. But you sir are here for victim blaming using contorted and False equivalence. your methods were useless in resolving the situation in any way and you are here on this ANI to add fuel to a fire. I have pointed out above why and how I consider you non neutral and that is all I have to say to you.DBigXrayᗙ 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, my methods failed in making you see the light. Therefore, that must have been a mistake of mine. My apologies to you, DBigXray. Finally, I hope that you will ask yourself, is this a massive conspiracy against you including me, William, Lepricavark, or is it possible that you have made a mistake? Good day to you. starship.paint (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    you too. DBigXrayᗙ 10:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Carrite

    Soman is an outstanding encyclopedist. I have no idea if DBigXray is stalking him or not, but it certainly looks like there is some sort of personal axe being ground. Soman appealed to me to take a look at a couple AfDs as a subject expert, asking in a neutral manner. I had a definite opinion about one, which seemed to me a pretty easy GNG pass; no opinion about the other. Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, there is no personal axe to grind here. Having a content dispute with others does not entitle anyone to badmouth and attack others on AfD and article talk pages. There are accepted ways to address disputes, and surprise, surprise, "calling insulting names" and WP:ADHOM are not one of them. Being an "outstanding encyclopedist" (whatever that means) does not mean you will get a pass and escape after making such personal attacks. DBigXrayᗙ 11:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DBigXray, where did I call you 'insulting names'? --Soman (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    listed at #Harassment of DBigXray by User Soman--DBigXrayᗙ 13:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Au contraire, there are ZERO instances of name-calling in your collection of diffs. Lepricavark (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Mr. Vernon

    There is an AfD discussion involving the Priashevshchina article (about a newspaper) which DBigXray nominated. After some discussion about whether posting announcements about the AfD in WikiProjects pages consisted of WP:CANVASSING, I noticed that he hadn't posted about the AfD to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism. I asked about it on his talk page, and he was glad that I notified him as he didn't know about that project, and eagerly took me up on my offer to post it there. I think it says something about his character as an editor, especially a level of detachment and concern for the quality of Wikipedia over their nomination; in essence, it was more important to get people who were knowledgeable about journalism and the notability of the newspaper in question involved, then it was for the editor to be "right" and score one article down for the count. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC

    Comment by S. M. Nazmus Shakib

    Its very large now. But, typing my name I have found that I have mentioned here twice. As there mentioned I am an associate of user:DBigXray I strongly opposed this allegation. Though I am relatively new user among other veteran users present here, I have to say here I am regular in AfD in recent few months. Even, I have to mention posting 78 links on AfD and saying WP:IDONTLIKE in AfD are not a good things.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Though no diff was added but S. M. Nazmus Shakib seems to be referring to this AfD where Soman added 78 links. And this AfD nominated by S. M. Nazmus Shakib where Soman attacked him saying, Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: I have forgotten to put diff here. Sorry for this. And thanks to DBigXray for putting diffs. These diffs are put by him are correct.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome. DBigXrayᗙ 06:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the recent editing patterns, it certainly appears that S. M. Nazmus Shakib and DBigXray are well in sync in deletion discussions on the Sangh Parivar. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BJYM Karnataka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Rashtriya Manch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Party, Sikkim, K. G. Marar, etc.. Notably, DBigXray even goes to the extent of deleting 'keep' votes from one of S. M. Nazmus Shakib's deletion nominations ([175]). Now, I'm not saying that the two users had coordinated their deletionist drive, but there is a pattern of behaviour in which both seem happy to validate each other's pro-deletion argument and refuse to listen to opposing views. If 'associate' as too negative connection, I'd be happy with replacing it with 'buddy' or 'fellow traveller'. --Soman (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Soman, I had already answered about these baseless acusations in the table above. I note that you continue your WP:ASPERSIONS without any evidence. The diff you added already links Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#User_attacking_AFD_nom in the edit summary for context.
    @Bishonen:, You had asked on that ANI to "Go ahead and revert, Blame me if you get flak. Well, I reverted them and now I am getting the flak above from yet another editor, who had been attacking others, simply due to his disagreement on AfD. Just thought that you deserved to know.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, DBigXray's removals of XeroxKleenex's personal attacks in AfDs are on me, and I'm happy to take responsibility for them. See [176] for context. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    In case you weren't aware of this, it would have been possible to use Template:rpa to remove the personal attack while leaving the keep !vote and the non-offensive portion of the rationale in place. Lepricavark (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @admins, The diff Soman added clearly refers the ANI thread in the edit summary. I hope you are all watching and reading this nonsense and I sincerely hope an appropriate action will be taken on User:Soman for throwing these kinds of WP:ASPERSION on fellow AfD contributors, simply because he disagrees with their opinion. This bigotry must not be allowed to go on unchecked. DBigXrayᗙ 11:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to admins

    Soman has already made his point and yappy2behere doesn't seem to be responsive. As I noted above, this thread is now being used to settle personal scores against me. I would request admins (instead of users who jump on a word and trivial content disputes) who actually have time to investigate this complex issue in detail and to review the case and diffs and decide on this . --DBigXrayᗙ 10:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no score to settle with you and I'm the one who started this discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WilliamJE, did I take your name? In case it was not clear to you, I wasn't referring to you DBigXrayᗙ 21:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Xray, I suggest you back off = maybe apologize too = then take a rest from WP. In light of what Razer brought up, this thread could turn very ugly for you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WilliamJE, no, and no and no. You don't need to worry about it. DBigXrayᗙ 21:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    DBigXray has been warned enough times before

    DBigXray has been warned enough times involving the very same issues that have been described above. Some examples include an ANI from November 2018: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#DBigXray where DBigXray was warned over same incidents of harassment. Then he was warned by an admin on his talk page on December 29 2019 from Bishonen,[177] that he would get topic banned if disruption continues. Other ANIs from last year include:[178][179][180]

    Apart from these incidents, DBigXray's conduct on this very thread speaks for itself. He believes that group of users are engaging in a conspiracy against him and "fabricating lies falsehoods". In the light of past warnings, one thing is clear that DBigXray is likely to remain unrepentant and we should no longer expect community to make a new report every time something happens and continue to expect others to tolerate this narcissistic disruption. Some action is surely needed to resolve this long term problem. I would recommend a topic ban from anything related to India since DBigXray lacks the temperament to deal with other editors. Razer(talk) 20:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Without any provocation I get called insulting names like dimwit, bully and what not and when I post warning templates on those personal attacks, I get dragged on to ANI where you appear and propose no less than an entire Topic ban. {slow claps}. I must note that you and your coterie have been trying to pull this off multiple times in the past and clearly you are not stopping and you consider this thread just another opportunity. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Razer2115, Just as I noted in the section above, you are here after a 2 weeks break simply to settle your old scores with me. DBigXrayᗙ 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What... what... what's that hueg table for? The cool kids spell it "hueg", please stop changing it already!

    I mean that very narrow table above, I think posted by Soman, six screens long from top to bottom on my 27-inch monitor — say 170 cm, the average height of an adult American male — with very little information sparsely deployed over it and accompanied by an endless wasteland of whitespace running down to the right of it? It would probably have taken ten or fifteen lines of text to give the actual information in the table. Plus the mysterious connections between the cells could have been made a lot clearer in text. Please use text on ANI. Ordinary text. Not tables. Not interpretive dance. Sheesh. And now tell me it's all my own fault for not reading ANI on a phone or something. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    I want interpretive dance! El_C 21:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, on my screen it looked quite ok. But point taken, I'll stay away from using tables in the future WP:ANI discussions for now. Soman (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Table of Harassment
    Bishonen, El C, I believe that huge table is called the "Table of harassment", the one where people are tied and umm, you know.. harassed. What is the point of spending time in creating a Table of harassment, if the reader does not feel truly harassed? You won't get the feeling of hellish harassment with the boring ordinary text nor with fancy dances. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:RickinBaltimore, Bishonen isn't calling it a typo so I guess, you will have to abandon your sanity and continue being nuts--DBigXrayᗙ 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse my refactoring

    ... but I agree with 'Shonen. Putting a narrow (500px) table with a quadruple indented left margin alongside a floating image is disruptive and discourteous to anybody working on a small screen or with larger than normal zoom levels (e.g. old folk like me). I've demonstrated how to fix the table - perhaps Soman will want to revert me and fix it themselves. All it needs now is for them to move the floating image away from the table in a place they are satisfied with, please. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Somebody should just chuck the floating image. It's far less relevant to our purposes here than the table. Lepricavark (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on K9 Thunder and T-155 Firtina, Uncivil behavior by Progressive288 and not contributing to discussion

    Hello, an edit war between User:Kadrun and User:Progressive288 Recently started on the pages about the K9 Thunder and T-155 Firtina artillery systems. No direct 3RR rule violation happend within 24h but over multiple days. However seeing the users revert each other time after time with only using the edit summary for talk I decided to request both users to discuss the matter on the talk page, this took some coordination but I got it going at Talk:K9_Thunder#K9_Thunder_and_T-155_Firtina. While both users and myself responded no other editors have comment yet at the issue at hand. A brief summary is that In my opinion Progressive288 disagrees with the reliably sourced information that the T-155 Is a variant of The K9, claiming that sources from Turkish officials are also needed, and that since there are only Korean and International sources used this is unconfirmed. He provides no supporting sources for his claims and they seem to be purely based on personal opinion and a mis understanding of how Wikipedia works. I would suggest to read the arguments brought up by both sides on the talk page and also read the edit summaries of both pages. Unfortunately Progressive288 seems to not care about any of the points brought up and so meaningful discussion has so far not been established. I asked both users and tried myself to be civil so far, but Progressive288 called my arguments bullshit without going in to any meaningful detail and called me biased. I have asked Progressive288 for more explanation but the aren't providing any meaningful help in my opinion and that coupled with the uncivil comments made against me I feel the need to report. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Shortly "IN MY OPINION" :DD I see you're crying, yeah Keep continuing this way, Wikipedia will be blocked in Turkey again, I'll send a letter to Center of Communication of the Turkish Presidency about the public anti-Turkism against the Turkish people and non-based biased claims against Turkey by Wikipedia admins on Wikipedia. Don't think that you're God because you're Admin on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progressive288 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC) ~~~~[reply]

    Progressive288, Redalert2Fan is not an admin... also please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's ok, I thought he was. Progressive288 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC) ~~~~[reply]

    Progressive288, you don't type the nowiki tags as part of it. You have signed before. You put the four tides WITHOUT the nowiki tags to sign posts.LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think we allowed legal threats against Wikipedia here. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments once again made against me are misinformed, call me crying and include some form of legal threats... I feel I have only been trying to encourage discussion but once again I am insulted again, all this on ANI itself. Further I have provided requested RS at the K9 talk page Redalert2fan (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A link to any legal threat would be helpful. And whoever made a legal threat needs to withdraw it before an admin blocks them.-- Deepfriedokra 16:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the threat is the statement above, " I'll send a letter to Center of Communication of the Turkish Presidency about the public anti-Turkism against the Turkish people and non-based biased claims against Turkey by Wikipedia admins on Wikipedia". 331dot (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    331dot, I would agree that is what Redalert is talking about by legal threat. (One of the more odd ones I have seen tbh)
    This is what I was referring to, and to be clear I have no intention to make false claims or be biased against turkey or their government for that matter. Honestly I fail to see why RS information about whether a military vehicle is based on and a variant of another military vehicle constitutes to that, for that matter, as I shared on the K9 talk page even Turkish sources exist that support my claim. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should have clarified what I said. The legal threat I was calling out was Progressive288's comment: "Wikipedia will be blocked in Turkey again, I'll send a letter to Center of Communication of the Turkish Presidency about the public anti-Turkism..." And Progressive288's comment, ":DD I see you're crying" is a taunt, and I thought we were supposed to be civil here. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    So what I'm seeing here is Progressive288 needs to be indeffed for WP:NOTHERE and bullying. Frankly, anyone who brings in this short of nationalistic, "I'm gonna tell the President on you" nonsense 'needs to be blocked indefinitely. Redalert2fan's point is well taken.-- Deepfriedokra 21:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a little bit surprised that this conversation seems to have fizzled out. Please read Block of Wikipedia in Turkey, which documents that Wikipedia was blocked in that country for well over 2-1/2 years by the government headed by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and access was restored only a few weeks ago, on January 15, 2020. Under these circumstances, the comments by Progressive288 seem utterly unacceptable to me, and functionally equivalent to a legal threat. In this case, the threats have an ominous level of credibility that is unusual in situations like this. I do not see how this editor can be allowed to continue contributing to Wikipedia while this threat stands. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Adams (commentator)

    Long term edit warring to remove sourced content, back to 2018, claiming defamatory content. May require several measures, including page protection and user block. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like garden variety edit warring. Have you warned this user? If so, WP:ANEW is the noticeboard for handling these sorts of simple edit wars, normally. --Jayron32 15:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they know what they're doing, Jayron32; 72.48.31.2 (talk · contribs) and 199.114.230.209 (talk · contribs) look like the same editor. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, I noticed the warnings and blocked them for 1 week. If the problems return, let us know, and we'll carry this further. --Jayron32 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Undeletion request

    Everyone wants this archived, so *poof*, it's archived. Everything appears to be resolved now; or, at least, unlikely to be resolved any further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Many, many years ago I requested my user and talk pages be deleted, which were done as at the time I was not terribly well. I believe a decade or so later that this may have been helpful for myself at the time, but it seems now it was a kindness not granted to many others.

    Can I therefore please have User:Ta bu shi da yu and the corresponding talk page undeleted. Also, a request for comment: should my other accounts User:Tbsdy lives and User:Letsbefiends redirected to Chris.sherlock (talk)? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've restored the userpage as requested. The user talk page was already restored in 2005. Redirecting the other accounts makes sense, but is not mandatory. El_C 23:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was led to believe that my user talk pages were never undeleted. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They were restored back in 2005 by MarkSweep (log). El_C 23:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    *User talk:Tbsdy lives needs its history restoring as well. The out-of-process deletion was done on the basis that the editor would never return to Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Sorry, hadn't seen the restoration. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You have made a number of false allegations about me over the years. You consistently used this point to attack me. I believe you owe me an apology. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For what? And stop dishonestly claiming I've made false allegations against you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "the old talk pages have not been restored”. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "old talk pages have not been restored comment on the 7th January, Tbsdy lives talk page restored on the 9th. DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn’t aware of that, certainly ST47 didn’t inform me. You are definitely hostile towards me, have had it in for me for a long tine and I do my best to ignore you. I won’t make the mistake of acknowledging you again. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a graceful apology! DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bbb23 what further needs to be discussed here? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of ST47 decision

    My user talk pages were restored, I feel vindictively, by ST47. My concern was that he never notified me (not that he did the action) and didn’t notify anyone of reversing the actions of another admin, SlimVirgin. I am taking this here for review. I realise many will not like this, but I believe admins must be accountable and transparent in their actions. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Chris,
    Looking at his deletion log, the only user page that I see restored is your former account's user talk page. User talk pages are typically not deleted so it probably shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. I would just blank it, if I were you. And I don't think anyone would have made the connection between the two accounts if you hadn't filed this complaint. Sorry but I think you are drawing more attention to this matter than you probably wanted. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't read the discussion above this one when I posted my comment. Now I really think you are prolonging what might have been a discussion between you and ST47 (and any admin) and drawing attention to this matter on a highly visible noticeboard. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Liz, the page was originally deleted because I had made some suicidal comments. In the thread above I asked to have it undeleted, but I was hoping to do so when I was feeling well enough and in my own time. Because ST47 didn’t ask for this to be reviewed, he potentially left me vulnerable. I have to assume that someone with his experience would know that if another admin with the experience of SlimVirgin wouldn’t just delete a user talk page, so him not advising anyone when reversing another admins actions is, to my mind, suspicious and vindictive. Incidentally, a few people have claimed I am “playing victim”. I in fact did end up in hospital. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now I'm even more sure, Chris, that you should have contacted an admin via their talk page or via email. I don't know why you would choose to reveal such personal information on our most active noticeboard. You have my sympathy but I think posting this complaint was the wrong way to go about getting the results you wanted. Posting on ANI made you more vulnerable than any talk page comments would have. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. They deleted the message. What would you have had me do? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I do not know why Chris believes my actions were vindictive, as I am not aware of any previous encounter with any of his user accounts. It is possible that we met "back in the day", but I certainly don't have a long enough memory to hold a grudge from so long ago. The only page that I restored was User talk:Tbsdy lives. As best I can recall, I did so while browsing an AN thread related to Chris which mentioned his previous accounts, and noticed that one of the old talk pages had been deleted. Per WP:DELTALK, as they are usually needed for reference by other users, I restored it. I agree with Chris that users should be accountable and transparent in their actions, which is coincidentally the basis for WP:DELTALK. I have made no effort to shirk from either accountability or transparency, and indeed the restoration is visible in the page's rather remarkable deletion log. Despite the mentions of ArbCom in that log, the deletion appears to have been a normal admin action. SlimVirgin's decision to deviate from policy by deleting the talk page in 2010 may well have been entirely reasonable given the circumstances at the time; since Chris has returned, so should his talk page history. ST47 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you at least explain why you didn’t advise the deleting admin (or bring this here) or even have the courtesy to inform me? That page got deleted because at the time I was suicidal. WP:DELTALK states that “ Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason." Slim would hardly have added that to the deletion log. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to hear that. Is there something on the talk page in question that should be revdeled or suppressed? If so then please email URLs of the relevant revisions to Special:EmailUser/Oversight. ST47 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as sorry as I am! So let’s get this straight. You ask me this now, but never bothered to ask or find out at the time? Kind of about a month late for that... if you had asked for review then this wouldn’t have been a problem. Can I ask why you didn’t at least advise me you had undeleted my user talk page? This seems vindictive to me. I can’t imagine why you would not have at least informed me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was surprised to see that undeleted without anyone having contacted me. It was deleted after several discussions; the logs show it was deleted three times by three admins in five months. Chris has explained why above. It was understood at the time that he would not be returning, so the exception was made. Now that he's back, it's probably right to undelete it, but it would have been better to make that decision with Chris's involvement, so that it didn't just reappear on his watchlist. SarahSV (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Slim. I don’t disagree that the user talk page should have been undeleted, but I am concerned that it was not brought to my attention. Now I’ve got to move fast and find out what needs redacting. This is extremely concerning, it is not normal that user talk pages are deleted but there are exceptions. Any admin who reversed this sort of thing is playing with fire. If they do t ask the admin who deleted the talk page why it was deleted, they have no way of knowing if there is sensitive information they may be leaking to the world. You’d think someone with oversight privileges would realise this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not joking, leave me alone. I may have to eventually ask for an interaction ban for the both of us. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not comment in this subthread after your request at 01:09 until Guy stuck his oar in, and I responded to him. I made it clear then that I was trying to ignore this, and then you quite deliberately chose to bring it back up. Now stop poking me and I'll go off and ignore you like I've wanted to since first I encountered you and your history. DuncanHill (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris.sherlock, is this resolved now? It looks like most of the history is removed, which seems like what you want. Guy (help!) 09:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ST47: Chris has been open over the years about his mental-health issues, which have included suicidal thoughts. He is very upfront about this; he's not willing to whisper about it in corners, and that perhaps makes people uncomfortable, but I think it's the right approach. What happened here is that a page that had caused him a lot of pain was undeleted without discussion or warning. Now Chris is expected to look through the page quickly to find anything that needs to be revdeleted or oversighted, but that in itself might be painful. So this has not been handled well. The issue here is not only Chris; he's not speaking on his own behalf only. This is about how we treat people who are experiencing mental-health problems.
    I understand that it's hard to know how best to deal with this and be fair to others who don't have their talk pages deleted, but to brush Chris off isn't fair either. (And Duncan, please stop commenting on Chris wherever he turns up.) SarahSV (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SlimVirgin: Since this is apparently open again, thanks for your response and the further information. I of course would like to see any material that needs suppression dealt with as rapidly as possible, if it exists. I'm neither a mental health expert nor an expert on Chris's case, so I can only trust that he is doing what he has to do to take care of himself and seeking help if it is needed. I also don't intend to call into question your original decision to delete the talk page; it was no doubt a reasonable deviation from policy at the time. Merely a matter of changing circumstances requiring a change in the status of that page, as was pointed out in that early January ANI thread, and which I felt would be a fairly uncontroversial clerical action. ST47 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ST47: thanks for the response, and I understand what you mean about seeing it as a normal clerical action. The question now is what to do. There's no point in deleting it again. At some point, Chris has to sort through it, and he has to be able to see it to do that. I think he would really appreciate a note from you that you understand why he's upset and offering to help him with any deletions. SarahSV (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like a valid undeletion to me, per WP:DELTALK. It's not ideal to skip notifying the editor/deleting admin, but it's also pretty far from ideal the way the editor in question has handled this. There was nothing indicating that the deletion should not be reversed without contacting X, or whatever. If there are revisions that need to be deleted, or oversighted, the best way forward would be to contact the oversight team, or an individual oversighter (I understand that ST47 is an oversighter, and why you might not be comfortable mailing the list in this case). SQLQuery me! 03:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the undeletion and the way it was handled was reasonable. While there's nothing wrong with asking the deleting admin if there's anything you've missed, I don't know if it should be expected in a case like this. It seems to me it's entirely reasonably to treat it as a simple clerical action. Especially since we can't reasonably expected admins to be aware of historic policy changes before they became admins, so they could easily assume it more widely acceptable to delete user talk pages. (I'm not sure if the admin here was actually an admin in 2010 but the general point stands.) And while I don't think there was anything majorly wrong with the original deletion, I do agree that there was no way any admin could easily tell there were special circumstances which might warrant informing the editor the talk paged belonged to from the log. While obviously it wouldn't be appropriate to explain why you are deleting in the publicly visible log, IMO it would be fine to say something like 'contact me before undeleting' or 'contact talk page "owner"' before undeleting'. Alternatively a brief summary could be left in the log before deleting. As for what we do now, I would fully support the suppression of any edits which are of concern. If there is any way this can be handled with the page being deleted, I would support deleting the page again as a temporary measure (say for up to 6 months). Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved non-admin opinion: I don't think either SlimVirgin or ST47 did anything wrong here, and what we have here is...a failure to communicate. SV handled a reasonable deletion request, but their deletion log didn't mention that there was private content on the page (which was probably the right choice!). ST47 undeleted the page pursuant to policy without being aware of the history of the page (and they had no reason to suspect there might be something there). Separately, these two actions are fine, but combined they led to harm to Chris.sherlock. If I were in ST47's shoes I'd apologize for inadvertently undeleting the problematic talk page content (and would respectfully suggest that ST47 do so - whether or not you meant to cause harm, it looks like harm was done), but it looks like the page history has been cleaned so there really isn't anything else to do here. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Creffett, it wasn't a question of private content, and it was fully discussed at the time. Liz has now reverted Chris's redirect to his current user page. Liz, can you say why you did that? SarahSV (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that it was a mistake and Liz has apologized. SarahSV (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello all, I closed down this discussion because I took it to ArbCom. I did this because I got asked for clarification on something by ST47, but in the same message got told not to comment further. This was clearly impossible. I definitely reacted from stress, because I am worried about the worst effects of my mental health remaining public. It’s why I won’t ever apply for adminship again (not that I have Buckley’s of ever getting it again, which is how it should be). I suppose I was really surprised that an admin decision to delete the user talk page had been done by someone with oversight access - if anyone should understand the problems with revealing info I would have thought it would be such a user.

    I was also upset about the fact that in a sensitive and unusual case an admin would have not informed the person of their actions, not brought it to the admin who they felt made an error and not considered that there is a real life person you might be affecting. I have had several users tell me that my talk pages were deleted out of process. This is not the case, yet again I’ve had a shortcut thrown at me without the admin reading it. The page in question about deleting user talk pages says that it can be done, it’s just not usual. I had both DuncanHill (no, I do not want to interact with you) and ST47 tell me this, though ST4y tried to pass it off as a “mistake”.

    I think my reaction last night was bad, and I’m sorry for it. My anxiety levels were off the charts, and as they went down I realised that it would be best to keep this thread closed. I therefore tried to exit this by closing it down. I also cancelled the ArbCom request. FWIW, I am sorry to ST47 for not assuming good faith. Whilst it is my responsibility, I feel I was being goaded by DuncanHill who seems to popup here every time I post anything, accuses me of “out of process deletion” of my talk page and hints down ten year old threads on AN/I. In fact, he even says that I am playing the victim, refusing to be believe my very real issue with PTSD and anxiety. Each time he does this I try my best to ignore him, but each time my anxiety increases. Even when I ask to have pages undeleted he pops up and asks for things I didn’t request, line having User:Tbsdy lives undeleted (something I got told I asked for by ST47 who not only didn’t listen but deleted my comment and ignored it completely.

    I have another point I’d like to make. If an admin sees that another admin has made a decision and decides to reverse it, it is good sense to ask that admin why they made the decision. You don’t just say it was a mistake. You also don’t throw a shortcut to the one who questions you about it, especially when you have selectively quotes from it and miss an entire section that actually shows that the decision can be made. If you are an admin, you need to be transparent and accountable. What is extremely concerning time me is that ST47 did not do any of these things. Whilst I was upset with him, he deleted my comments, forcing me to escalate this to AN/I and then ultimately to ArbCom. This could have been dealt with by saying that he felt it was a mistake. But far worse than his decision to ban me from his talk page, which means he feels he is beyond accountability as an admin, checkuser and oversightwr, is the fact he made the decision at all without any review.

    What am I looking for? Acknowledgement that people are complex and you don’t always know the backstory behind every Admin decision. If you see an unusual situation like a user talk page having been deleted, don’t just undelete it. First ask the admin who did so, then undelete it. That’s why I created WP:AN - for accountability and as a way for admins to review and discuss decisions. Sure, it’s a drama board I sometimes regret creating, but I did so because Wikipedia can have real and lasting effects on real people. Decision that are made by admins, particularly around user accounts, can be inadvertently damaging. As an admin, you need to be able to discuss your actions, first with the person who you take an action against, and secondly to other admins if you cannot discuss it with the original user. ST47 did none of these things, and it’s true concern that someone with oversight (who knows the consequence for potentially revealing sensitive information) showed such poor judgement. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bbb23 would you please close this discussion? I think everything that had been said was said already. If you believe there are further things to discuss, please let me know. I’m not sure that if I was an admin I would have reopened an AN/I thread for a complaint where the complainer was attempting to disengage, especially when they might not have been terribly well (which I think a few people detected last night). - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2019 Novel Coronavirus Move Requests

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Requested_move_11_February_2020

    I like ask for multiple Wikipedia Administrators intervene on this "somewhat major" requested move issue about the virus. Giving users non disciplinary notices about the required waiting period making another RM. Thanks. Regice2020 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Psychologist Guy

    Disclaimer: this was filed as edit warring, closed as the pages having been protected with this editor's changes already in place. It was also filed under the NPOV board and rejected since it was about an editor not an article. Do not take this as a criticism about the process or those involved, Wikipedia has a process and I believe in that process, but I do not think it would be right to not mention this.

    The user in question appears to have a conflict of interest with respect to certain types of diets. Of note:

    • Editor has been involved in heavy editing of Carnivore diet (now all but edit gore) which is now a redirect to Monotrophic diet.
    • They added the section on the carnivore diet to Monotrophic diet, referring to it as a "fad diet": [181]
    • Articles created by the editor include more positive worded ones such as Richard Dean (curate) ("an Anglican minister and early animal rights writer"), Humphrey Primatt ("an English clergyman and animal rights writer"), Robert Cook (eccentric) ("an Irish eccentric farmer and early veganism activist"), Audrey Eyton ("an English animal welfare campaigner, journalist and writer. She is best known for creating the F-Plan diet." - oddly enough not a fad diet), Louis Rimbault ("promoter of simple living and veganism"), William H. Galvani ("a civil engineer, vegetarianism activist and writer"), Wilmer Ingalls Gordon ("an American osteopathic physician and vegetarianism activist"), Edward Hare ("a vegetarianism activist" in the lead), Josiah Oldfield ("promoter of fruitarianism"), Charles W. Forward ("a British animal rights activist and historian of vegetarianism"), etc.
    • Editor has also been involved in such articles as Animal welfare, Lacto vegetarianism, Vegetarian Society, etc.
    • Editor has interests on their sandbox page which include "Animal rights by country or territory", "Animal protectionism", "Animal welfare", "Veganism", "Anarchism and animal rights", "Animal-free agriculture", etc.

    WP:DUCK makes me strongly wonder whether this editor has a conflict of interest in writing more positive articles on animal-free diets and removing articles that discuss diets that include animals. Bringing up concern about the edit warring brought this response which included accusations of bringing the concerns about edit warring in bad faith, accusations of being a meat puppet, and that I was a "high-up friend on Wikipedia" roped into trying to get this editor banned (which is, as far as I know, not one of the generally handed down punishments from edit warring, usually that is just a time-out at worst.) There are other accusations which I think are unfounded and in violation of WP:GOODFAITH. I do want to be clear, I don't think the editor in question is a bad person, I do think they are letting their bias show which is not good for Wikipedia. I avoid articles that I have a non-neutral POV in, specifically for this reason, even if it's obvious vandalism. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Related: Off-wiki canvassing by User:User2083146168 / User:BecomeFree:
    Sources that discuss the carnivore diet movement and its main proponents:
    --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to add to the "weird connections" file, [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne74nw/inside-the-world-of-the-bitcoin-carnivores Inside the World of the 'Bitcoin Carnivores':

    Why a small community of Bitcoin users is eating meat exclusively.] It will be interesting to see if any of our editors show a keen interest in both topics... --Guy Macon (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Macon, is this the new Rule 34? If it exists, there is crypto of it? Guy (help!) 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr Vernon was recruited by these carnivore diet cranks to harass me and get me banned, although he will never admit that in writing it is easy to prove. Vernon's last activity was 25 November 2018. He came back out of nowhere to edit Wikipedia again on 6 February 2020 to file a failed edit-warring request against me and a ridiculous SPI, accusing me of being Zefr. The 6 February 2020 was the same date the above Reddit threads went up advertising my Wikipedia account. Indeed, his very first edits in nearly two years of silence were to post about me. Odd, right? Before that nobody new my Wikipedia account or took interest in any of my edits. I am a nobody, yet overnight on the 6 February became some anti-carnivore celebrity on Reddit. Sad.
    Vernon has copied the above criticisms onto several admin boards, every time it has failed but he does not give up. He filed a failed SPI case against me accusing me of being a well respected user who has been on this website for ten years, a failed edit warring request and a failed criticism of me at the Neutral point of view noticeboard, before that he had put the same criticism of me at the conflict of interest noticeboard. This is continued harassment, four filings? He was recruited by carnivore diet cranks off-site to harass me, the idea is to get me banned and he will not stop until he gets this. He has been on Wikipedia less than a week, his last activity before that was from 2018. He came back onto Wikipedia, the same day nonsense was posted about me on Reddit by a banned sock-puppet. His complaints about my account are not being done in good faith and he fails to understand what NPOV is.
    I have been harassed on and off site by these carnivore diet cranks, funnily enough the vegans have also attacked me for criticizing John A. Mcdougall. I am not a vegan. I have written articles on animal rights people and vegans from a historical perspective, but those are not the only people I have created (I recently created an article on a historical individual, Arnaldo Cantani who recommend a meat diet for diabetes). Those are all deceased historical people and I have not just added vegetarians, I have added all kinds. I am not writing articles to promote these people from any POV. My edits are in accord to neutral policy on Wikipedia. Anyone can check my edits. I have criticized food fads, including veganism. I created the list of food faddists which includes many vegans. Check my contributions to the John A. McDougall article for example, and the talk-page. I have no conflict of interest, yes I did join the Wikiproject Animal rights which reads "The aim of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia's coverage is not informed by those strong feelings, but by disinterested, neutral, and reliable research." The articles I create are always supported by academic sources. I do not create articles for living people. I am not trying to promote any ideology. I have been attacked by carnivore dieters and vegans and these filing of Vernon are getting tiresome. Lastly Vernon seems to have a poor understanding about nutrition or science. He seems to think it is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy to call the carnivore diet a fad diet. This is despite the fact it is a fad diet that has been heavily criticized by dieticians and physicians, as potentially dangerous to health. We do not give equal weight to pseudoscientific diets on Wikipedia. There is scientific evidence to support vegetarianism and many systematic reviews report its health benefits, any dietician would agree. But if you look I have not made any modern health claims about vegetarianism, I only add the history of people who proposed it to Wikipedia which is non-controversial. Vernon's claims are totally unfounded about me and I request that this be closed like the others. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bold, Revert, maybe Discuss Race and intelligence

    Aticle is at DRV currently. Looks like editors may be trying to take a chainsaw to article again. Keep an eye on us please. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:POINTY behavior from User:Stricnina

    I've had enough.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have properly explained the use of inline tags in the "reasons" provided in the talk page section of Babaylan. For example, regarding the particular specify tag I have added and then subsequently removed by Obsidian Soul, I have explained in the talk page that the purpose of adding such tag is to harmonize the article with the related Katalonan Wiki article and pave way to inclusion of more sources, including the Fluckiger source which makes distinctions between katalonan, babaylan, maganito, etc., which apparently the article Babaylan failed to address. Also, I have sufficiently explained my reasons regarding the unnecessary use of primary sources when secondary sources were already provided in the Wiki article itself, as I have explained in the talk page. About the use of "dear", well... it's not used maliciously, I have used dear many times, even in my own talk page, to several fellow Wiki editors. Stricnina (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, regarding the "excessive citations" tag I have added, I have added it in the spirit of Wikipedia policy regarding citation overkill, which clearly states that "two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations.". Also, citation overkill makes the verification a hard process to do, and as the policy itself states, two or three sources are enough. As to most of the inline tags I have added, I have provided reasons of adding them, which I believe are valid concerns and not just for the sake of being WP:POINTY. Stricnina (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-reading Obsidian Soul's replies like this, said editor appears to be taking my interventions in the Babaylan article as direct personal attacks against them. I repeat, the use of "dear" is not an insult. I have addressed many editors in that way, even in my own talk page. This non-assumption of good faith is ruining any attempt at collaboration with this particular editor and possibly reaching any kind of consensus. Stricnina (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you miss this part: "Babaylan (also balian or katalonan, among many other names) were shamans of the various ethnic groups of the pre-colonial Philippine islands"? Or this entire section: Babaylan#Terminology? The article is a general overview of the shamans in precolonial Philippines, not the shamans of a particular ethnic group (like in Katalonan). "Babaylan" is used as the title since it is the most widely used among most ethnic groups and the most recognizable term when referring to Philippine shamans.
    I've linked WP:DRIVEBY in my very first response when you added a highly unnecessary large "more citations needed" tag at the top of the article after removing two sources out of 78. And you went ahead and did more of it anyway. None of them are constructive, and none are related to our discussion in the talk page. You seemed to be adding them just out of spite. If you think there's a problem, fix it. The statement you tagged with "excessive" for instance, has a lot of sources because that is a very controversial part of the article that kept getting removed. I'm not even sure if I was the one who added those references. You could have fixed that easily by bundling the single-use references. The statements you tagged with more citations needed are sourced to the next nearest reference or the end of the paragraph. And so on. These aren't "valid" tags. This is literally WP:OVERTAGGING.
    Having you add more and more tags while we are still in the talk page is extremely infuriating. No I am not WP:OWNing the article. But I did write most of it two years ago, so it falls on me to answer your requests for verification since I was the one who added them (and some of the sources aren't even accessible anymore). It would have been fine if it was reasonable like your initial removal of the meaning of *balian per Blust & Trussel (since the url doesn't directly link to the *balian page). But when you start questioning every single reference you can find and expect me to run around providing you with direct quotations (or worse - list ALL the ethnic groups with shamans), that is not WP:AGF. Especially since as you yourself said, you aren't even disputing the actual statements, you just want exact "keywords" or "direct quotes" (at the same time contradicting yourself by saying "I should reword the statement quoted", which is exactly what I did in the first place). You are not helping. And you know damn well you aren't.
    I admit I may be mistaken in your use of "Dear". I simply do not like being addressed that way, and made it clear I don't. I assumed you were being sarcastic by continuing to use it. Nevertheless, stop saying it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By reading your replies, it appears you don't even know what I am even trying to say. I don't want to explain myself again, I believe my explanations above and in the talk page are sufficient. I have tried and I myself am continuing to try to resolve possible issues I am seeing there, however that is becoming impossible as any contributions that I have added there are interpreted as personal attacks by you, which is a sign that you are not assuming good faith anymore and that you are even owning the article itself. Even the few tags that I have added unrelated to the dispute that we had in the talk page, complete with reasons as to why I have added them, are just being interpreted as WP:OVERTAGGING and as being done "out of spite" (Obsidian Soul's own words), without directly addressing the main issues that needs to be addressed. It appears that at this point, no one else will be editing that article other than you since any attempt at collaboration is now being ruined by your personal whims and malicious interpretations that are completely unfounded. Stricnina (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Like your most recent change? Despite what I said above? Despite the fact that the entire article clearly talks about Philippine shamans as a whole, not merely the Visayan ones? And you're the one accusing me of not listening to your explanations?
    You don't "resolve possible issues" with tags. Tags are for identifying issues that you can't fix. And yes, the fact that they were unrelated is precisely why I lost my temper. I literally just told you not to overtag, but you went ahead and did it anyway. What's more, as I've explained above, none of them are constructive. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That kind of edit is born out of the presence of sources that make distinctions between babaylans and katalonans made by people working in the academic field. You think I just did that to spite you? Wrong. Read the sources. Interpreting that kind of edit, complete with citations, as "born out of spite" is just you personalizing the issue and attributing it to malice and abandoning assumption of good faith. Your uncollaborative behaviour and malicious interpretations of every contribution that is not yours makes any attempt at improving the article very difficult. Stricnina (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. The source you are bandying around is McCoy 1982, which I have used ten times in the article. Including to specifically say that baylan and cognates are merely the most common terms, and are not the same terms used by other ethnic groups. For the last time, this is explained very clearly in the article itself. If you read past the first sentence, that is. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read the article, and it clearly states that babaylan is a term mostly used in the central Philippines. And most examples of babaylan or baylan listed in that article were from the Visayas region. I don't see why you keep ignoring the point I am making. Have you read the source yourself? Stricnina (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really not understand the concept of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES and how only a single name (the most common one) can be used in the title? Alipin is an overview of the Philippine precolonial serf class, even though the title is Tagalog. Aswang is an overview of the mythological demon-like creature throughout the Philippines, even though the title is Tagalog. Agimat is an overview of all Philippine talismans and charms, even though the title is Tagalog.
    Babaylan is an overview of all Philippine shamans, even though the title is Visayan. Do you understand this? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The name I don't call into dispute, I dispute the definition. Or at least the wording of the heading (of course, any of my attempts at rewording this with sources to strengthen my contributions will just be undone by you). I don't propose changing the name of the article whatsoever. Maybe if you read the provided sources instead of maliciously interpreting all of my comments by calling them as "born out of spite" and abandoning all assumptions of good faith and professionality, then maybe you'll understand. This is also why I am calling the attention of other possible experts to give their input to this discussion by using the "RfC" function of Wikipedia. Stricnina (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me repeat that since you clearly still don't understand this is not about the name: do you dispute that the article Babaylan is an overview of all Philippine shamans, even though the title is Visayan?
    Your wording refuses to acknowledge that babaylan is being used as a generic term for shamans. And makes it so that it seems like the Tagalog katalonan is special and different "in contrast" to all the other shamans of the dozens of other ethnic groups that by your wording, can just be lumped under "Visayan".
    The original wording already makes it clear that babaylan are known by other names in other ethnic groups, including katalonan. The specifics of what those terms are has its own entire section (which also clearly identifies the origin of the term babaylan as Visayan). Do you want to move the list of names to the first sentence as well? After all, if you specifically identify the terms as Visayan and Tagalog, you have to mention the Itneg term, the Maranao term, the Sama term, the Yakan term, the Manobo term, and so on.
    I resent your continued allusions that I do not read my sources or use them properly. Sure, just because I wrote most of the article certainly does not make me WP:OWN it. But it also means that I spent a lot of time researching this topic and know when what you are trying to do is simply mistaken. Your "improvements" have now ranged from:
    1. Deleting a sourced statement;
    2. Deleting sources for no reason other than they were primary sources;
    3. Adding a ton of tags for all the things you can nitpick but can't be bothered to check or fix;
    4. Disputing the actual lead sentence.
    And you expect me not to assume malice? None of that is WP:AGF about my contributions. It's not my article, but the edits you are challenging are mine. Worst of all, you've managed to tick off two of the things that make me lose my temper here in Wikipedia: WP:Wikilawyering and WP:Overtagging. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I think I understand what the problem here is. No one here is forcing you to do anything. No one here is attacking you directly. Yet my contributions in the Babaylan Wiki page you have interpreted as personal attacks against you, calling my contributions as mere provocations to irritate you while getting worked up at non-malicious words such as "dear", interpreting whatever edits I commit as just committed out of spite. Stop taking things personally as I have never meant to demean your valuable contributions whatsoever. Stricnina (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I have sufficiently presented my reasons as to why those primary sources are redundant (and their use alone there to support the statements as I have quoted in the talk page constitutes original research) and I don't want to repeat myself. You already have the secondary sources at hand, yet this little innocent suggestion you interpreted as malicious personal attack against you? I did not mean to demean your work by challenging the inclusion of those two primary sources. Stricnina (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to give some context to your accusations of WP:OWNERSHIP. I've written 620 mainspace articles for Wikipedia in the past 10 years, not counting expansions like this one. You think I monitor every single one of them and revert all the changes when they happen because I WP:OWN them? I am reverting you because I genuinely think your edits either do not improve the article, actively make it worse, or are just so nonsensical they seem malicious to me. Acknowledge that first instead of just accusing me of WP:OWN.
    The primary sources thing wasn't what made me angry (and I have answered that with actual quotes in the talk page on why I was using them and how they supported the statement they were attached to). What made me mad was the fact that you kept editing the article and adding the most infuriatingly inane tags even when I specifically told you not to do a WP:DRIVEBY. I could not continue assuming good faith after that. More than that, when I objected to your overtagging, you jumped to another issue and are now challenging the lead sentence based on a pedantic view that babaylan is a Visayan term and should not be applied to Tagalog katalonan. What's next? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are not constructive. I am tired of re-explaining myself why excessive tagging or wrongly using primary sources that do not support the statements aren't allowed under Wikipedia policy. And yes, maybe I'll perform more edits in the future when the necessity arises. The article requires improvement like addition of more citations, adding new content, making statements align to the given source, analyzing the source itself as part of the verification process, etc. (What, are those not allowed too?) You are just here getting worked up and picking negative vibes at whatever I do in that Wiki article, interpreting them as insults or provokations. And of course, the disruptive editing. Stricnina (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Again I literally gave you direct quotes from those primary references that explain why they were used. Literally their only purpose there is to verify the "witches" and "priests of the devil" part. But hey, explain the policies to me. It's not like I've been doing this for 10 years. Explain the "keywords" part especially, because I've never encountered that policy... ever. I have not forbidden you from editing at all, as your latest edits would attest, and I welcome improvements not just to articles I have contributed to, but on everything in Wikipedia. I expanded this article itself for exactly the same reason.

    But believe it or not, adding tags to nitpick the tiniest of issues (arguably imaginary) is not a friendly thing to do when we are already discussing a different (also arguably imaginary) issue in the talk page. That is borderline edit-warring. I suggest you read WP:DRIVEBY and WP:OVERTAGGING in full to understand why it made me so angry. Especially this very important aspect of it (emphasis mine):

    "Placing tags is, in itself, not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself."

    I do not like disputes and I have a temper. I am an article creator and I generally avoid the social aspects of Wikipedia. This is why.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That specific portion of the paragraph is formatted in a way that seems like the primary sources are not being used in the proper way, which is to testify that the primary sources themselves "actually, directly say what the article says it does". See WP:PRIMARYCARE and WP:PRIMARY for more details. In other words, if you're going to use the primary sources, mention what the primary sources actually say. The two sources at hand didn't say anything about "how often" the babaylan "are being maligned" and "falsely accused" as a witch or about the second statement regarding whatever their role they have in modern society (those primary sources are from ages ago, how could they be used to fortify statements of the shamans' modern status?). Use secondary sources for these kind of claims, because the policy here is clear: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
    How I placed the tags are constructive, as I have always mentioned the rationale in the templates themselves when placing the inline tags and never did I resort to repeated redundant tagging of statements. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're WP:DRIVEBY. I've explained my rationale for adding specific tags below so I'm not repeating myself. Stricnina (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My POV: Obsidian Soul's disruptive edits

    Hi, this is Stricnina and if it is allowed, may you allow me to present my POV, by showing a series of disruptive edits committed by the user Obsidian Soul such as the ff:

    Stricnina (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's actually amusing to me how you are now adding quotes to the sources I've used. As if it was my fault all along that you couldn't be bothered to read them beforehand. I hope you keep in mind the reason why I didn't use quotes for references that are used multiple times for different statements (you could consider using {{RP}} not full quotes to avoid WP:INLINECLUTTER). But here's the crazy thing: I'm not reverting them, because unlike your earlier edits, these are actually constructive.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The addition of quotes is part of the verification process to ensure the Wiki article Babaylan is following Wikipedia standards. It means another contributor (which is me) is trying to understand whether the sources are being used properly and not being used for original research. Just normal procedure that everyone should do, and that is what I am doing. Stricnina (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Must be nice being a "verifier". Did I pass? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Obsidian Soul and Stricnina, you both ought to be ashamed about engaging in this lengthy back-and-forth argument about the intricate details of your trivial content dispute here on a very high visibility page. Don't you both know that ANI does not adjudicate content disputes? I feel like I have wasted my time reading all of this crap but I will give you both some advice. Stop all your passive-aggressive give and take, and return to the article's talk page with a renewed dedication to building consensus, which requires compromise. But I need to speak directly to you, Stricnina, about your inappropriate use of the term of endearment "dear". Stop using that word to fellow editors. Throughout much of the English speaking world, that word is reserved for intimate friends or lovers or spouses, and is condescending, insulting and patronizing when used outside the context of such a relationship. As for you, Obsidian Soul, you have told us repeatedly what you find "extremely infuriating" and what makes you "lose my temper". This reflects very poorly on you. Do not edit Wikipedia when you are enraged. Walk away from the keyboard and wash some dishes or do the laundry or read a book or take a long walk when you are in that state of mind, and return to editing only when you have calmed down. Enraged editors get blocked. Be careful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for this shameful arguing and I am sorry for using "dear" as I am not a native English speaker, and I was always writing messages here to other Wiki editors as though I am writing a formal mail or email, with "Dear" as introductory greeting and with a signature in the end. Sorry for not figuring when not to use "dear" and when to use it. Stricnina (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I'll take a break. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruption by Darkknight2149

    Darkknight2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been causing persistent disruption at Articles for deletion. This "keep" vote in particular, in which they attack the nominator for three paragraphs, and drags me into it for some reason, is problematic.

    TTN has been cleaning up topics about fictional elements on Wikipedia for the past several months by nominating several hundred of them for deletion via PROD and AFD. I compiled a list of his AFD nominations from November 2019 and found that he had a 97% “success” rate, meaning 97% of his nominations resulted in delete, merge, or redirect after discussion.

    November 2019 TTN AFD nominations
    Stats:
    • Total nominated = 127
    • Delete = 88
    • Merge = 8
    • Redirect = 27
    • Keep = 4
    Delete
    1. Places in The Dark Tower series
    2. World of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
    3. List of Hollyoaks locations
    4. Earldoms of Gwynedd (fictional)
    5. Crafthalls of Pern
    6. Locations in the Bionicle Saga
    7. Religions of the Discworld
    8. Guids of Ankh-Morpork
    9. Harper Hall
    10. List of locations in Artemis Fowl
    11. Locations of Shorthand Street
    12. Duchies of Gwynedd (fictional)
    13. Transformers: Generations
    14. Roadbuster
    15. Female Autobots
    16. List of boats in Arthur Ransome books
    17. Ahab (comics)
    18. Blithe (comics)
    19. Blight (comics)
    20. List of dimensions of the Discworld
    21. Transformers: Alternators
    22. Cancer (comics)
    23. Vishanti
    24. Adri Nital
    25. Action Pack (comics)
    26. Deities in the Elric series
    27. Karl Glogauer
    28. Gwynedd (fictional)
    29. Torenth (fictional) – also redirect
    30. Aura (comics)
    31. Grail (Wildstorm)
    32. Debbie Grayson
    33. Discworld gods
    34. Flora and fauna of the Discworld
    35. List of locations in Babylon 5
    36. Outstanding elements of Babylon 5
    37. List of Firefly planets and moons
    38. Planets of the Hainish Cycle
    39. Transformers: Robot Masters
    40. Pretenders (Transformers)
    41. Candlemaker (DC Comics)
    42. Cannon (Wildstorm)
    43. Mythology of Teen Wolf
    44. League of Super-Assassins
    45. Transformers Label series
    46. Exiles (Red Skull allies)
    47. Committee (comics)
    48. Creatures of Terabithia
    49. List of Redwall characters
    50. Nanny (comics)
    51. Cordelia Frost
    52. Bludgeon (Transformers)
    53. Darkwing (Transformers)
    54. Demolishor
    55. List of Primes and Matrix holders
    56. Flint (Wildstorm)
    57. Taboo (Wildstorm)
    58. Frostbite (Wildstorm)
    59. Spike Witwicky
    60. Wheeljack
    61. List of Beast Wars toys
    62. Double Dare (comics)
    63. Doctor Moon
    64. Deuce and Charger
    65. Crazy Sues
    66. Daily Globe (comics)
    67. Appellaxian
    68. Aquawoman
    69. Protector (Marvel Comics)
    70. NKVDemon
    71. Spacecraft in Red Dwarf
    72. List of Dune ships
    73. Gaius Cassius Longius (Rome character)
    74. Quintus Valerius Pompey
    75. Transformers: Robots in Disguise (toy line)
    76. Ironhide
    77. Norns (comics)
    78. Kid Commandos
    79. Cognoscenti (comics)
    80. Blacklight (MC2) – also redirect
    81. Stone (Marvel Comics)
    82. Googam
    83. Katherine Anne Summers
    84. Shiver Man
    85. Wildcard (comics)
    86. Plague (comics)
    87. List of planets in Marvel Comics
    88. Revolutionary (comics)
    Merge
    1. Ankh-Morpork Assassins' Guild
    2. History Monks
    3. Cutthroat (comics)
    4. Izzy Cohen
    5. Ronald Reagan in fiction
    6. Glowworm (comics)
    7. Arm-Fall-Off-Boy
    8. Guillotine (character)
    Redirect
    1. Rumble (Transformers)
    2. Ramjet (Transformers)
    3. Sentinel Prime
    4. Black Mass (comics)
    5. Grail (DC Comics)
    6. Clown (comics)
    7. Nehwon
    8. Eleven Kingdoms
    9. Ace Morgan
    10. Dorian Hawkmoon
    11. Marcus Junius Brutus (Rome character)
    12. Servilia of the Junii
    13. Lord Conquest
    14. Captain Wonder (DC Comics)
    15. Chlorophyll Kid
    16. Foxglove (DC Comics)
    17. Octavia of the Julii
    18. Chaos Dwarfs (Warhammer)
    19. Optimus Primal
    20. Gnaeus Pompey Magnus (Rome character)
    21. Undead (Warhammer)
    22. Niobe of the Voreni
    23. Artemis (Marvel Comics)
    24. Redwing (Marvel Comics)
    25. Bagalia
    26. Jann of the Jungle
    27. Lucky the Pizza Dog
    Keep
    1. Big Man (comics)
    2. Bi-Beast
    3. Umar (Marvel Comics)
    4. Goom

    Darkknight2149 has been frustrated about these mass nominations, claiming TTN doesn't look into these topics before nominating them and that the !voters are either misguided or have an agenda.

    There have been multiple instances of Darkknight2149 threatening to take TTN to ANI over these concerns, and seemingly using this threat to try to prevent TTN from nominating more pages for deletion:

    1. "If you continue your disruption, you will be reported."
    2. "When you continue on, do be surprised when you get hit with an ANI report. That's all there really is to say at this point."
    3. "I hope you understand that the incivility and WP:Casting aspersions alone is enough reason for me to file a report, let alone everything else."
    4. "I'm going to file a report within the next few days when I get the time/energy to do so."
    5. "In addition to what this IP said, I plan on filing an ANI report on TTN within the next few days, per the exchange here..."
    6. "Yes, I still plan on doing so (if you are referring to the TTN report)."
    7. "I actually plan on filing an WP:ANI report pretty soon in regard to the blind spammings that are currently taking place at WP:AFD; the user in question has displayed tendencies of WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, and several others, and has been banned from fictional character deletion discussions for similar behaviours in the past"
    8. "A lot of it is the refusal to get the point and engage in dispute resolution by TTN and Piotrus, from which I plan filing an WP:ANI report over the weekend if they do not rectify their behaviour."
    9. "If they make no effort to open a larger community-wide discussion to address the concerns with fancruft, instead of disruptively and haphazardly spamming deletion nominations, I absolutely am filing an WP:ANI report this weekend."
    10. "The battleground mentality and inability to admit when you have a mistake is a major reason this is going to WP:ANI this weekend if no attempt is made to stop what you are doing and engage in dispute resolution."
    11. "Stop deletion spamming and open a legitimate discussion to propose your concerns, or this will soon become an WP:ANI / WP:ARBCOM matter. TTN and Piotrus have until this weekend."
    12. "If we can agree on these terms, I will step down from this dispute and recede the (very valid) WP:ANI report I was planning on filing."
    13. "You really are going to make us take this to ANI or ArbCom, aren't you?"

    The main discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) can be found here, which expands on many editors' opinions on the matter, including TTN, Darkknight2149, and multiple administrators like me.

    Other threads that have persistent hostility from this user:

    1. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goblin_(Marvel_Comics)
    2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley Quinn in other media

    Other particularly disruptive/hostile diffs:

    1. Here
    2. Here
    3. Here
    4. Here

    Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes by attacking TTN or other users for nominating many articles for deletion:

    1. Iron Maiden (comics)
    2. Harley Quinn in other media
    3. Judge Death
    4. Terrible Trio

    Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes at AFD without providing a rationale:

    1. List of Marvel Comics dimensions
    2. Screwball (comics)
    3. Super Buddies
    4. Wonder Dog (Super Friends)

    I am proposing a one-way interaction ban between Darkknight2149 and TTN, as well as a topic ban for Darkknight2149 at AFD. I have no issue with trying to argue in favor of keeping an article at AFD, but when your arguments are mainly attacking the nominator or ”just a !vote”, they aren't productive. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand that my focus on deletion over anything else and past history are contentious for many, but I'm not particularly sure how I earned such ire from them. Pretty much every interaction with them goes back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (Marvel Comics), in which I think they formed Mount Everest from a grain of sand. Maybe a third party can tell me I'm wrong, but I think my position there was perfectly clear. I'd admit that our initial interactions weren't without a bit of venom from both sides, but I feel they should have long moved past it. TTN (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If Darkknight2149 feels that he has a legitimate reason for a grievance about TTN then I feel he needs to address it, and lay out his case here and now. If not, then I agree it is long past time he let it go instead of continuing to make threats and doing nothing. I think discussion on an interaction ban and/or AFD topic ban should hold until after he has had a chance to respond, since depending on how he responds, his response may itself prompt a ban discussion. If he does not file a complaint at this time and is willing and able to let it go, then a ban is not needed. BOZ (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way interaction ban between Darkknight2149 and TTN and topic ban at AFD as nom. It's clear from Darkknight2149's response below that they are not going to drop the stick anytime soon. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way interaction ban between Darkknight2149 and TTN and topic ban at AFD as per nom, but time-limited for 90 days. Not specific to Darkknight 2149 necessarily, but obviously including them based on the diffs presented by nom, there has been a pattern of intimidation, incivility, misinformed AfD !votes and threats against editors nominating comics and game-related topics for deletion. Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way IBAN to stop Darkknight2149 from harassing TTN, and also support AfD topic ban. This editor doesn't seem able to disagree civilly with people over deletion discussions, and has obviously developed an extreme hatred for TTN. A 97% success rate indicates there actually isn't anything wrong with TTN's nominations, but Darkknight2149 can't seem to accept that. The ranting and raving pointed out in the above diffs are bad enough, but the attempted intimidation is worse. "Do as I say or I'll take you to ANI! I'll do it! ANI! I will, I'll drag you to ANI! You have until the count of three.... one... two... two and a half... No really, I'm serious, you have to do as I say or I'll drag you to ANI!! And I'm starting an ArbCom case too!" Reyk YO! 12:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Case request by Darkknight2149

    In light of this ([182], [183], [184]), I have scrapped the comment I was typing and will now be opening a case request to the arbritration committee before today is over with. The rampant disruption of TTN and misconduct from Eagles247 is astounding. The latter is an administrator and should know better, and I'm glad he did half of my work for me by filing this report and prompting me to push my other work aside and take action. ArbCom is the most appropriate place to take this, since they are the ones who banned TTN for very similar disruption in the past. For immediate background information, I would recommend taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Deletion of articles about fiction. The case request will be about the persistent personal attacks, aspersions, gaming, battleground-behaviour, WP:IDHT, refusal to engage in dispute resolution, blindly mass nominating copious amounts of Start-class articles for deletion at once (based only on quickly scrolling to the References sections, which has caused several issues at WP:AFD), borderline WP:NOTHERE tendencies, and rampant dishonesty from TTN, as well as factioning, gaming, and administrator misconduct from Eagles247. Virtually nothing that Eagles247 has said here has been honest, and the case request will be open before today is over with. DarkKnight2149 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comments. I re-read my responses at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Deletion of articles about fiction, and I stand by all of them. I also stand by reverting your attempted header change using the rollback tool in accordance with WP:TPO. I look forward to reading your ArbCom case request when it is filed, and I wish you luck with the process. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What Eagles247's diffs about me "threatening" ANI don't show is that every time I had begun working an ANI report, something else came up. The holidays, the discussion at WT:Notability (fiction), and a number of other things. After December, it honestly looked as though TTN had slowed down and actually begun assessing the articles that he was bulk-nominating. It wasn't until yesterday that I checked AfD and found that TTN (who has been warned way too many times at this point) was continuing exactly what he was doing beforehand. If Eagles247 believes that I am bluffing (I'm sure they will grasp onto anything they can get a hold of as a defense), I don't actually care either way, since the ArbCom case will be up soon regardless. This isn't the first time this week that someone has WP:BOOMERANGed themselves by filing a retaliatory report on me. Eaglea247's weak allegations are also reassuring. DarkKnight2149 18:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Darkknight2149: you are risking having your Arbitration request, which lest we forget is the last step in the dispute resolution process, being declined as premature due to not having attempted everything else first. Cited above are numerous warnings you've made of submitting noticeboard reports about this dispute. Did you submit such a report yet? If not, I'm not sure this ANI discussion itself has been exhausted yet, having reached an impasse that would result in an accepted Arbitration request. Just a hunch. El_C 18:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Darkknight2149: I'd recommend adding BOZ to the Arbitration request. TTN's comment in this AN thread about BOZ stating that many of his actions are in line with keeping the standards of 2006 Wikipedia raises concerns about whether or not the criterion 6 of WP:ADMINACCT - Repeated or consistent poor judgment - applies to BOZ's situation and should be grounds to desysop BOZ. ミラP 02:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, and if it helps, since my AN discussion (and this is summarizing my last post there), I have acknowledged and apologized for my past mistakes and poor judgement. I have greatly reduced my efforts at article creation to focus only on notable topics, I have modified my approach at AFD to always cite relevant policies and avoid the appearance of canvassing, and I have avoided undeleting anything which clearly should not be undeleted and using my admin tools on any articles that I have been previously involved with, and will continue to do these things. I have made a lot of progress on my undeletions list, but I understand that I still have a lot to go through. BOZ (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think this issue has much to do with BOZ at all, unless you want to drag everyone who votes the other way to TTN into it was well. Reyk YO! 12:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also also for the record, although I clearly do not agree with a good majority of his goals on Wikipedia, I have actually come to respect TTN for at least his openness about it and I think he takes a far more tempered approach than he once did. I might have quarreled with him in the past, but I do not want to have conflict with him or anyone else anymore. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Thank you all for your patience, and for not taking advantage by swarming the thread in my absence (which is what tends to happen if someone's gunning for your head and you don't reply back immediately). As is apparent, my schedule and energy are not in an unlimited supply, but I'm nearly finished typing this lengthy essay after gathering the proper links/diffs and everything else. It's getting late, but it will be up tomorrow. As #Sock puppet investigation has shown above, lengthy thought out novels with actual evidence take time. DarkKnight2149 07:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review

    Kiwikiller41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I just blocked this account because the user name choice popped up on my watch list. While I'm not that sensitive, the choice didn't seem to fall within the guideline. I could be wrong. Y'all let me know. The first few edits were in the medium disruption range and being executed in rapid succession. That's the reason for the disruptive editing note in the block notice. I've posted to their user talk regarding the disruptive nature of their initial edits and will copy here any response. Tiderolls 17:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    From the edits and the userpage, I suspect that this is a relatively young editor whose username reflects a focus on wargaming rather than anything more sinister. That being said, the username obviously isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Given that the account has made only a handful of edits, none of which are to brag about, I think suggesting that the user open a new account if he/she ready to edit constructively after the block expires would make more sense than putting everyone through the "paperwork" of a username change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing "Tax avoidance" sections to many articles; WP:POINT/WP:SOAPBOX?

    User:OldandGood2876 has been canvassing "Tax avoidance" sections to numerous (at least 50) articles on US companies based on a CNBC article on companies that had effective tax rates of 0 in 2018. While the source itself is fine, this kind of canvassing seems soapboxy to me, but I'd rather bring the matter here before taking further action. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    When you raised these concerns on the user's talk page and discussed the matter with them, what was that user's response? --Jayron32 19:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than answer a question that you already know the answer to, I'll note that user had already reverted someone's else's objections to them, so asking them to stop and/or reverting all of the changes seemed pointless without soliciting additional input from the community. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the "solicit input from the community" page. This is the "block someone because they won't listen to the community after we already tried that" page. You're looking for WP:DR. The issue is that this should never be the first stop in a process of helping out a situation like this. It should be the absolute last. There are many other options, the first of which should always be "just talk to them". I note that they were hastily blocked, which is always bad, even if they were later unblocked. This didn't all have to happen. --Jayron32 13:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia. I can see how these edits can be viewed as canvassing. However, I viewed it as a simple fact that is important enough to bear inclusion in each company's wiki page. I used the 2008 Universal Studios fire as a template of sorts, as most affected music artists have a sentence on their associate pages that reads "On June 25, 2019, The New York Times Magazine listed Sheryl Crow among hundreds of artists whose material was reportedly destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire"; Sheryl Crow#2016–present: Be Myself and Threads, Buddy Holly#Legacy, Bobby Darin#Legacy, Supertramp#2015–present, et al.OldandGood2876 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    • These edits are inappropriate for two reasons:
    1. Their actual addition to these articles seems incorrect. They have been adding the sentence: In December 2019, CNBC listed Goodyear Tire and Rubber along with 378 additional Fortune 500 companies that "paid an effective federal tax rate of 0% or less" as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.[47]. However, the actual fact is that they are one of 91 companies that were identified amongst 379 of the Fortune 500 companies (i.e they did not analyse all 500), who had an effective federal tax rate of 0% in 2018.
    2. They are adding this sentence in a new section titled "Tax avoidance". However, this is not tax avoidance. This is simply applying the new tax rules of Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), and getting 0% as the answer. Tax avoidance is what Apple or Google do when they legally abuse the rules in ways that were not indented to reduce tax bills – E.g. the Double Irish system. (Note, tax evasion is where rules are illegally abused, which is very rare for a Fortune 500 company to be found doing). Simply applying the TCJA rules (which are very beneficial for some companies), and getting 0% as your effective tax rate, is neither tax evasion or tax avoidance.
    Wikipedia is full of crazy notions on corporate taxation (I spend weeks cleaning up Tax haven and Tax inversion), and this is one of them. It is misleading as stated. If they want to add a section saying "Impact of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" and with a sentence saying that "as a result of the TCJA, their Federal Tax bill was 0% in 2018", then that is at least correct. However, I am not sure it will be that notable, as it could be back to 20% next year for many. Britishfinance (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Blocked 31h to stop the disruption, please engage on the user's talk page. Guy (help!) 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. My gut was to rollback all of them and warn the user to stop, but I wanted to get second opinions as to whether or not the community agreed that the additions were inappropriate. ANI may not have been the best venue for soliciting that initial input. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Wikiproject Tax is largely dormant, so given the scale (and POVness) of what they were doing, ANI was a good way to get input. Britishfinance (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's with all the blocking with no prior warning or discussion? User:OldandGood2876 was blocked without ever having been told what they're doing is wrong (except via edit summary of a blocked IP user, which probably led them to believe the stuff they were adding was OK). The IP who originally reverted all the edits (User talk:24.30.32.182) was blocked (and is still blocked) for vandalism, again with no warning. I'm unblocking the IP because these were useful edits, not vandalism, and I'm unblocking OldandGood2876 because we warn/discuss first, not block first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am new to Wiki and I was not expecting the rather judgmental responses but such is our society today. I admit the CNBC source was more of a listicle but I believed sufficient given the controversy and backlash the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 created in the U.S. That being said, I would be more than happy to do additional research and list a wealth of sources, as well as reword the statement to remove any hint of WP:SOAPBOX or canvassing. Here are a few to consider:

    Thoughts?OldandGood2876 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Since we don't usually discuss content here, I suggested to OandG on their talk page that they ask at WT:BUSINESS. Does anyone have a better idea where to seek consensus on this? (I also told him I thought consensus was unlikely, FWIW) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have used a reference above "https://fortune.com/2019/04/11/amazon-starbucks-corporate-tax-avoidance/" but the actual title of the article is "How These Fortune 500 Companies (Legally) Paid $0 In Taxes Last Year" – E.g. this is not "Tax Avoidance", but corporates paying 0% tax as a result of the 2018 TCJA (which they had no control over). Please don't use the term "Tax Avoidance" with this aspect of the TCJA, or create sections in US corporation articles titled "Tax Avoidance" from this. It would be better to go to the TCJA article, and add these refs as a follow-up to the actual effective tax rates that many large US corporations earned in 2018 as a result of the TCJA. However, it is not a "Tax Avoidance" issue. If Trump cut your personal federal taxes to 0%, nobody would be writing articles accusing you of "Tax Avoidance" (maybe of good luck). Britishfinance (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tax avoidance is the legal practice of minimizing one's tax burden. Tax evasion is the illegal act. That said, the terms are similar enough to the lay reader that adding that header could be seen as intentional sensationalism—and that's a behavioral issue that we need to consider. I agree that WT:BUSINESS is the best forum to get more input on this. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While this isn't the place for such a discussion I agree with C.Fred. From my experience, tax avoidance is generally used to refer to any legal practice of structuring affairs to minimise someone or something's tax burden. Britishfinance's claim that it only refers to "legally abuse the rules in ways that were not indented to reduce tax bills" is not the way the term is normally used, even if we put aside the obvious typo. For starters one person's abuse is another person's smart practice. And it gets into unnecessary complications of "intended by whom?" It's clear Ireland in part intended their laws to be used that way, even if other countries didn't. It may be true if the US simply changes the US federal personal income tax rate to 0%, people wouldn't be said to be avoiding tax simply because they had such a rate. But if the US kept a federal personal income tax of 35% (let's ignore progressive taxation) but allowed someone to set up a corporation and use this corporation for all personal expenses without a fringe benefits tax, and a person chose to set up a corporation and receive no personal income, this would likely be considered tax avoidance. I find it quite likely that the reason why these companies have a 0% ETR is not simply because of the TCJA but also because they're structure their affairs either now or in the past to ensure they benefit in this way. Note that I don't think the addition of that section is helpful, but if we are going to discuss it we also shouldn't do so in ways which goes against how terms like "tax avoidance" are normally used. Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We are almost saying the same thing - "tax avoidance" is legal (we both agree), tax evasion is illegal. However, most of the use of the term "tax avoidance" involves using the rules in ways they were not expected to be used (but legally). Nobody calls filling out your tax return correctly "tax avoidance", however, the term "tax avoidance" is commonly used in relation to say what US firms have been doing (legally) for decades. The TCJA is the reason why US corporate tax rates fell to 0% for some in 2018. The TCJA delivers effective federal tax rates in the high single digits for many large US multinationals going forward. Many got rates of 0% in 2018 (and will do in 2019, 2020), because additional reliefs are offered under TCJA for repatriating assets/intellectual property back to the US (which is why US productivity is spiking). The TCJA is profound legislation that has dramatically changed the US tax system. It effectively removes any tax-driven incentive for a US corporation to base themselves outside of the US (many will pay more tax if based in the Cayman Islands than the US under TCJA). Google's repatriation in December [185] was a historic moment (which I need to update many articles for). Britishfinance (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    I have to agree that it would have been better to talk to the editor about concerns before opening and ANI thread. And the editor should have been given a clear warning 'you need to stop or you will be blocked' and gone against that warning before they were blocked. But whatever, I guess the main issue was resolved even if not in ideal circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to talk about SharabSalam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s accusations against me

    Content dispute, use the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    About a second ago, I received a message from SharabSalam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stating that I revert two editors' edits. This is not true as I did not press the revert these two editors' edits. What I did was. He threaten to block me just because I added sources, thinking that I reverted the edits of two editors. That accusation that I reverted two editors did not make sense and is untrue. In order to revert an editor's edit, he or she must click on "undo", then click the "publish changes" and done, you have revert a editor's edit. I have a reason when I added sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present)&diff=940509864&oldid=940509707). He states that Saudi sources are not reliable which I find this not to be true because any source can be reliable, we have Press TV sources, we have CNN sources and we have Reuters sources. Why can't Saudi-based sources be allowed in the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) article. Please have someone investigate this user. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SpinnerLaserz if you want to talk about the accusations you can go to the editwar notice board.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam Here is a deal, this will be more of a dispute because even though I have added a unreliable source, I do also added a reliable source. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have closed the report made by User:SharabSalam at WP:AN3, because no 3RR issue has occurred. Equally, no discussion on the talkpage has taken place. I strongly suggest both editors engage there before running to drama boards. Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Gravedancing by User:Nishidani

    Lame and certainly not smart, but not really an admin thing. Maybe some nice-but-firm advice will do the trick. Guy (help!) 08:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump peace plan, User:Nishidani took the opportunity to deride a now-banned editor, User:Icewhiz, with the comment Unfortunately I can't act on this patent violation, since Sandstein has banned me from appearing at AE (for calling the permabanned and off-wiki inciter of outing people, Icewhiz a POV warrior). Diff. Italicization added.

    The action and comment Nishidani referenced is from last April, where he was banned from AE for the following remark about Icewhiz: Your remark underlined that, in your POV , mainstream scholars and thinkers in Israel who are critical of the occupation are representative of ‘fringes of the Israeli radical left’. This means that anyone with a liberal concern for human rights is a fanatic. That betrays an extremist ethnonational intolerance of dissent in the ranks. Link. Emphasis added.

    I have requested that this user redact this comment, which has gone ignored. Nishidani's continuing to beat a dead horse and strike out at a user no longer on WP is a clear violation of WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED and reeks of WP:GRAVEDANCING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, this is obvious WP:BOOMERANG.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikieditor19920 and SharabSalam: I've redacted it myself. ミラP 01:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but it's unfortunate that Nishidani could not be relied on redact their own comment or acknowledge the problem, despite having been warned and sanctioned for the same behavior in the past. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've undone it. It is not your place to decide what's an NPA and this ANI is far from closed, so wait for consensus before you try and act like an admin. Valeince (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikieditor19920: (edit conflict) And Valeince has undone it. ミラP 01:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Miraclepine but I agree. I appreciate the gesture, but the purpose of this thread was to request admin review, not solicit another non-admin to do something I could've done myself. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the reported user has been notified. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nishidani, I don't know what your current status is, whether you are under what restrictions and why and for how long, but sheesh, there is just no point in ... what's the word ... I really can't find the word. What you were doing there, please don't do it. Nothing good can come from it. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Oknazevad. Again.

    A little over a month ago, Oknazevad was reported by Locke Cole with regards to his personal attacks in The Mandalorian and Lightsaber articles(1). In addition to the clear edit-warring violation, the reporting user called out Oknazavad on their confrontational behavior and personal attacks on users. As the discussion was very likely going to result in him getting blocked, Oknazevad pledged to avoid the articles and discussions and specifically the behavior that had brought him the EW noticeboard:

    • "I am willing to walk away. Frankly, I was getting too hot headed, and drifting into bad territory. I'll stay away from editing both articles for the next couple of monnths (SP). Not all Star Wars articles; the final season of The Clone Wars premiers next month and I'd like to contribute to our coverage of that, and as a life long fan I've had dozens of Star Wars articles on my watchlist for the better part of a decade, so it's ansignificant (sp) area of interest for me, but I can see how that is getting in the way of my editing clear-headedly. A block is unneeded, as they're suooosed (SP) to be preventative not punitive and I pledge not to edit the contentious articles. I remain unhappy with the pattern of edits I sought to undo, but I can also understand that my behavior i shutting collegiality needed for the project, so I just have to live with it. Of course, if I break my pledge a block will be warranted"(2)


    Furthermore, Oknazevad posted on the Lightsaber talk page less than 5 hours after that, affirming his intent to not post on the page again.(3)
    That pledge seemed to content admin Bbb23, who simply locked the page for 3 days, which led to a consensus and an end to edit-warring. However, less than 5 days later, the user again posted to The Mandalorian.(4).

    I am guessing that Oknazevad felt emboldened, as his pledge to allow himself to be blocked wasn't acted upon by anyone. He just began posting in Lightsaber again (5), posting material that he was fully aware was of a contentious and contested nature. Further emboldened, he then made a ranting personal attack against me in The Mandalorian talk page:

    • " I'm beginning to find your tendentiousness on this matter rather intellectually dishonest."(5)
    • "...you pedantically mischaracterized the sources..."(5)
    • "...your entire behavior has been wrongheaded..."(5)

    I submit that User: Oknazevad offered his pledge to stop being contentious and edit-warring in order to avoid what would have likely been a block for edit-warring. I further submit that, he tested the waters to see if anyone would notice if he broke his pledge and block him. When nothing happened, he went back on the attack a little over a month later, possibly assuming that an old pledge made in a now-archived EW complaint was too stale to block him on.
    I conclude that User: Oknazevad's participation in Star Wars-related articles has been corrosive in article discussion, and his willingness to edit-war his personal interpretations into articles indicates he has zero intention of stopping. I know blocks are not meant to be punitive, but a person's word is their bond. He has allowed us clear permission to block him should he edit in the articles or return to his attack-laden posts.
    I say we follow his wishes. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC) :User:Oknazevad notified of the discussion (6) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I never said I would not post on talk pages. Isn't that what one is supposed to do? Please, the only corrosiveness is his WP:IDHT attitude and unwillingness to concede that continues to engage in WP:POINTy behavior with logical fallacies and misrepresentation of sources. Jack only posted this because I called him out on his intellectually dishonest position on Talk:The Mandalorian. For which I was thanked by other editors, by the way. Frankly I should have made such a post a month ago and not edit warred, but the facts of the issue have changed and the error of Jack's position is now plainly visible. That's why I made the edit at lightsaber today, because it has been a month and things have changed. One cannot continue to allow the article to misrepresent sources as it had. Jack needs to be told plainly to stop lying in article space to prove an erroneous point. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, but your previous statements are contradicting your current ones. Nothing has changed, either in the article or in your behavior. More's the pity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oknazevad blocked 31 hours for personal attacks and incivility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have made this block myself. They're meant to be preventative, not punitive. That there's an RfC in progress on Talk:The_Mandalorian#The_Darksaber_Confirmed suggests that the situation has changed. Mackensen (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I previously noted Mackensen, the threat of a block was enough to make the user promise to make certain promises and abstain from corrosive behaviors. For most users, they try very hard to make those changes. Others make those promises disingenuously, and wait to run out the clock. Not even a week had passed before the user began editing the articles they said they would not. Not even a month after pledging to adjust their behavior, they were back to unprovoked attacka upon other users.
    Blocks are meant to protect the articles, and that includes the collaborative spirit that makes far better articles than corrosive apprehension. Sometimes a user needs that blocking "wake-up call" when the threat of a block fails to promote change. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, a month ago he was edit-warring, which isn't the case here. If he's blocked based on that past promise, about which nature there's some dispute, then I'd say he should be unblocked immediately, but that wasn't the cited justification. I don't know that I would have characterized Oknazevad's posts as a "ranting personal attack"; accusing an editor of tendentious behavior may well be justified by the context. I think it would be useful for NinjaRobotPirate to fully explain why Oknazevad was blocked, if only so that it's clear to him (and everyone else) which comments crossed the line and justified immediate action. I wouldn't normally block an editor in these circumstances unless their participation was actively disrupting the talk page, and that's definitely not the case here, or if their behavior was so over the line that it was ipso facto out of bounds. I'm not seeing that here either, but perhaps I overlooked something. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this linkspamming?

    74.195.105.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who just got off a one-year block, has been adding Template:TitanTV to a lot of pages. This looks a lot like linkspamming a commercial website, but the template has been around since 2007 and is on many pages. Before I list the template for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, I want advice: is adding this to hundreds of TV stations legitimate, or is it spamming? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It certainly looks like link spamming. Plus, at least some of the links are dead. It also looks like block evasion, based on that IP's block log, and their early edits to talk pages of sockpuppets of User:Dingbat2007. @Ponyo: seems most likely to know the story here. ST47 (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a television articles editor (formerly WP:TVS, now merged into WP:TV as a task force), I wanted to revert this myself. These links can easily be changed at will by TitanTV and are 100% American-focused, are easily expirable (a common problem with drive-bys sourcing 'hey this station airs (inane show nobody cares about)' and they shouldn't be a part of any articles; most of all it may be WP:COPYVIO as these links are intended only to be used as custom URLs by stations who pay them money subscribe to their services (which is why the WTOV link is 404ing; they use Tribune Publishing listings so the custom link won't work no matter what is tried). @Guy Macon:, I'd support a TfD nom, and I agree some kind of long block is needed, as a short CLUE block will not work. Nate • (chatter) 14:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obviously the same editor that has been blocked repeatedly for block evasion since 2017. That's one sticky IP! I've reblocked; revert whatever you need to. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mrschimpf, that sounds like a great reason to delete that template. Guy (help!) 17:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 13#Template:TitanTV. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are nearly a thousand links to that in this run by this IP alone. If the template gets deleted, is there an automated way to remove them or do I have to spend hours doing it manually? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Account indefinitely blocked, draft deleted and salted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On January 20, this editor created Draft:Marc Oswald. It was a copy/paste dump from this source. I tagged the draft for speedy deletion under G12, and so notified this editor. I also placed a {{uw-paid}} notice on his talk page, as well as leaving him some custom written advice regarding copying and pasting content from the OEG website. About an hour later, the draft was deleted.

    On February 2, this editor again created Draft:Marc Oswald, once again copying/pasting the material directly from the company's website. I have tagged the draft for deletion under G12 again, and have so notified the editor. If it is deleted again, this will be the third time it has been deleted as a copyright violation, and the fourth overall (the fourth as a stale draft, which EranBot marked as a potential copyright violation as well). The logs of the draft are here.

    This editor appears to be in violation of our policy on paid editing despite being warned and is willfully violating our policies on copyrighted materials. I am requesting a block of User:NickOEG and deleting/salting of the draft as a repeated copyright violating attempt. I have notified the editor of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am seeing an odd contribution history for the user. Are they creating a new account every time they add info? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's possible. But, any checkuser would be stale at this point. The issue is this particular account is willfully violating our copyright policies and editing in violation of WP:PAID. The draft has been deleted under G12 and salted, and the account blocked, so I'lll close this. Thanks everyone! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Can we cut the drama short on moving the Coronavirus outbreak article from using "Wuhan coronavirus" to "COVID-19" or similar ?

    Hello everyone, the topic has been tedious for weeks now, but now that the permanent name has been decided on, could it be made clear that policy does not allow for a problematic name (ie one that enhances xenophobia) when equally or more popular names are available? Current discussion is here. Kind regards, Sean Heron (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S.I've pointed out to the non-admin that closed the discussion early that that decision is highly unlikely to remain standing.

    I agree with your intent, but must point out that attempts to cut the drama often result in even more drama than there would otherwise have been. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) A different editor has made the point more clearly and eloquently than me at the move discussion. (the bottommost addition is the comment I'm referring to) Sean Heron (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the Talk Page, I count at least 5 RMs in the last 10 days (4 closed and one open), all with variations of removing "Wuhan" from the title. I think the article could do with some kind of enforced break on RMs (particularly ones that involve removing "Wuhan" from the title for a few weeks). Britishfinance (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks

    I am in content dispute with highly disruptive page where employees edited the page in past. User:KartikeyaS343 is accusing me for bad faith and calling me POV pusher repeatedly. [186], [187], [188] and here is on the complete another page. I have warned him not to use this type of comments but he did these repeatedly. I am not going to argue with the editor who had called my good faith edits as POV pushing but this is blatant violation of WP:NPA policy. If he had problem then he could have put rationale first rather than accusing me as POV pusher on multiple pages. I have corrected myself and my edits as per his explanation in last. But he deserves strong warning for these accusations!-- Harshil want to talk? 14:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My first edit on the article was this[189] where I clearly mentioned my rationale in the edit summary. I didn't call him a POV pusher. Then my talk page message was this[190] where I explained the reason again without calling him a POV pusher. This[191] was my last message to him on the talk page. It is good that he corrected himself based on my last explanation and this should prove how frustrating it was to explain a simple LEAD to an experienced editor like him.

    I only mentioned "POV pushing" in this edit summary[192] due to my frustration when he accused me with other editors to Yamla[193] without even commenting anything on the content. I would not even call his edits as POV pushing but his contribution and talk page discussions show such patterns in different communal pages.KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A strong warning is not due in this case, but here's my advise: it probably isn't the most civil thing to describe someone's edits as "pov pushing" (though it is not a personal attack). Still, let's try to aim at more moderate language when it comes to editing that one feels stray from neutrality. Anyway, there ought to have been an attempt at resolution at the user's talk page first — not every slight belongs at ANI. Please aim at an amicable, or at the very least, collegial interaction that is devoid of unnecessary innuendo, but also please try to resolve minor disputes yourself before bringing it to this noticeboard, which is meant for truly intractable disputes. Thanks and good luck. El_C 16:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rafe87 (again)

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

    Personal attacks:

    • This is an absurd interpretation of the controversy. Make a greater effort to stay true to the spirit of WP NPOV, WMSR. [194]
    • Are we going to keep pretending this user is objective, honest, and is not interested in the improvement of the entry (which he tried to destroy just two weeks ago)? [195]
    • Also, a warning that WMSR is lying about The Intercept, the Nation, and perhaps other sources he listed. [196]
    • Stop misrepresenting wikipedia policy for once. [197]
    • User:MrX is now in the business of deciding, on his own, when a controversy discussed in reliable sources is simply "manufactured controversy" and is therefore not worth mentioning in this entry...None of this is based on Wikipedia policies; this is nothing but POV-pushing. [198]
    • [Y]ou're cherry-picking which reliable sources are reliable enough for you, in violation of Wikipedia policy, and choosing to shrug off controversies amply discussed in reliable sources as mere "manufactured outrage", in what is an ad hominem attack either against said media sources or editors here. [199]

    Several consecutive 1RR violations (at least 17 by my count): [200]

    Previous ANI thread (in which several admins suggested that Rafe be indeffed for engaging in any PAs moving forward, and also suggested a page ban for the article in question): [201]

    As a note, this user has previously been blocked twice for 3RR violations, and once for PAs. --WMSR (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=940630097"