Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. 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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Implied intent to reveal personal information

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Coey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Djm-leighpark made this comment, "Are you trying to out me? Because if I have to defend further I may need to out." No where have I ever in any way threatened to out this person. The final clause, "I may need to out" made me think they are using this false accusation as a way to imply they will out my personal information.

I gave this person the benefit of the doubt and posted this reply, (see the bottom of the diff for my reply and note below regarding the mixed up order). hoping they would clarify they meant something different, perhaps they were referring to their other account Bigdelboy, but they declare this as an alt on both pages, so what outing could be done? But again I gave them the benefit of the doubt in hopes they would clarify or at least just drop the matter. I figured if anything needed done, the closing admin could handle it.

They responded with this comment They chose not to clarify they intended something other than what I understood, but told me to take it to ANI (so here we are). They finish their comment with "I will say this AfD is still running however and points possibly remain to be addressed." Since they have clearly stated their points opposition to the AfD, what does this mean? I understand this as a follow up to out my personal information if I continue to support the AfD.

(Please note: the comment ordering and indenting was mixed up inadvertently by my confusion due to the placement of an image. I tried to fix it and another editor removed the image. I believe everything is in the correct order. It was my fault I placed my comment in the wrong spot. I altered none of the comments)

The point I would like addressed:

1. The accusation "Are you trying to out me?" which I never in any way did. [1]
2. The comment " Because if I have to defend further I may need to out". [2]
3. The comment "this AfD is still running however and points possibly remain to be addressed" [3]

I wouldn't be hard to find a TimothyBlue in Los Angeles from the info on my userpage, but I find the implications above unacceptable. Thank you.   // Timothy :: talk  18:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have noticed a tendency for Djm to fly off the handle in disputes as well as get verbose to the point of being unreadable. My only suggestion here would be that Djm perhaps take some time off and reflect on this and how to respond to editors and be concise before stronger measures are suggested or taken. Praxidicae (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, reading the discussion myself, Djm's threat to out TimothyBlue should be treated the same as a legal threat and they should be blocked until it's rescinded and they demonstrate an understanding of our policies. Praxidicae (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• He hasn't edited since receiving the ANI notice so I suggest letting him discuss here to see if this may be resolved without blocking.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• If Djm-leighpark drops the stick and retracts the threat, it's settled as far as I'm concerned.   // Timothy :: talk  19:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2): Ah. I have noticed this. The outing would be self outing of myself (revealing personal information) in order to explain certain things to present reasoning to TimothyBlue ... this relates to among other things as to timings of access to resourced. I am spitting feathers at the allegations made by TimothyBlue on the thread and my attempts to fake sources. Yes I am under pressure at the moment ... and some of this relates to resolution of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 875 ... people should note in that .... For me normally that might be a month, but currently its three and I'll negotiate with that with any designated WP:FUNKy person bar one if anyone thinks I'm being awkward or unreasonable.. Siad to Barkeep49 reopening that AFD would likely lead to trouble. MFD's going on such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:NASLite this one are a real pain .... The closer Scottywong and offers a month and little more ... its hardly surprising something breaks because I was expecting that. Since this is an outing call I will say I was very close to one of the big and worst outings earlier this year and I'd expect TimothyBlue to spot that when he researches history though I will absolutely say I was not involved. Funkies can contact me on that if necessary. It also (slightly) relevant to the Discussion Alerts have been held for a couple of days recently and that (perhaps) has lead to less partication in that AfD. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue I have no issue with any outing and you will not be outed by me or by me inciting a third party to do the same. Dropping the stick may be a different matter as I have allegations at an AfD to examine. there is also a question of your excessively deletionist approach and I am inclined to think you have a "red mist" approach to this. With regards to comments at AfD with me becoming an NPP I respect the work they do though occassionly have had need to bring they to DRV for e.g. overzealous speedies. I have not asked for autopatroller privilege because I steward a spectrum of drafts and may on occasion bring one to mainspace that would be marginal so its better they go via NPP. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, I am not sure what the ping for me is. You did mention stress and concern around the Code pages. The 1 month deadline is only for deletion on enwiki. I don't think you only have a month to perfect them on wikibooks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 , not related to this ANI I am doing automation that refers to en.wiki. It is also the case the transwiki you kindly organised was a cut/paste not with full versions. So I am likely to have to repeat that the long way round. I still expect some automation I am preparing to be on the en wiki in situ and if its gonered I'm likely giving up or whatever. In which case I have wasted many many many hours this month. I've invested a lot if it goes belly up, but perhaps that what people want and they dont want to attribute to people properly per SA licences. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply to Djm-leighpark, I consider the matter of outing explained and closed.

I think the "question of your excessively deletionist approach" and "red mist" approach is actually just an angry attempt to divert attention away from what has been exposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Coey.

I certainly make mistakes, everyone does and I've shown a willingness to listen to others and change my mind based on discussion, not just be offended and go on the attack. You seem to feel the need to attack, which is shown in the AfD and in this discussion. This combative I must win, I must be right, attitude is ultimately what is causing you stress. You need to stop it because ultimately it is self-defeating, even if you win some arguments. This isn't patronizing, it's goodwill advice.   // Timothy :: talk  22:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I am glad we have the outing matter settled as that is important, but to say what is causing me stress would require me to self out some more stuff and that might be very silly and impacting. You have displayed a singular view as to what Wikipedia is and and quite frankly straight to AfD on that stub remains unbelievable. Options such as notability tagging would have been the right aproach. I have yet to anaylse the editing of the article to see if certain comments you made were justifiable. I have learned to have the opposite of your advice, its not clever and you need to face up to yopur approach if you are a deletionist. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: I keep giving you exits and you refuse to take them and keep criticizing my approach, so I'll keep the discussion going.

• Explain why you created an article with sources that you did not read.
• Explain why you felt this was a notable subject when you admitted you did not read the sources.
• Explain why you think this subject is notable.
• Explain why you questioned my evaluation of the sources you used, when you never read the sources in the first place [4], [5], [6], []
• You state "I have yet to anaylse the editing of the article to see if certain comments you made were justifiable." What does this mean? You wrote the article days ago and you have to analyze the editing to see if my comments are justified?
• You state "and quite frankly straight to AfD on that stub remains unbelievable" why is it unbelievable. My BEFORE showed it was not notable because I read the sources. I researched it. You the author of the article did not read the sources and did not research it. It belongs at AfD, not tagged for eternity as maybe not notable.

You wrote a junk article with made up sources and yet you disparage and attack me for bringing it to AfD:

• "Has the nom. actually read (Chacksfield, 2003) or at least even bothered to look it up ?" [7]. This is unbelievably arrogant given that you admitted you never read the source when you created the article.
• "lets be very clear you are the one who wasted everyone's time with this AfD." [8]
• "If Wikipedia is going to allow persons careering around with little purpose but to destroy peoples work then this article needs to be deleted" [9]
• "Ah ... not the last word. well stop mumbling and file a..." [10]
• "Unbelievably incompetent nomination in my opinion." [11]
• "and you need to face up to yopur approach if you are a deletionist." I nominate non-notable articles and have an 85% match rate at AfD. You create articles without reading sources. When will you face up to using this approach?
• Finally you said "You will likely now WP:HOUND me for life." [12] when all I have done is give you exits to stop this but you keep coming back, criticizing me and refusing to let it go.

Since Djm-leighpark insists on making this about me and the AfD I wrote and will not drop this, I think everyone should look at the article he wrote and the AfD I wrote and see how our actions and discussion compare.   // Timothy :: talk  23:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I was going to wait to post this until Djm responded, hopefully with an apology and with logic but since that isn't happening...seems to be a case of Boy who cried wolf, any time their behavior or edits are brought up, they immediately cry "hounding!"[13][14][15]. They also immediately become combative and hurl out insults.[16] or go on nonsensical tirades. Praxidicae (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

— ... but you couldn't wait. whatever. I'm off to bed for a bit.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Last comment from me on this unpleasant matter and then I will again attempt to drop this. If he attacks again, I'll leave it to others if/how to respond.

• If anyone wants to discuss how I understand notability or verification related to AfD, I welcome it at my talk page (but please wait a few days after this). Like everyone I make mistakes and I explore edges sometimes, but I know how to drop the stick when I'm wrong or there is a clear consensus against my view.
• The above discussed article at AfD isn't even close to an edge or a mistake.
• I've given Djm-leighpark many chances to back off and drop this. They keep coming back. I've said all I'm going to say about it with this last statement: The community should ask Djm-leighpark for an explanation and they can decide where to go from there.

I'm off to finish an article about a book.   // Timothy :: talk  04:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: I'll take the opportunity of expanding the point your shouting about: ( "Has the nom. actually read (Chacksfield, 2003) or at least even bothered to look it up ?" [17]. This is unbelievably arrogant given that you admitted you never read the source when you created the article. ). While is not online to my knowledge it is to be expected during your BEFORE you your would have examined it closely enough to identify it as a biography, as that information was available online, and therefore reasoned significant information on the subject was highly probable. At the time of writing the article, which was done a one shot stub direct into mainspace, it is true while I did not have (Chacksfield, 2003) I had sufficient confidence to have bought a second hand copy online for something like £/$/€5 - £/$/€10; the confidence being enhanced by my possession of (Chacksfield, 2010) by the same author and the knowledge of the quality of that work. I own and have on loan a mixture of Irish Railway history books, and was aware of the subject through them. (Murray, McNeill) was always going to have a solid WP:RS on Coey and the initial version Old revision of Robert Coey on 06:23, 20 July 2020. By 19:41, 21 July 2020‎ Old revision of Robert Coey I'd expanded a little and couple more sources. On or just before 23 July 2020 my (Chatsdfield, 2003) and I was delighted by the detail of the content, which I then started to add (albeit running straight into a source discrepancy about Coey's later education, in some ways not important but in others annoying different in detail....). I'm not quite sure about how much of this could be back-worked out by an independent but there were significance allegations of "but still fails the WP:SIGCOV portion of WP:GNG: the sources do not discuss the subject in depth." which were not retracted. The point is, actually I've lost track of what the point currently is but I know I have to revisit the discussion. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: I can't let go of this. explain

• Above you state: "On or just before 23 July 2020 my (Chatsdfield, 2003) and I was delighted by the detail of the content, which I then started to add"

So you claim to have had this book on 23 July and you were "delighted by the detail of the content"

• On the AfD you state on August 21: " Unfortuately the description of the book {Chacksfield,2003) easilyfound at [18] is primary and somewhat puffy and not eligible."
• On the AFd you state on August 21: "The TOC of (Chacksfield,2003) seems to proves its a passing mention also" [19]

On July 23, you were "delighted by the detail of the content" about a book you received, but on August 21, you changed you mind and it becomes "he TOC of (Chacksfield,2003) seems to proves its a passing mention also" - The table of content? Did you lose the book between July 23 and Aug 21? Why did you have to look at a booksellers description of the book to discover it was "is primary and somewhat puffy and not eligible" if you had the book on July 23?

• If you don't have the book why are you adding references to the article from it?
• Above: "The point is, actually I've lost track of what the point currently is" apparently you've lost track of the book and your stories also.

Does anyone know of the right words to describe Djm-leighpark's explanation? The only ones that come into my mind are "Dropped from section; referred to Dean's office for investigation".  // Timothy :: talk  09:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue, Can I ask what you are looking to happen at this time? After looking at the whole dicussion, I think the word you are looking for is "gas lighting", as I don't see a better explanation for some of the bizarre logic Djm-leighpark is employing. The point of Gas lighting is to get you to act out aggressively, which is what you are starting to do. I suggest you take a minute to decide what you want, put together your five best diffs with a short explanation, and then ask directly for what you want to happen. Otherwise this will start looking like two people arguing.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks AlmostFrancis, 48 hours and no response. Ah well. Unless someone raises a proposal I leaves the missus so I can stop accusing her (usually unfairly) of hiding the books I use for sources then we likely have a close. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, so by thanking me are you admitting that you were just gaslighting TimothyBlue with your rather bizare logic. Obviously you shouldn't do that anymore, which is somthing I hope you take from this discussion.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis: Well I am certainly being sarcastic about TimothyBlue conclusions about what they see as explanations for my actions ... about what should be determinable from online sources and what should not, and my ability to lose books left right and centre. For example I was down Sussex Mondays 24 August 2020 and took File:Chichester-Ave-De-Chartes-Covid-19-Pop-up-Cyclelane-20200824-with-cyclist.jpg ... What I cannot prove (though a checkuser could probably confirm was consistent) that I left the SD card in a computer there for upload and was able to retrieve it today and upload it from Hampshire. I also cannot prove I eventually found my Boocock book in Sussex today and was able to make the following edit [20] back here in Hampshire. Like I recall I not in Sussex from Monday 17 August 2020 to until 21 August 2020 when I went to Sussex losing my wallet & bank cards on the way but uploading a picture of the TOC of (Chatsfield 2003) to add evidence it is a substantial treatise on Robert Coey and noting the description of the book contents which was available online would also have given weaker information to the same. The article history also indicates I had taken some time to consider how to resolve a discrepancy between (Murray & McNeil, 1976) and (Chatsfield, 2003) would be an indicator I was trying my good faith best to really try to use sources correctly. Hindsight probably reveals I had chosen to create the Coey article as a stub and expand later, this is a time honoured by to develop a Wikipedia article including a biography, which TimothyBlue may be on mission to eliminate, although that is where new WikiPedia contributors will come from. If I look on how this developed there appears to be total lack of appreciation that perhaps particularly in Harvard referencing while one part of source may be cited that does not imply that is the only part of the source that is relevant; such a notion is bizarre bizzare. I have probably gone incoherrent agian. People must htink I am quite insane. 04:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Given we are still here which means I have to check back here every 12 hours or so I'll comment on the sources used on the this first revision of the Robert Coey article, which was started from a redlink (which I myself might have set up, it sometimes helps me not misname the article), though in general I hate redlinks especially having colour defective eyesight. I sometimes go route one to mainspace if I think I can manage it in a single edit session to avoid mopping up the links from a move from draft. The main body of the article as created is fairly obviously sourced from (Murray,McNeill,1976) .. I used to use the Hants County library WDC copy (per oclc link) but around the start of covid I bought my own as I got tired of paying fines on a load of books if I forgot to renew in time, had both for a bit until the libraries re-opened). My contributions will show I have used this from time to time previously. The (Chacksfield, 2003) at the time of article was listed as further reading, I had been in my own pocket and purchased the book on the basis of a description of it that it covered Robert Coey and was suitable for further reading, however at point of article creation it was not used to support any content of the article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

File deletions by Jonteemil

(top-post comment) Note: mass restoring files is easier with Restore-a-lot. Load it on Wikipedia by copying the section from User:Alexis Jazz/common.js to your common.js. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This was an important image for Tottenham Hotspur F.C. article, which was explained in the article, now over-night it was deleted, can someone restore it please. Also, I was not informed of it's nomination for deletion nor was there any post to Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C., I consider this bad-faith nomination. Govvy (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

To continue my point, written in the article is: "Between 1956 and 2006 Spurs used a faux heraldic shield featuring a number of local landmarks and associations. The castle is Bruce Castle, 400 yards from the ground and the trees are the Seven Sisters. The arms featured the Latin motto Audere Est Facere (to dare is to do)." The text was describing the crest, which is the image, and Jonteemil posted the deletion as Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8. How can that be the case? This feels like article integrity destruction. Govvy (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that no one questioned the deletion request might also suggest of not informing people, the community, or anyone for the deletion. I consider all the deletion requests of his bad-faith nominations. I have also commented at WT:FOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

From a very quick look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 14, @Jonteemil: nominated nearly 200 images for deletion that day, a decent number of which were deleted with no wider discussion (and based on what Govvy says, no notification of the file uploader or interested WikiProjects/article talk pages), and a decent number of which have been or likely will end up as 'keep'. Based on the above I am extremely concerned about these nominations and this editor's conduct. GiantSnowman 10:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• At a quick look, the same appears to also be true for File:Aston Villa FC logo (2000-2007).svg. Unlike AFD (which says "Consider notifying...") the instructions at FFD are very clear that you should notify the uploader. This does not appear to have been done for this mass nomination. I would suggest that all of the images deleted in this mass nomination that did not have any "Delete" votes (apart from the nominator) should be restored. They can be re-nominated individually if the nominator still thinks they fail NFCC#8 (which I am sure some of them do). Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Fastily: as the deleting admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Previously Jonteemil flooded Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming with 130+ files when usually that category has a few dozen files in it or less. Making 100+ requests at once for anything (renaming, deletion, etc) that require human intervention is generally going to cause problems. (I suppose unless you are making requests for something where backlogs are usual/expected, neither of which is the case for FFD and renaming) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Govvy: The file's uploader Liandrei was notified, per policy. Why should you have been notified? You didn't upload the file. Pinging also @Black Kite:.Jonteemil (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Jonteemil Did you really review that crest image and the accompanying text in the article? I disagree with your nom and your process. It seems I am not the only one, I've noticed the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion#Mass FFD nom, which clearly shows there are problems with the way you process and edit wikipedia, I'dare say you are setting a dangerous president here. Govvy (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy and Jonteemil: Agreed. I've been cleaning up after many of his noms (I've spent the last couple of hours going through them), some of which have merit, and many of which do not. A couple of choice examples: [21] (nominating an image consisting of the letter "T" for deletion), [22] (nominating a file consisting of a black background and three "B"s for deletion), [23] (nominating a free file for deletion as if it were non-free), [24] (same). This is not OK. Come on. Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• OK, it looks like FastilyBot notified the original uploaders. However, since Jonteemil didn't tag the images so that the deletion discussion was visible to editors of the articles they were used in, and also (judging by the two examples above), didn't check to see if the images were actually covered by critical commentary, that's not a good situation. I am quite aware that a significant number of these probably fail NFCC8, but if you don't check properly, mass nominations are always subject to these types of mistakes. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support restoration of files (that weren't commented on) - Re-nominate them the proper way - notifying uploaders as well as using a valid reason for deletion instead of a boilerplate rationale. –Davey2010^Talk 19:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support restoring files as suggested above, and also support a topic ban on nominating files for deletion - there is clearly a much deeper problem based on the examples/issues raised above. GiantSnowman 20:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I know I won't have everyone, if anyone at all, with me on this. But if a file is wrongfully deleted, it is not the FFD nominator's fault, but the closing admin. I do have a responsibility, I do acknowledge that, however I did not delete any file what so ever. I think that is very important and something that I don't think that anyone above has grasped fully. An admin is an admin because they have gotten the community's trust to handle stuff, that we normies don't. To blame me for the wrongful deletions is not okay. Once again, I don't deny that all nominations were correct, although the admins are there to prevent stupid nominations to result in deletions. As can be seen at WT:FFD I did ask beforehand if I should make a mass nomination, and the users there instead advised a nomination per file, which I then carried on with.Jonteemil (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:FFD is a slightly strange process because, unlike quite a few other consensus-based deletion processes, the admin closing instructions specifically lean towards deleting by default any nominated images that haven't received further discussion or objection. I very much appreciate that the deletions were implemented by the closing admin, but in my view your omission of tagging the images to alert the articles they're used in probably impeded people who would have objected from noticing and participating. I'm on record in the past of having concerns about NFCC#8 being poorly managed at FFD because it's so subjective, and nominating so many things in a boilerplate style actively discourages the nuance that's required for assessing it properly. ~ mazca ^talk 21:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Restore the files that weren't commented on. The bulk of nominations with a lack of notifications and tagging is likely to have had, intentional or not, a significant negative effect on any participation that might have made an attempt to justify NFCC8. I don't particularly object to unattended FFDs being closed as delete if nobody objects, but when the criterion is subjective and circumstances seem tailor-made to prevent people who might object from noticing, this seems inappropriate. ~ mazca ^talk 21:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• List By my count, here are the 75 images that were deleted with either zero or one !vote (I included the ones with one !vote because in most cases that !vote did not contain substantive reasoning that assured me that the outcome was correct). Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Support restoration of all files. Jonteemil I do not know if you have read our WP:BOT policy but what you just did was create a huge mess. I am guessing it is not your intention, but mass nominating files for deletion puts an unnecessary backlog. I am also going to see if we can procedural keep the rest of the files that this user nominated for deletion. Whether you used a bot or not is out of the question, but there is a key thing under WP:MEATBOT that prohibits using bot-like editing unless if the editor can show that the edits are productive. If this happens again, I suggest a partial block from WP:FFD as this is one big mess to have to clean up. Aasim 07:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Mdaniels5757: As far as I can see, all the ones that User:SixFourThree agreed with did indeed fail NFCC#8, so you could possibly remove those from the list. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I got Restore-a-lot almost working here (see User:Alexis Jazz/Restore-a-lot.js), that may save the admins some tedious work. See User:Alexis Jazz/common.js for how to load the gadget. Tested on the collapsed list by Mdaniels5757 above and on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 14. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: can you top-post a note about Restore-a-lot in this discussion? Wouldn't want the admin who handles this to miss it and get repetitive strain injury from restoring everything by hand. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I read over your comment a few times, but I really don't understand what you want me to do. Sorry. Govvy (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: Never mind, I've done it myself. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)I've already expressed my concerns about this at WT:FFD. I've also looked at a number of files and posted !votes in a number of the individual discussions: sometimes "keep", sometimes "delete", and sometimes just a comment. While I think these files were nominated in good faith, the problems in taking such an approach were pointed out before the files were all nominated and this approach wasn't recommended.
  Whether 200+ files were nominated in a single edit or whether 200+ files were nominated in multiple edits seems irrelevant. All of the files were nominated for the same reasons (even when that reasoning was suspect or clearly didn't apply). The problem isn't necessarily that files were nominated for the wrong reasons, but that so many were nominated by the same person on the same day that the mistakes that were made all appear to be careless mistakes. I asked Jonteemil if they checked the files they were nominating and the response in the WT:FFD discussion was yes; however, so many files were nominated that such a thing seems quite hard to reasonably do, particularly since some files nominated were licensed as PD and are not even subject to WP:NFCC.
  FFD is set up so that nominations which aren't objected to often end being the de-facto consensus unless the reviewing admin decides to !vote; so, technically Jonteemil didn't delete any files and this ANI heading should reflect that in fairness to them. However, trying to argue WP:NOTTHEM (which seems to be the case) by saying the deleting admin is more at fault because they actually deleted the file. If you throw lots of crap at a wall for someone else to clean up, you can't come back later and complain that the wall is still dirty because they missed some spots. There are already very few admins or other editors trying to sort out files at FFD and overburdening the process like this was a mistake. Many of these files could've probably been resolved in other ways; many of the already deleted files might have still ended up at FFD and even deleted, but some might have been resolved by simply asking about them at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC.
  Personally, when I nominate a file at FFD, I always try to notify the uploader and also use {{ffdc}} so that others are aware. If I prod or CSD a file, I try to use {{deletable image-caption}}. This still might not be enough for some people, but not adding ffdc templates to articles because it isn't required to do so is a mistake in my opinion; it makes it seem as if the nominator is trying to avoid doing one extra step that might help better resolve the issues in the end. Many files are added to article by editors who didn't upload them. Many editors who uploaded a file are no longer around. Adding something to the page(s) where the file is being used seems like good practice. I get that adding a template to the captions of 200+ files is a tedious thing to do, particularly if you can't use a script; however, if you're going to nominate 200+ files for discussion on the same day, people are going to expect you to make a bit more effort when you do. Otherwise, you're going to end up at ANI or being discussed somewhere like what happened here simply because of the huge number of files involved. — Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned this went straight to ANI. No opposition to restorations of no-comment FfDs, obviously. For anyone who is unaware, no-comment XfD's amount to a PROD and may be contested via WP:REFUND for any reason. -FASTILY 01:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fastily: Are you saying you're not interested in undeleting any of them? If the Tottenham image I wanted restored, it was deleted once before by mistake and was restored. Yet, it got deleted again, it's clear that image wasn't reviewed properly. Which asks me how many others were not reviewed properly by you or the nominator. Govvy (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Based on my spot-check of these deletions, these appear to be alternative or historical logos, which, per the NFCC and WP:LOGO, are not inclusive by default and require a specific fair use rationale to justify including them, rather than the simple standard boilerplate fair use text. These logos appear to have all failed that basic requirement, and Jon articulated this in his deletion nominations, so it's hard to see the deletions themselves as being unjustified. Still, this is a simple technicality, one that could probably be easily and unanimously resolved with a new fair use rationale boilerplate that applies to these situations. I don't think taking the approach of going on a deletion spree based on a resolvable technicality is particularly constructive to the project, in fact, I'd go so far as to call it disruptive, particularly when done without appropriate tagging or notifications. Yes, copyright is important, but so is fair use. Fair use is a legal right. If fair use rationale wording needs to be tweaked to avoid deletion, then that's a problem that needs to be resolved. But then, the solution is to at least try to fix the wording first, isn't it? Not to go on some mass purging of images from the project without giving them a chance to even be fixed. Poor showing from Jonteemil, I wholly endorse the blanket reversion of these deletions (with the caveat that an alternative fair use rationale for historical/alternate logos is developed) along with a thorough trouting. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: I think it's important to keep in mind that non-free content and fair use are not exactly the same when it comes to Wikipedia. I think that trying to nominate so many files at basically the same time for the same reason wasn't a very wise thing to do; however, I also think it's important to keep in mind that even though fair use might be a legal right, non-free content use isn't. Some of the files nominated actually had more problems than simply a "boilerplate rationale" or the WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and WP:NFCC#8 issues they were nominated for, and these files probably should be deleted. The problem was that there were also many others that could've been fixed or resolved without resorting to FFD as you rightly point out. The sheer number of the files all nominated at roughly the same time (without only the required notification of the uploader being made) is what is making it hard to sort things out and which is why some of the files nominated have yet to receive any comments other than the nominator's. In addition, some of the nominations such as the ones which involved files licensed as PD being cited for WP:NFCC violations were quite careless and could've been probably avoided if the nominator had just slowed down a bit and not tried to do so much at once, especially after being advised not to do so at WT:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Non-free content is not a "right", obviously, but it is a right in the context of fair use. Okay. Uh. So what? My spot-check gave the impression that this incident is about disputed fair-use content. If you're going to dispute this, I could care less for your rhetorical musings, just present the diffs, thank you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 14:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what diffs you need. Some of the files nominated for NFCC violations probably could’ve been resolved in ways other than FFD. Some of the files nominated had other NFCC issues besides NFCC#8; so, it was probably a good thing to bring them to FFD. Some files (like File:Columbus Blue Birds.jpg), however, weren’t licensed as non-free which means they aren’t subject to the NFCC. So many files were nominated that it’s just taking time to sort them all out. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Since the two football-related images mentioned above were nominated with the rationale "Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8" when they do clearly have critical commentary on them, I have restored them both. I have not investigated the others, but it is possible that the others that had no !votes in the FFD may have similar issues. Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: Since you've restored those two files, it might be better to re-add them back to the articles where they were being used and perhaps undo the close of the FFDs where they were being discussed. You can !vote in the discussion or relist the discussion (your choice). Right now the files you restored are orphaned non-free use and are going to be tagged for CSD per WP:F5 if they remain as such. It would better to let the FFDs be resolved by consensus to "keep" in my opinion, which is something that shouldn't be too hard if the nomination was way off base. I'm not sure with respect to at least one of the files you restored (File:Aston Villa FC logo (2000-2007).svg) that WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and WP:NFCC#8 was actually being met; so, this nomination might not have been totally off base. There is some critical commentary on the team badge in the relevant article section, but it seems to primary be about the current logo used in the main infobox, and not about the file you restored. Please understand that I'm not criticizing you for restoring the files; only suggesting that it might be better to allow the FFD discussions about them to continue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Less argumentation, more diffs please. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 14:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m not sure why diffs are needed. The files that Black Kite mentioned he restored seem to be File:Aston Villa FC logo (2000-2007).svg and File:Tottenham Hotspur old logo.png. After these files were deleted by Fastily at FFD, their syntax was removed from the articles they were being used in by a bot; however, when the files were restored, they weren’t re-added back to their respective articles. Non-free files have to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7 and those that aren’t will eventually be tagged by a bot for CSD per WP:F5. I’m not sure how you provide a diff for something like that. Do you want diffs for the file when they were deleted at FFD, when their syntax was removed by the bot or when they were restored? — Marchjuly (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• My mistake. I restored the wrong Aston Villa logo (it should have been File:Aston Villa.svg, not File:Aston Villa FC logo (2000-2007).svg). I have fixed that, and both that and the Tottenham one have been restored to their articles. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• ​Thank you for going back and rechecking on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Doesn't this whole topic belong on WP:DRV?—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: As to the deletions themselves, yes; as to the behavior of the nominator, no. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  There's nothing actionable about the behavior of the nominator. They were conducting straightforward NFCC enforcement. Like I already said, I spot-checked the deleted files listed above and they all failed the requirement for alternate or historical logos, namely having a specific fair use rationale to justify their inclusion, rather than the standard boilerplate text. I don't like this rule, I think it's stupid, but it is the rule, and the deletions were justified. Some user is arguing that this was not the case with all the nominations, but when asked repeatedly, cannot provide a single example, instead saying "I'm not sure why diffs are needed". Black Kite has restored two images, one of which still does not have a specific fair use rationale as is required by policy. So, that's what this thread has accomplished. We got one image that was correctly deleted restored, and no one's attempting to fix it, in spite of all the outrage and interest above. If we can't fix one, why the hell would it a good idea to blanket restore all of them? It's been clarified that uncontested deletions can be reinstated by request, literally anyone can resolve this, yet not even a week later, no one's interested. How many people above want the images restored? But, oh, there's actually problems with the images that need to be fixed? Crickets. Everyone wants to join in on the drama and argue relentlessly but not a single person wants to put in the work of actually restoring the images and writing up new the new fair use rationales. It's pretty sad. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I guess you’re referring to me with Some user is arguing that this was not the case with all the nominations, but when asked repeatedly, cannot provide a single example, instead saying "I'm not sure why diffs are needed"., but again I’m not sure what diffs you need or why you need them. I did cite File:Columbus Blue Birds.jpg as an example of a file that was licensed as public domain that was nominated for discussion by Jontimeel because NFCCP violations. So, here is the diff of Jontimeel nominating that file for discussion (diff). Do you need different diff? The questions I asked about the two files restored by Black Kite were sorted out per Black Kite above. Black Kite posted he mixed up a couple files and restored the wrong one by mistake. He also re-added the files he restored back to their respective articles so they are no longer orphans. Do you need diffs for those things? I’ve commented/!voted in quite a number of the FFD discussions started by Jonteemil on that day. Do you want diffs for all those edits?

  I’ve both agreed with the nom and disagree with the nom, but I’ve been trying to sort this out. I’ve also noticed that you don’t seem to have not participated in a single one of those FFDs; so, it seems a bit unfair for you criticize others for not doing more. You’ve posted you did a spot check but you didn’t say which files they were. Some of the FFDs started on that day have been re-listed, but there are still plenty being discussed; so, perhaps you can help sort some of the remaining ones out by doing another spot check. Of course, as an admin, you can even close some of the discussion and delete files if you think it’s warranted.

  Finally, I wasn’t advocating that all the files be restored; I wasn’t advocating that even one deleted file be restored. I’m also not advocating that anyone be blocked or otherwise sanctioned; I just don’t think it was wise to try and nominate 200+ files to FFD in a single day and that some like Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 August 14#File:HollywoodStarsCap.png probably could’ve been resolved in other ways as was suggested by two admins (Masem and King of Hearts) experienced in resolving file related issues here and here on July 5 when Jonteemil asked about doing such a thing at WT:FFD a month before all these files were nominated. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  As MarchJuly pointed out, one of the first things I saw when this was proposed was several of these could have been tagged as uncopyrightable in the US for not meeting the threshold of originality -- many users don't know this and thus likely assumed non-free/copyrighted when uploading. At the relevant discussion before the mass nom, I warned Jonteemil that these should not be mass nomed but instead reviewed and those that did not meet the threshold be converted to PD images. That step was not done, which is part of the problem here and why mass nominations of non-free by "novice" people to the NFCC area is not a good thing. We had warned them not to do this but they went ahead and now has caused a mess. --Masem (t) 06:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Masem: I think it's unfair that I keep seeing people saying I was warned to do what I've now done since that isn't quite accurate. There wasn't a formal warning or anything like that. Also "NFCC applied to free image" is per WP:FFD a valid reason for an FFD. Additionally I think that a one-by-one nomination should eliminate the risk of deleting files that actually should be kept, since discussions are held for each file seperately. If then an admin decides to delete a file before consensus has been achieved I have trouble seeing my blame in that.Jonteemil (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  I believe you're misunderstanding what is meant by the "NFCC applied to free image" bullet point at the top of WP:FFD. The entire bullet point reads as follows:

  NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.

  I think this has to do with a file being incorrectly licensed as non-free content, and not with applying WP:NFCC to freely licensed files. So, if you had nominated a freely licensed file for discussion because you thought it was possibly unfree, then would've been worth discussing. Instead you nominated some PD licensed files for not complying with WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#cite_note-4 which don't apply to such files.

  As for not getting a formal warning, you asked about this at WT:FFD and two administrators advised you that it wouldn't be a wise thing to do. A little over a month later, you went ahead and "mass nominated" all of these files for discussion anyway. Editors usually receive a formal warning after doing something (not a month before they do something), and I don't think either Masem or King of Hearts expected you to nominate all of those files like you did a month after they advised you not to do so. It's not like you posted "I'm going open FFDs for 200+ non-free files (including some that are not non-free or might not be non-free) in a little over one month unless someone formally warns me not to do so." at WT:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Maxim.il89: Canvassing and disruptive editing

• Maxim.il89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Chris Mullin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I warned Maxim.il89 about WP:CANVASSING about an RM that they initiated on American basketball player Chris Mullin, but they have still continue. They have also been WP:DISRUPTIVE by not listening to others feedback, not WP:AGF about opposers, and flooding the RM discussion with attaboy's for move supporters and repeating arguments (WP:WABBITSEASON) to opposers.

The canvassing timeline is as follows:

1. 00:39, 22 August: Maxim.il89 nominates the RM [25]
2. 00:46–00:58 Maxim.il89 canvasses talk pages of 7 users who have previously expressed support for the move or are editors of the British politican's page, Chris Mullin (politician) [26] Representative non-neutral message here
3. 13:47, 23 August: Maxim.il89 warned on their talk page about canvassing [27]
4. 19:39–19:44: Maxim.il89 canvasses 10 WikiProjects with ties to the British politician 23 August 2020[28] Representative non-neutral message touting the Brit's accomplishments here
5. 20:01–20:42: Another editor, Rikster2, addressses Maxim.il89's imbalanced notifications by notifying WikiProjects listed on the basketball player's talk page[29] Rikster2 discloses these notifications on the RM thread [30] Representative neutral notification here
6. 07:43, 24 August: Maxim.il89 falsely accuses Rikster2 of canvassing Pot, meet kettle. You said how you'd list it on the basketball and NBA pages, which you now have... and you dare to accuse me of not being neutral? [31]
7. 07:48: Maxim.il89 notifies another project [32]

Other editor's have warned Maxim.il89 on their talk page that they are canvassing and being disruptive, but Maxim.il89 does not listen.[33]

Maxim.il89 needs to stop canvassing and WP:BLUDGEONing the RM discussion with non-stop banter.—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I was one of those canvassed, and had been thinking of arguing strongly in support. The scheme may have WP:BACKFIREd, because I've now posted a neutral comment of general relevance instead. Narky Blert (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but the canvassing I'm reporting is independent of the merits of the RM discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Sure ;-) Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• First of all, I wasn't "canvassing" - I invited people who had previously taken part in the debate.
• Secondly, I've just become active on Wikipedia (like, properly), and didn't know those canvassing rules - after being notified, I've changed the formulation significantly when posting about the topics in various connected WikiProjects.
• Thirdly, Bagumba is a basketball fan, a member of WikiProject basketball, and he isn't neutral on the topic. I feel like his [over]reaction is more to do with him being personally insulted that I've dared to argue that the whole world doesn't obsess about basketball and doesn't know this basketball player.
• I must admit, I giggled when I found out someone with Bagumba's attitude is an admin. He's far from neutral or fair, in my opinion. Maxim.il89 (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  In future if you want people to participate in/reply to a discussion, just ping them. Giraffer (munch) 14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you, but how do you pink someone? What is a ping? That's great if there's a way to invite people without having to type a message! Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  Two key points. Even if you the way you select people to notify is perfectly fine, you are still required to use a neutral message. Please re-read the canvassing guidelines since they are clear on this.

  But also, the claim that "I wasn't "canvassing" - I invited people who had previously taken part in the debate" seem to be incorrect. Notifying all participants of previous discussions is generally okay provided you invite all. The only acceptable exceptions would be anyone not welcome to participate i.e. indefed or banned, and cases where notification isn't necessary (those who are already taking part). Selective notifying participants who support your PoV is not okay and once again the canvassing guidelines make this clear. Frankly you don't need to read them figure out that if you only invite those you share your PoV, you're canvassing.

  I had a quick look at Talk:Chris Mullin#Requested move 15 May 2019 along with the link above [34] and can see that you did not seem to invite anyone who supported the move, but you did invite allsome of those who opposed. I checked one of these User:PC78 and they did not participate until well after your notifications [35] (their last contribution to the talk page was with the previous move request). I suspect the main reason they are there is because User:Rikster2 seems to have fixed your selective notifications [36].

  Note that I'm very far from a basketball fan and frankly don't care to look into the details of that move to comment. So this has zero to do with any personal concern about the content/title issue but instead your behaviour which looks fairly bad.

  Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 16:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Well, I didn't know about the canvassing and neutrality laws, isn't it obvious? I'd never invited people to a discussion about.
  • However, you seem to be OK with the guy who posted it in the basketball WikiProject and not the ones involving politics. I mean, that's not really neutral.
  • I didn't just invite those who had participated in the previous one and I never said that, I said I also invited those who have a history of editing those pages. Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The basketball Wikiproject notifications only happened after you notified a bunch of other Wikiprojects but not the the basketball ones. You seem to have acknowledged this below but are claiming that the editor planned to notify the basketball ones. Except they never said that and regardless, since you were the first one to selectively notify Wikiprojects you are going to come across as worse. And I think you've misunderstood my key point. It seems clear you selectively notified people who you believed shared your point of view. That was wrong, end of story. It doesn't matter how you figured this out. Don't do it again. Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Let's add personal attacks to the list too. See [37]. -- Calidum 14:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You didn't have to link anything, he did it again in this discussion above (his 4th bullet). Rikster2 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't you think "attack" is a harsh word for a bit of sarcasm and banter? What exactly are the rules on that? Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• The targeted nature of the notices (directed only to those voting his way in prior discussion) and the non-neutral content (advocating for a particular outcome) make this a clear violation. Further, the refusal to accept or acknowledge the concerns after being notified by multiple parties suggests some sort of sanction (perhaps a 24 hour block) is needed. Cbl62 (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I made it clear I didn't know those rules then... and I changed the message formulation for those I invited afterwards on WikiProjects. However, if blocking people excites you, whatever. Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  (nac) I have CANVASSed discussions; by trying to post neutral invitations on WikiProject pages, and to notify every editor I can find from earlier discussions. Selective partisan canvassing is likely to awake my inner contrarian. It hacks me off, and may get the opposite of the desired result. Narky Blert (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• The diffs in this report show clear canvassing and personal attacks (plus there's the one in this thread above). I agree with CBL, there seems to be no acknowledgment of the problem. I'm not sure a 24hr block would make a difference. A tban seems like too much paperwork and a full indef seems like overkill. Perhaps an indef partial block from the article as an ordinary admin action. Lev!vich 18:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I've clearly stated how after being notified about the canvassing rules I changed my formulation (see what I wrote in the relevant WikiProjects for evidence). Honestly, too many people here get a thrill from blocking people. Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment Sorry for the harsh words, but I remember someone telling me too many admins on Wikipedia have their whole lives revolving around the website and get the thrill of their lives from blocking people... and I see it's true, from those proposing to block me LOL. Here's a fact, once someone notified me of the rules about canvassing, I made sure to change the formulation I was using, which is visible in the neutral formulation I used in the various WikiProjects I posted it on, so that kinda shows how I made sure to apply the rules the moment I was notified about them.

Issue number 2 is this, I was accused of attacking people or insulting people... what?! Get out of the house, people. There's a massive difference between being sarcastic and insulting people. I've never used a swear word against anyone here, never humiliated anyone... I use sarcasm, well, tough luck. People do seem to get a thrill here from blowing things out of proportion and coming up with silly "punishments."

Got it, you're not allowed to state your view when inviting people to a discussion... great, I applied that the moment I was informed about it.

The guy who posted this literally used the fact I said to someone "Pot, meet kettle" as an example of me being insulting. I mean, if that's his idea of "insults," he must've been crying a lot at school, because clearly he has a very wide definition to what "insulting" actually means - it was a response to someone who posted about this discussion in the basketball WikiProject, but for some reason didn't post it in the political ones... and then had the audacity of accusing me of posting it only in the political WikiProjects (which is actually true... because he stated he'd post it in the basketball ones, so that was only a matter of balancing it out). Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't say you insulted me. He said you accused me of canvassing, which you did. However, that was not correct as I actually didn't inform anyone until you'd engaged in biased canvassing and I felt like I needed to "unbias" it by informing other interested parties and projects that you chose not to notify. I also used neutral notices at project and user pages. So I did not in any way canvas the discussion, as you did. Also, you are still Wikipedia:BLUDGEONing the discussion over there. Nobody needs to hear your case for why the basketball player isn't the primary topic in your eyes - you have made the same point or two at least 10-15 times. Just let the discussion happen - some people are going to agree with you and some won't and then some poor admin will need to come in and make a determination of what to do. Rikster2 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I used neutral notices as well after being informed of the canvasing views, so here we go... I've learnt from it, I hope you have as well. A short look at my contribution shows I had never been involved in moving pages, WikiProject talk pages, or debates prior to that. It was a new thing, I didn't know the rules, now I do.

On the plus side, the previous debate on the page move was a joke. Did it even get to 10 people? No each opinion by itself has more than 10 people taking part in it, and this is what it's all about, getting people involved.

I've learned the rule on this one, great.

I do feel like people, on both of the discussion, don't bother reading what others have to say, which is a shame. Not in the sense of changing their views, but in the sense of becoming more informed. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You were informed here 14:36/39, 23 August 2020 of the requirement for neutral notifications. Instead of trying to understand what the problem was you said "agree to disagree" at 14:57. You were further implored to reconsider at 15:13 but again largely ignored the concerns in your follow up at at 19:34. Despite that, you continued to leave non neutral notifications between 19:39 at 19:44, 23 August 2020.

Maybe your second set of notifications weren't quite as bad as your first, but they were still clearly not neutral. If you did not understand this, that illustrates the problem with your approach. If you have talked to the people who had approached you about your proposed message, they likely would have told you it was still a problem. Alternatively you could have asked at the WP:Teahouse or WP:Helpdesk. Or you could have just followed the proposal you'd already been given. Instead you largely ignored any attempts to help you and so still made non neutral notification.

Also for someone who is faulting others reading comprehension, you seem to have problems with that yourself. AFAICT, no one ever said they would post to the basketball Wikiprojects. Rikster2 did make an IMO unhelpful joke in the circumstances [38]. They later followed that up with a vague and (and again IMO) unhelpful comment [39] which also can't reasonably be taken as a concrete plan to post on the basketball Wikiprojects. They did eventually post on the basketball Wikiprojects but only after you had posted on a bunch of politics and UK ones. The whole situation is a mess, but it's difficult to escape the obvious conclusion that you seem to the the primary contributor since you were always the one to initiate notification first and every time did it non neutrally.

Even if you genuinely believed Rikster2 had a plan to notify the basket ball wikiprojects, your best solution was to talk to them about it and try and come with a combined list of Wikiprojects both basketball and sports and UK or politics related that you agreed should be notified. Your second best solution was to either wait until Rikster2 really only notified basketball wikiprojects and notify those politics and UK ones you felt they missed, or come up by yourself with a list of basketball and politics and UK wikiprojects and notify them all neutrally rather than only notifying politics and UK ones. The worst option which you chose was to preemptively notify only the non basketball and sports Wikiprojects.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hold on. If you want to call my joking about notifying the WP “unhelpful” so be it, but it was in response to canvassing that had already had happened and was trying to draw a parallel to what canvassing would look like in terms I thought would be clearly understood. I explicitly said “if I were that kind of guy” at the end - any reasonable person should have realized that meant I had not done so and didn’t plan to (or at a minimum anyone concerned about it could have taken two seconds to verify if any notices had been placed at those project Talk pages before acting). There isn’t a thing wrong with my second comment. Which came after this user was trying to accuse me of canvassing to justify his own actions. I am not the issue here and it would be great if the admins who monitor this board would do something to curtail the WP:BLUDGEONing by this user, which continues at the RM (and will continue in this discussion I am sure) and is the primary issue now. Rikster2 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Maxim.il89, when you say about another editor, especially an administrator, He's far from neutral or fair, in my opinion, and you do not back that up with links to diffs, that is a personal attack. Hiding behind "in my opinion" does not protect you. You would do well to listen to the gentle feedback being given to you here. This is not a grade school playground; sarcasm and unfounded accusations are not part of the normal back and forth among editors who do not know each other well. When what you think of as "banter" is being identified by the community as harmful, it is you, not the community, who needs to modify their behavior. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Another personal attack Maxim.il89 wrote at 21:24, 24 August: This User:Bagumba guy started sending block threats ...[40] Please kindly provide diffs of where this occured. Per WP:NPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I meant something very simple - with new members, it's good to introduce them to the rules rather than go on a power trip and start sending threats of block.

I'm new here in terms of page moves and discussions, and when I am informed of the rules, obviously I abide by them. If I had known about the rules on how to invite people and who to invite to discussions, I would've followed the rules.

You seem to enjoy running to the admin noticeboard rather than actually discuss with people.

For example, I've just had a very constructive discussion with Nil Einne and find that I've learnt a lot of new information on how to go about such things (and how to not go about such things) in the future, or to be precise, to pink everyone involved in the previous discussion... and use template messages to avoid bias and stuff.

Yes, this won't allow you to flaunt you're an admin ;-) But it will get better results and communication. Maxim.il89 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you strike that entire statement, Maxim, because it's taunting and bordering on a personal attack. Not a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, if no actions are going to be taken with the editor, could I ask an uninvolved admin to come and make a decision on the page move recommendation at Talk:Chris Mullin? There are close to 40 !votes and the discussion is getting repetitive. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Those are not "votes" but opinions. From what I've understood, it's not decided by a vote count. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Rikster2 said "!vote", which also means there is no accepted reason to repeat the same opinion as if it were a vote or to persuade each opponent to change their !vote.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the resulting 40 formal !votes and lots of interspersed commentary likely made that unsuitable for WP:RMNAC.—Bagumba (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

CLCStudent AIV reports & unacknowledged concerns

I bring this here reluctantly because the bulk of the work that CLCStudent does is to the benefit of Wikipedia. However, a too large percentage of his reports to WP:AIV require close scrutiny from administrators monitoring the board because they are premature reports, and the user is not responsive to concern being raised. These users/IPs are sent to AIV with often a single warning and one or two edits without being necessarily egregious. Administrators have raised the concerns with CLCStudent but these concerns generally go unanswered and unacknowledged. This thread from a couple of weeks ago sits unanswered with concerns from myself and two other administrators. Other examples in their archives include User_talk:CLCStudent/Archive_241#4im, User_talk:CLCStudent/Archive_155#Level_3_warning_on_trivial_edit,_by_a_new_user_with_no_other_edits, User talk:CLCStudent/Archive 205, User_talk:CLCStudent/Archive_211#AIV, User talk:CLCStudent/Archive 190, and many more if you search “warning” in his archives.

The general messages behind all of the posts are basically the same: CLCStudent generally only uses level 3 or 4 warnings even for single acts of vandalism. He frequently reports to AIV without a user editing after a warning or after breaking his imposed level 4im warning with a second non-egregious vandalism edit. He frequently reports users who had not edited in several hours.

I’m bringing this here today because I’ve had to decline action on three reports in the last couple of hours from CLCStudent.

They include:

• This IP who hadn’t edited in 5.5 hours and not since their final warning
• This IP who hadn’t edited in 2 hours
• This IP who got a single warning level 1 warning from another user at 10:06, didn’t edit after that, and was reported at 12:05

These are 3 of the 16 users that he reported to AIV in an hour’s span today. Again, while the vast majority of the users he reports wind up needing to be blocked, these kinds of reports lead admins to need to scrutinize all of his reports carefully to make sure proper procedures are being followed which takes up time.

Note that I am just talking about the AIV reports here. I could give plenty more examples of just the warnings that are issued for a single edit caught by the edit filter that are outside procedure.

Yes, I realize that this may come off as sounding like I’m a vandal apologist. I don’t believe I’ve seen a single example of CLCStudent warning or reporting someone who hadn’t committed some form of vandalism. My concern, though, is that with our well-established procedures in place, CLCStudent continues to follow his own procedures without responding to the issues raised by numerous users, including at least 5 administrators, on his talk page.

How do we get them to acknowledge these concerns and start working within our procedures? only (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate CLCStudent's efforts in this area, as he is probably one of our most prolific vandalism monitors; it seems like his reporting has improved following the recent feedback, as Only has noted. However, it would be nice to see some additional improvement, as well as some acknowledgement of these concerns from CLCStudent (e.g., responding to this thread). To add to the examples above, This user had 1 edit and two filter hits (each hit triggering 3 filters) at 15:34; they were reported at 15:35 without having been given a warning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Block-on-sight for social-media spam seems within admin discretion by policy, albeit at the harsh end for an IP. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• They have edited since the notice was posted on their talk page. Looking forward, if they continue to ignore this post or future posts and continue the behavior, odds are they will eventually be blocked by someone just to get their attention and force them to respond to these concerns. However, CLC is not yet at that point. I hope it doesn't come to that. @CLCStudent: please respond at your earliest convenience. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I wonder if some type of if/then flow chart would be beneficial for them? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I decide which template to start with base in the severity of the behavior of the user. CLCStudent (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

So like why does User talk:24.55.162.19 get a level 3 warning based on their one edit that tripped the filter? only (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Warnings and reporting at WP:AIV have been a perennial issue and not because of CLCStudent. There has been inconsistency and variance from policy in blocking since before I became an admin.Different admins have different thresholds for blocking. I don't see this as remediable and the RCP's rely on the admins to make the decision. And it's unfair to say CLCStudent's reports need extra scrutiny. It's our job to check each one before blocking --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly our job to look at each report before blocking; but there's a difference between reports where you can look quickly and see 4 or more vandalism edits with clear warnings on the user talk page vs. many of CLCStudent's reports where there's one or two edits and an immediate level 3+ warning and you have to compare report time to warning and edit times. only (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)However, the best solution ,@CLCStudent:, is to only warn if the vandalism is fresh and to lay on a full set of templates before reporting. (as only has said) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If clearly foul language or insults are present, I go straight to level 3. I will agree to lay off with reporting old vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The edit in the filter log from the IP above that you gave a level 3 was "A writting procces is when ilu alondra." I don't see how that meets a "foul language or insult" level to get a level 3 warning as you gave it for a single edit filter trigger. only (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your promise to lay off reporting old vandalism. What we really need from you is to follow the typical process for addressing and reporting vandalism, but more importantly, to engage with editors, especially admins, who raise concerns about your edits and reports. In my original post here, there are several examples of people questioning your practices that you just ignored. We need you to discuss so we can all work together to improve the project. only (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I've turned down a number of CLCStudent's AIV reports (I forget which) and once blocked him for assuming bad faith and violating 3RR (there was no malice involved, just an over-excited "eek vandalism, revert, revert, revert!" except IIRC it wasn't anything so clear cut to warrant an exemption); however in the general sense he does keep an eye on vandalism and any complaints in that area from me aren't really anything more than "he's occasionally annoying". I am, however, fed up of him !voting "Oppose - not the best fit" at RfA, which at best has no effect, and at worst involves badgering from about 6 other editors telling him to improve the quality of his arguments there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• @CLCStudent: I was reviewing WP:AIV this evening, and in general I would agree that it would be a good idea to limit your reports to only the most urgent cases, and it doesn't seem like you have done so. Instead of putting users on AIV that have only made 1 or 2 edits, e.g. [41], try to limit reports to cases where there is clear persistence, i.e. they are clearly not going to stop after just 1 or 2 edits. This would really help keep the AIV backlog to an efficient level and eliminate the need for you to contact administrators directly in urgent cases. Mz7 (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to delete this if it's considered "off-topic", or if I just shouldn't be commenting here at all, but I've had similar concerns about CLCStudent for a while now, (heck, one of those examples of him ignoring messages on his talk page was a message from me), and I feel I ought to bring up that on at least a couple of occasions, he's not only ignored perfectly valid queries, but has deleted them entirely.

• Here, he deletes a somewhat impolite but otherwise valid query about a false positive.
• Here, after giving an IP not one, but two warnings for legitimate edits, he deletes their very polite, and very valid explanation as to why their edits were not vandalism.
• And here, after rollbacking a new IP editor, who had made a flawed, but genuinely good-faith edit (which also happens to be misuse of Rollback), he proceeds to delete the IP's message when they very politely ask him what exactly they did wrong, thus depriving them the chance of getting an answer from anyone else.

Also worth noting is that in none of these three cases did he even remove the falsely given warnings in question.

Incidentally, the last of these actually led me to raise some concerns, albeit at the wrong venue (namely, The Teahouse) since I wasn't sure where to take it, and without mentioning CLCStudent by name. I was actually referred to ANI at the time, but ultimately I decided not to escalate it that far (not least since I was slightly concerned I may have been unwittingly cherry-picking). I don't know if it has any relevance to this incident, but this was the post in question: [42]. Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thegreatluigi: Gosh. I know WP:ADMINACCT doesn't technically apply to non-admins, but if you take on administrative type work, you should be accountable for your actions if the queries are presented in good faith and free from aspersions and personal attacks. I'm also unimpressed with his revert here - at worst you could say the IP was pushing a POV without supplying a source, but that's not vandalism and shouldn't warrant a warning. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

CLCStudent, I agree strongly with Ritchie on that one - a 4im vandalism for that is nuts, at most it's a level 1 'NPOV' template. And Thegreatluigi is right - we all make mistakes when patrolling, it's inevitable, but if someone comes to your talk with a legitimate complain you owe them an apology and an explanation, even if they're a bit rude. (I mean, they're bound to be pissed off - you just deleted their work). I appreciate your hard work in patrolling, but I'd also appreciate an indication that you're hearing what people are saying in this thread. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

So far we've had about 8 people comment in the threads about concerns with CLCStudent's edits over 4 days, and in that time CLCStudent has commented in here twice: once to say he'd stop reporting stale users and once to say he goes straight to level 3 if there's foul language (but no explanation given when shown examples of going straight to level 3+ without foul language). Meanwhile, they've made about 1150 other edits in those 4 days. This is a common thing, too, where you'll see in talk page archives that someone will raise a criticism or ask for clarification but it'll go unanswered, or it'll be several days later that he responds (several are noted here in this thread and several are evident on his current talk page).

The originally raised AIV concern is still on-going like this report yesterday of an IP that got a first-level warning from a bot at 13:30 and was reported by CLCStudent at 13:31 with no edits after the 13:30 warning. Or this one who got a lvl 4im and a report to AIV simultaneously.

How do we get them to engage and consider these concerns with their edits? only (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Having seen this revert (it's POV pushing, not vandalism), I have removed his rollback flag. Now he's got to engage. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have been reading these concerns and have been trying to improve the way I go about situations. CLCStudent (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Really? Then please explain the following:

At 2:40, just 10 minutes after you left the above response user:Tuba12321332131 made a blatant vandalism edit that was caught by the edit filter [43]. It appears to have been the user's first edit ever. You immediately responded (also at 2:40) with a level 4 warning for triggering the edit filter [44]. Also at 2:40 the user made an empty edit request [45] You reverted the empty edit request at 2:41 and immediately (at 2:41) reported the user at ANI AIV for vandalism after a final warning.[46]

I'm not seeing an improvement. Meters (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

For your information, that user was attempting to make rude comments about gay people. CLCStudent (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Why are you pointing that out to me? I obviously know what the edit what as I linked to it, and I called it blatant vandalism. The point is that just 10 minutes after you said that you were "trying to improve the way I go about situations" you jumped straight to a level 4 warning for an editor's first edit ever, and one that never even made it past the edit filter. And one minute later you had the user at AIV for making a blank edit request. And there were several other cases shortly afterwards where you made similar high level warnings for one of two edit filter reports. In my opinion you do not seem to understand the problem. Meters (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I will do. For edits that involve blatant vandalism but no offensive language, I will try to start with a level 2 warning. For edits like the one above for which I have been starting with level 4, I will try to start with a level 3. CLCStudent (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Meters: To be completely fair, user:Tuba12321332131 was indeed blocked just for those two infractions, so CLCStudent may have had a point on that one. Thegreatluigi (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I would indef blocked for that as well, or indeed any editor who's first edit is to blank an article and replace it with hompohobic ranting in ALL CAPS. Hope the door doesn't hit them on the way out. (Example here) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We're not discussing whether the block was justified. We're discussing whether CLCStudent| is continuing to leave inappropriate user talkpage warnings and inappropriate AIV reports. I see no way to justify leaving a level 4 intentional edit filter warning for one edit, and then one minute later reporting the user to AIV after leaving a blank edit request. Leaving a blank edit request is not blatant vandalism. It's not even intentionally disruptive. Many new users incorrectly leave blank edit requests. Meters (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Alistair1978

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

---

Alistair1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello! Not quite sure I'm in the right place here, but User:Alistair1978 has a thing about possessive apostrophes, epcecially in the name of ladies football teams (or, as he prefers, ladies' football teams). Despite being asked recently, and of old, he's going around making lots of semi-automated edits, moving pages and inserting apostrophes into places where they shouldn't be - so for example, he has moved Notts County Ladies F.C. to Notts County Ladies' F.C.. Now the latter might be grammatically correct, but it's not what the team called themselves and there are no sources that use this. He's doing this left, right and centre - could somebody have a word / do something? Chris (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Brichcja, you are required to notify people you report. I have gone and done that for you. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, and thank you. Chris (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Their automated changes seem to reflect their recent page moves of teams with "Ladies" in their title. They haven't edited in the last half hour, so let's wait for them to respond.—Bagumba (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

As stated at WT:FOOTBALL, these moves are bad. GiantSnowman 21:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Revert all page moves as these can be reverted by admins reasonably easily. Although I'm seeing issues with WP:CIR and WP:NOTLISTENING too. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd revert those too, because the apostrophe version is not seen anywhere else. -Koppapa (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Doing... Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Done I have done all the ones related to football teams, but not the ones referring to competitions. What do people think of something like Ulster Ladies' Senior Club Football Championship? Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging @Brichcja, Bagumba, GiantSnowman, Joseph2302, and Koppapa:. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, there's no apostrophe on their website , which I would say implies there shouldn't be one. That contrasts with the "Women's FA Cup" which definitely does have one. It's all confusing because women (plural) and women's (possesive) are spelled differently, but ladies (Plural) and ladies (possessive) are not.... That FA cup belongs to the women - but does the league belong to the ladies? Chris (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. And I think they should probably all be rolled back, and they can use WP:RM if they want to add apostrophes to any articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Black Kite, I see that you moved the pages back without leaving a redirect. The problem is that Alistair1978's automated edits were to change the in-page links to the now deleted title with the apostrophe, so there are tons of dead links now that need to be undone back to the non-apostrophe version. For example, see the incoming links to this deleted apostrophe title.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

We have this problem on a regular basis when pages are returned after a bad move. The page movers don't leave a redirect so all of the original redirects (that were moved to point to the new location) become broken and AnomieBOT III deletes them.

I have created temporary redirects so the bot can move the redirects back to target the right page location. Then the redirects from the bad titles can be deleted. I post this message to editors who correct a lot of bad page moves but this still happens on a weekly basis. If there are page redirects, please leave a redirect from the bad page location to the correct one! It can always be deleted later. The bots need it! If there are no page redirects, never mind! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Talk:Ayurveda

Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Talk page is experiencing a steady stream of SPIs saying the same thing over and over again. I am pretty sure that they are all meatpuppets or sockpuppets. I know that we rarely do this for talk pages, but I am thinking that a short duration semiprotection might result in the sockmaster giving up. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's because of another twitter shit storm fanned by Hindu nationalists. Jimbo tried interacting with them and they tweeted out examples of some "biased" articles: 2020 Delhi riots, 2020 Bangalore riots, Jai Sri Ram and of course Ayurveda. Some OpIndia employees involved, as usual. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I support this, it is disruptive at this point. PainProf (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Also extremely repetitive. Feels like about ten people per day saying the exactly same thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This article has a history of poor mopping going back for years. Wielders of mops should take this opportunity to see if things can be improved. This suggestion from those that have elected to work on the article despite the mopping should be looked upon positively. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried a small, and then a whacking great editnotice to try to turn the volume down, but neither have worked. We've simply been reverting and in some cases blocking over the last few days. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Could you provide a link to the Jimbo twitter shitstorm for the record? Is it this? [47] BirdValiant (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You probably want to ask User:TryKid not Guy Macon. Guy Macon didn't say anything about Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It started (I think) with Jimbo speculating that OpIndia is funded by oil money. The site's English editor responded with a general insult and this resulted in another round of "Wikipedia is anti-Hindu". The specific Ayurveda article was tweeted out by some other Hindu right wing personality that is close to OpIndia. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@TryKid: Thanks for the link. I see that the shitstorm is still ongoing at the current moment and possibly intensifying. Could you link to Jimbo's oil-money speculation as well? Also @Nil Einne: thanks for the correction, my eyes skipped past the indent while I wrote the ping. BirdValiant (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

BirdValiant, here's OpIndia's English editor quote-replying to Jimbo's speculation. Jimbo's speculation was in reply to a now deleted tweet but it was in context of someone asking for update on the March drama (remember that?). It spiraled out of here, you can find more tweets by looking the Sharma's (and others at OpIndia) and Jimbo's timeline. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@TryKid: Thanks for the other link. However, I am not aware of the March drama. Again, for the record, it might be a good idea to include a link to that drama, in case it becomes relevant. Looking at the twitter feeds provided, the volume of responses there is alarming. I expect that that canvassed movement will return after the 48 hour period and, probably, for a long period after that.

I would like to second the exasperation by User:Hob Gadling over this tedious, repetitive, predictable response. It happens every single time. It happened at Indigenous Aryans, it happened at Ayurveda, and I'm sure it'll happen again somewhere else. I know that it's critical to put up a defense of logic, reason, and evidence, but when confronted by a politically- and religiously-motivated movement like Hindutva, it's just endless. Above all, it's boring to me. Instead of reading and improving more interesting subjects, we all are forced to the line of duty in the defense of knowledge. I wish that humanity, collectively, could move on from these ridiculous roadblocks so that we can pursue more worthy subjects and advance the cutting-edge of knowledge. BirdValiant (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Digging for Twitter links on March drama would be impossible. It was discussed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive318#North East Delhi riots and the archives Talk:2020 Delhi riots are filled with OpIndia stuff. You might find the discussions linked at WP:OPINDIA specially helpful. After the March incident, OpIndia regularly publishes articles about Wikipedia. I think the previous OpIndia wave was in early August (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#India/Hindu/Muslim articles). Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Those links are still good to have around, thanks. BirdValiant (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Feel free to undo if undue --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't you mean Do undo if undue? EEng 04:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Camptown ladies sing dis song, Doo-dah! doo-dah! // Camptown race-track five miles long, Oh, doo-dah day! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not undue. I will extend it if we're back in the same place in 48 hours. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this article under DS? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 17:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. But DS is little use against persistent SPAs. Try typing "Avurveda Wikipedia" into a Twitter search and see the issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

OTRS is also getting a lot of emails about this page. I cannot share any more info but it does appear to be coordinated. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting new use of the words "appear to be" that I hadn't come across before. --RexxS (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• @TryKid and BirdValiant: and others; I would advise a lot of caution when linking to twitter posts involving OpIndia and its luminaries. OpIndia was blacklisted here because it outed an editor, and I would be utterly unsurprised if some of those twitter threads included the same information. Unless posting a twitter link here would actually help people trying to fight this flood of nonsense, we're better off without giving them extra publicity. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• We are still,seeing a large amount of disruption. The protection stopped the flood of new accounts posting the same thing over and over, but OpIndia's twitter feed continues to attack Wikipedia and is encouraging talk page posts by editors who have existing accounts and are already extended confirmed. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Related:

• Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
• Talk:Ayurveda#RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76

• Stayfree76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been watching talk:Death of George Floyd, Derek Chauvin and talk:George Floyd for some time. Stayfree76 is a new user (2020-07-02) with under 300 edits. Of those, well over 100 are to these three talk pages, where he advances a pro-police POV often employing novel theories. His mainspace edits are few, and include, for example, this, where he "corrected" Chauvin and Floyd's overlapping shifts as security guards with Chauvin having worked there "as an off duty police officer" whilen Floyd worked as a security guard. I'm not aware that "off duty police officer" is an actual job. His comments on the talk pages are now into WP:NOTFORUM territory, IMO, and are prolonging argument rather than settling any substantive points of content. I suspect that these contentious pages would be quieter and more productive without his input for a while. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Support tban from George Floyd, broadly construed - Stayfree unfortunately takes up an inordinate amount of other editors' time with unhelpful talk page argumentation, which includes a lot of OR and FORUM-type posts, such as substituting what secondary sources say in favor of their own OR or interpretation of primary sources, as well as arguing that various things are against policy when Stayfree appears to really misunderstand the relevant policy. Example:

• Talk:George Floyd/Archive 1#Misleading/False Information, which involves arguing that what is in the article cited to secondary sources should be replaced with their own OR interpretation of a police bodycam transcript. Other editors' repeated entreaties to WP:OR were unheeded. Stayfree then started a duplicate conversation at Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Problem with details as described.
• Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 3#Misinformation in the section Minneapolis police response, wherein he argues that content that is explicitly verified by eight sources in the paragraph at issue is SYNTH. When a ninth source explicitly stating the same thing is shown to Stayfree, Stayfree argued that the paragraph had to go unless the ninth source was added, as if the other eight sources didn't say the same thing.
• There are more examples at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, Talk:George Floyd, Talk:Derek Chauvin, the archives of all three pages, and Stayfree's talk page.
• More than just being incorrect about policy, is an I'm-never-wrong attitude.

This editor seems to mean well, but simply doesn't have enough experience to productively participate in these discussions, and they don't seem to be taking feedback on board or adjusting their approach at all. Lev!vich 18:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As a person involved I don't want to say any more than to agree with the summary above by Levivich. Basic lack of knowledge of wikipedia practices aside, I am happy to work with new editors constructively, but the user here repeatedly either misrepresented sources by omitting key information, or refused to accept the sources said what they said even when the words were quoted to them.

Persistent attempts to use wikipedia policy incorrectly seemed like a quote mining exercise by the user. Koncorde (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

i felt like i should throw this out there. i have never had an edit to main page reverted. some have been adjusted, but the one about the police officer thing... well im the one that started the discussion over a month ago and the change was made by another editor as the page was still protected. and the other pages needed to be changed for consistency.

• JzG publicly stated he was on a active campaign to get me banned here
• Levivich, is on record saying But the most important thing is we tell the reader what actually happened, moreso than telling the reader what some incorrectly reported.. here
• and Koncorde, doesnt seem to understand the difference between citing a source "somewhere in the paragraph" instead of following the statement. i was trying to inform them that having the source cited in some random place does not help and makes the statement look unverified when checked. StayFree76 ^talk 21:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Stayfree76, no, I did not say I was on an active campaign to get you banned. I noted that your approach was a fast track to a ban, which is not the same thing at all. You already got formally warned about personal attacks, for example. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

your words here's the deal: you stop trying to use Wikipedia to fix the fact that the sources are "wrong", and I'll stop advocating for your removal from the article that is the primary topic of your obsession.StayFree76 ^talk 22:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The source is literally right there where the statement is. Given you still haven't accepted the sources say what the sources say, I cannot take anything you say as good faith. You haven't suggested moving a source. You haven't suggested rearranging content that doesn't also include removing the sourced information. You have only suggested entirely removing sourced information because you said it isn't sourced in the sources that directly say the thing you say it doesn't. Any arguments made have been inherently misleading, off topic, or misrepresentation of the sources. Koncorde (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

ill just leave this quote from me here. ok, so why isnt the Minnesota Post cited? the only one that says what the wiki says is not cited... maybe cite the source and call it good? you could have saved us all the time and just linked that source to begin with... next time, cite the source that says the thing that goes in the wiki. StayFree76 ^talk 22:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Because the Minnesota Post is yet another source that says the thing you say the other existing sources dont. You still have not acknowledged the other sources. Koncorde (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, yup - and that is SOP for this user, alas. A time-sink, as Levivich says. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually have found StayFree's contributions occasionally useful. I and others have warned them that contentious articles are a bad place to learn how to edit, to no avail. When a brand new editor comes in and the only thing they're interested in editing is the most contentious articles on the site, it just kind of wears me out. I think this editor is basically well-intentioned, but I do think they also have an agenda. I'm not sure it's compatible with editing contemporary American politics. —valereee (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

can you find an example of an edit i made that got reverted? also, my change requests are at least 80% of the time put into the article ("occasionally" is a little hurtful, tbh). also, i have edited the following pages: Cherokee Nation, Cherokee Nation (1794–1907), Cherokee language, Comparison of firewalls, Defund the police, Derek Chauvin, Firewall (computing), George Floyd, Jeremiah Wolfe, Killing of George Floyd, Medicine man, Sergei Skripal. StayFree76 ^talk 01:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, I apologize for saying something hurtful. There are many contributors whose contributions I find only occasionally useful. I'm pretty sure my own contributions are only occasionally useful. The point I'd love you to take is that working at contentious articles is a terrifically bad idea for a new editor. If you really are interested in building an encyclopedia, you'd say, "Oh, really? Okay, I'll go edit at (whatever else interests you) until I figure out what's going on here." But that's not what you're doing, which makes me think you have an agenda that is never going to change. It makes me think the reason you are here is not to build an encyclopedia. —valereee (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

valereee what agenda could i have? i was on record defending a Floyd from self incriminating himself with the "hooping" incident. this is the same as before. i read a sentence, click the cited source, read the course, propose/make changes as necessary to correctly represent the information. for example, the wiki said "kueng identified as african american"... but when you look at the source it said "kueng is african american" so i fixed it. maybe go look at the other wikis i have worked on? some of them were major. StayFree76 ^talk 01:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

COMMENT: @stayfree does seem to be making unhelful edits to that page for the reason they believe what is described in the official sources is different to their take on what happened. I am sure they are making these in good faith, but are new to Wiki (as am I) and dont appreciate the rules that govern what sources are allowed and what are not. And the fact that only what is stated in allowed sources should be printed and no original research or personal views should be added. I think @stayfree should take their concerns to the article talkpage and engage more to better understand what they need to do if they want to make changes to the article. Always be polite and assume goodfaith, trust me, on here that is very important (should be in life as well obviously) Just trying to push what you want into an article and being not 100% polite at the same time really will not help what you want to achieve. Discuss it @stayfree and you will get a consensus and hopefully make the article better for all Giant-Dwarfs (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: also wanted to point out that your user page shows you made an oath to Take the mantra of assuming good faith to within a whisker of absurdity. and i feel you are starting to divert from that. i am bringing this up because Welcome other editors pointing out to me when I fail to meet the first three pledges.. (this is not accusatory and simply how i feel and comes from a place of friendship.)StayFree76 ^talk 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, the problem for me is that although you've been advised to go learn to edit somewhere not as contentious, you've insisted on learning to edit at contentious articles. This is a very common issue with problematic accounts, and most editors have seen editors with such an edit history turn out to be trolls. I'm not saying you are a troll. I'm just saying your edit pattern is one that is similar to many trolls. If you really are here to build an encyclopedia, please go find an article to edit that is not a contentious current event. —valereee (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

FTR, SF76's top mainspace talk edits: 55 at Talk:Killing of George Floyd, 48 at Talk:Derek Chauvin, 38 at Talk:George Floyd. —valereee (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a sample WP:FORUM talk page comment from StayFree76. It's OK to have an "agenda" if comments are not WP:OR, generally not WP:UNDUE viewpoints, and geared towards improving the article. I think most regular editors on Floyd articles have made an editorial comment at some point, some more obvious than others. But StayFree76 is developing a reputation for veering off a bit more. I'm OK if they can voluntarily provide us an actionable plan of how they will scale back.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, more tot he point, that's pretty much all they do. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I did make an edit based off a discussion they initiated at talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1#Misleading/False_Information. Still, I understand how people can be frustrated.—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: but that statement was in response to another editors "forum comment" and not just me randomly going in forum mode. the main thing here is that, i havent had a single edit reverted and at least 80% of my proposed changes went into effect. wouldn't those stats show that i am just trying to make Wikipedia better? i never make an edit i think someone would revert for any reason, as a personal policy, and i think that is clearly shown. at the same time, i have worked for the US federal government (held a secret clearance) and have worked for multiple state level government agencies including emergency services. things that may seem like OR are just simply from experience, but at the same time, you will never see me put that into a main without an RS. also, i have done a lot of post grad work. i am very in tune with making statements non pointy or knowing when to attribute, for example. for the people saying i am "a new editor that needs to learn", i have been writing academic reports, or professional write-ups on incidents (i work in cyber crime prevention/ internet security) for over 10 years and have also testified in court a few times as a "witness" to a crime. StayFree76 ^talk 16:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, like I said earlier, there is leeway for "forum" comments. People are saying you have crossed that line. My suggestion is to listen to the feedback and tell us how you will address it, else it'll be left to a closer to decide what action, if any, to take. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

ah, i see what you are saying. this is my final and official last statement on the matter then:

I feel i have done nothing wrong and the initial post to this is a WP:witch hunt, especially when the poster hasn't even engaged in any of those wikis in a long time. also, i feel the intent of this post was to be punitive and falls outside of The only purpose of blocking, banning, and other sanctions is to protect the encyclopedia from harm.. in closing, i will no longer post here and defer to the result of the process. StayFree76 ^talk 17:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, of course you feel you have done nothing wrong. Absence of self-criticism is one of the problems. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWN, WP:OR and WP:NPOV behavior patterns issues with u:SashankaChutia on Chutia kingdom

SashankaChutia (talk · contribs) is displaying WP:OWN behavior patterns on Chutia kingdom. And it is essentially impossible to have a productive engagement with them because of WP:HUH

• Here they is removing maintenance tags ({{original research}}, {{fv}}; cited texts, and inserting a table of rulers that have been rejected by scholars because it does not align with their POV. [48], [49]
• Here they is changing cited texts to align with their POV. [50]
• A discussion in ongoing Talk:Chutia_Kingdom#Extent_according_to_different_authors and Talk:Chutia_Kingdom#Extent_in_lead but it is making no headway (WP:HUH).
• The article is full of citations from WP:PRIMARY sources, and they is not ready to listen to any reasoning on it.

I am requesting help on moving forward addressing these issues. Thanks!

Chaipau (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• The discussion is infact making a headway. Talk:Chutia_Kingdom#Extent_according_to_different_authors and Talk:Chutia_Kingdom#Extent_in_lead

• The tags {{original research}}, {{fv}} has not been proved in anyway. There is an ongoing discussion. Unless a consensus is reached, the tags should not be used without citing the exact text responsible for WP:OR.

• The user here is trying to cite unreasonable claims regarding the geneology. The writers never rejected the geneology, but they are doubtful of the legends associated with the origins(i.e. Birpal's origin story). I quote from Shin's book, " It is not known for sure when the story of Birpal was made nor when the list of kings was prepared; but at the moment, it is not possible for a scholar like Neog to ascribe them a date earlier than the nineteenth century. Scholars therefore questioned the accuracy of the historical information in these accounts and showed great disdain for the related legends." The geneology provided in the chronicles is actually an incomplete one, as there are many kings missing between Satyanarayan (mentioned in both chronicles and inscriptions) and Dhirnarayan (common in chronicles and inscriptions). Therefore, S.L. Barua in her book "Chutia jatir Buranji" gave a tentative geneology based on a compilation of chronicles and inscriptions.(Chutia jatir Buranji, p. 107). I have used this geneology as it is, from the above mentioned book.

• WP:PRIMARY sources have been used because there is no alternate secondary sources available for the same. It is not explicitly mentioned that primary sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. I quote," Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.". In this case, certain facts have been directly taken from Buranjis, due to the absence of secondary sources which doesn't go against Wikipedia policy.

SashankaChutia (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@SashankaChutia: you cannot remove a tag just because you do not think it deserves one. Look at Number 3 here: Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_not_to_remove. Chaipau (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Note: SashankaChutia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sairg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt, quelle surprise. See also JojoRabbitParadise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blocking now per WP:DUCK. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, this was a surprise. Yet another new account has taken an interest Bodo53.cn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [51] Chaipau (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, not new, but a standard sleeper. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Account making unreferenced changes

• 2409:4061:2D04:ACFD:0:0:D48:390D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP has been editing for about a week (climate/temperatures in India). There is a warning on their talk page a few days ago about unref'ed changes. Today, they edited Purulia district and Fylindfotberserk added a CN tag. The IP then removed the CN tag. I restored it. The IP went back and changed more numbers and left this message via edit summary:

Respected sir/ madam, I am SOUMYABRATA Mukhopadhyay. I usually study about the climate of different cities of West Bengal, of India and of the world. It is a true fact that Purulia's maximum temperature recorded, is 51.1⁰C, a national record. I have edited this at the climate part. I know a reference is required here. But I don't know how to insert references in wikipedia. So I cannot give sources here. I will be highly obliged if you provide the reference. I am sending here... Search " Purulia city " in wikipedia and go to the climate part. You will find Purulia's highest record temperature. There is a reference ( 13 ). It is a newspaper article. Please insert this part in this page.

They certainly seem well-intentioned, but they have proclaimed they don't know how to add refs and don't seem to be willing to learn. MB 05:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I've pointed the IP towards HELP:REFBEGIN and said that a bare url is better than nothing. Let's see if that helps. Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Desmond Napoles

Resolved

This teenage drag queen is a favorite target for being a spokesperson for LGBTQ youth.

Since inception dubious sourcing has been introduced to associate him with the club kid murderer and insinuations of promoting pedofilia.

I’d like for someone else to help revert today’s anon, and hopefully longer term protection so drive-bys will hopefully engage the talk page instead. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

edits reverted and article protected. Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Rui

Hi, can somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chen Rui. Last night I tried to remove a whole bunch of comments that were specific to myself, i.e. non-specific to the Afd, but the editor has reverted them and the whole lot has ballooned into what I can only call harassment, making false accusations, which is surprising since I'm usually thick skinned. The editor has taken WP:OWN and ballooned it out of all perspective. The article is probably notable but I was hoping at least it was well referenced. scope_creep^Talk 07:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the last comment as it's basically commenting about you and past transgressions rather than the article. Beyond that, I think both you and Marven Twen have both made your points, and should now leave the AfD alone to let other people have a say and let consensus play out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Not wishing to ABF, but Marven Twen's 61 edits - from their very first one - show very clear familiarity with WP markup and policies. Just sayin'. Black Kite (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The above is Scope creep's pov. This is my perspective:

Scope creep is the one who has made numerous false accusations against me, falsely accusing me of COI and Paid, and I have repeatedly said no. I have nothing to do with the subject, and I am not paid. Yet he continues to accuse me of such. [52] [53] So while Scope creep's point of view is understood, can people understand my point of view--how he is repeatedly personally attacking me?

Moreover, he is the one who initiated the AFD nomination and started posting on my talk page. I never posted on his talk page.

On the AfD page, I have asked him repeatedly to tone down his language, especially the use of second person 'you' along with words like 'junk' and 'trash'. From the beginning, I have tried hard to use third person and avoid 2nd person. However, he keeps using these words even after I ask him politely not to.

Moreover, he has repeatedly made edits to many parts of my own response that are relevant to Afd [54], violating [55].

All this constitute harassment and false accusations against me.

Moreover, Scope creep in the past has been banned for harassing, personal attacks, and WP:REVENGE [56] [57][58], which makes me worried as he is continuing to do so against me, especially given his disruptive edits to the Afd discussion.

Lastly, stating the facts, he has been banned for using sock ip’s to evade bans [59]. And now I am suspecting User:Eggishorn is WP:MEAT, since User:Eggishorn is making many edits on similar pages as Scope creep including Chen Rui Afd [60] and other people's user pages [61] [62]. Moreover, both users claim to be from the UK, and Scope creep's sock ip [63] is from New England, where Eggishorn also claims to be from [64]. Even if they are close friends--even coworkers, their very similar editing habits suggest MEAT puppetry.

I am not asking people to respond to this, I am just placing this here to defend myself and present my side as well. I am not going to discuss this further for now. Thank you. Marven Twen (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Marven Twen, the editor Scope Creep has not made one disruptive entry, edit or remark that I can see? He is simply following the guidelines on Wiki for deletion of an article that has no notability at all. Please assume good faith and keep it civil with no personal attacks as you have posted many times above already. Dont accuse another of what you seem to be doing yourself. The fact that every other editor on AFD agreed with the deletion must show you something? And to attack ScopeCreep with a false accusation of being a sock is really not on. I hope an admin takes a look just at that last point and takes action to stop you doing it againGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, can an admin please check whether this User:Giant-Dwarfs is a sockpuppet of Scope creep or affiliated? He only created his account recently and made his first edit today on August 28 [65], around the same time as this incident report was submitted by User:Scope creep. Moreover Giant-Dwarfs has made similar edits to this discussion and the Chen Rui Afd supporting Scope creep indicating spa. [66] [67] Also, they both have a proclivity to make spelling and grammatical mistakes. It is likely Giant-Dwarfs and Scope creep are sock or meat puppets.Marven Twen (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Also Giant-Dwarfs' recent edit [68] on 197.89.19.112's signature indicate that he is an ip sock of User:197.89.19.112 which is currently blocked for personal attacks [69].Marven Twen (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Please can an Admin stop Mavern twen making attacks such as this over and over and over with no justificatio at all. I am allowed to comment on any page or discussion I want whether I joined today or 10 years ago. You are showing seriously bad manners and THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE ONLY EVER COMMENTED ON ONE PAID WIKI PAGE says a lot about your motives. But please report me, not one link between us, just the fact that I, with every other single editor can see your pushing of a paid page for what it is. Now stop the attacks, assume good faith as you can keep accusing others of not having and PLEASE REPORT ME Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment — @Marven Twen, Juxtaposing your edits with Scope_creep’s, it appears it is you who has transgressed. You have made several personal attacks, & casted aspersions & you have been warned on each occasion but clearly you don’t want to hear what anyone has to say. Even in your posts here you have casted more aspersions. It is in your best interest to quit such behavior else risk a block for not being here to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 22:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I am totally here to build an encyclopedia. That is why I am trying to prevent a page from being destroyed. And please stop trying to frame me by repeating the same false accusations over and over. The barrage of edits from Celestina007, Giant-Dwarfs in the past hour on this page indicate there is collaborative editing going on in attempt to harass and attack me. May I please request an admin review? Marven Twen (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Can an admin please stop Giant-Dwarfs from harassing me? I have stated my sources and evidence connecting Giant-Dwarfs to 197.89.19.112 and Scope creep above. Yet this user repeatedly makes the same false accusations against me and spams my talk page. Moreover he is using all caps as if to taunt me. All this constitute harassment, bullying, and disruptive edits. Could this user Giant-Dwarfs please be banned, and if he is indeed linked to 197.89.19.112 and Scope creep, could they be banned as well? Thank you. Marven Twen (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Marevn Twen, you really are doing yourself no favours with the constant lies ( I am sorry but that is what they are) and accusations. What exactly do you want an admin to do? I notified you on your talk page that I was discussing something to do with you on here as I am supposed to do (something you do not ever do) so where exactly is the harassment? You understand that I have to inform you on your talk page dont you? And can you list just one disruptive edit I have made anywhere please, just the one will do? Just disagreeing with you is not disruptive, you do understand that dont you? But the one accusation I wont let go is the disgusting claims of me being a sock. You say you have stated your "evidence", please can you share any of this with us all on here please? To accuse two editors once of being socks is bad enought with no evidence, but to keep saying it is going way too far, and I am sure an admin will look into these attacks. I am asking you now to withdraw these false accusations and engage in civil discussion. Its up to youGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 23:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Just seen that you asked for me and another editor to be banned!! Please can an admin take action on this please, it really is getting out of hand and Marven Twen is seriously showing bad faith with these constant personal attacks against every single editor that disagrees with their actions. Thank youGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 23:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, if you insist, I will repeat what I wrote above so that it is clear for admins to read, but in return, can you please not try to obfuscate what I am trying to write by making repeated claims yourself? If you want an admin to see this so badly, please put your comments above this. Thank you.

Hello, can an admin please check whether this User:Giant-Dwarfs is a sockpuppet of Scope creep or affiliated? He only created his account recently and made his first edit today on August 28 [70], around the same time as this incident report was submitted by User:Scope creep. Moreover Giant-Dwarfs has made similar edits to this discussion and the Chen Rui Afd supporting Scope creep indicating spa. [71] [72] Also, they both have a proclivity to make spelling and grammatical mistakes. It is likely Giant-Dwarfs and Scope creep are sock or meat puppets.Marven Twen (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Also Giant-Dwarfs' recent edit [73] on 197.89.19.112's signature indicate that he is an ip sock of User:197.89.19.112 which is currently blocked for personal attacks [74] [75].Marven Twen (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I will leave this to the admins now, Marven Twen clearly has a personal agenda here with the paid wiki page that is getting deleted. And I trust (know even) that my involvement on this page (but will continue on the delete page) will only inflame the constact attcks Marven Twen is determined to keep making. But mainly I trust the admins to take the appropriate actions needed here. Make take a day or two I know (admins are volunteers as we all know) but action will be taken to inform Marven Twen that this is not allowed and will not be allowed again in futureGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 23:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I wouldn't be surprised if Giant-Dwarfs was a sock of somebody (though almost certainly not scope_creep - it's more likely that they're a sock of Marven Twen). They signed up today, and have Got to be honest here (as I hope I always aim to be) but mainly on here for the Admin discussion noticeboards. on their userpage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Power~enwiki - Yes. If you are saying that it looks like a "good hand bad hand" shadow play, it does look like it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't claim to be a high profile editor but I believe enough admins are familiar enough with my editing to make Marven Twen's aspersions of me being a meat puppet of anyone self-evidently ridiculous. I don't think I have anything substantive to add here but if my input is needed, please ping me. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I vouch for Eggishorn being an editor in good standing. Indeed, please don't cast aspersions on them. That is inappropriate. El_C 00:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Observations

In taking two quick looks at the situation, it appears on the face that we have two users, User:Marven Twen and User:Giant-Dwarfs, who do not like each other and are out of control posting diatribes, both in the AFD and in this ANI. Marvin Twen is new; Giant-Dwarfs is very new. Either or both of them may be sockpuppets, but the good faith assumption is that neither of them has yet learned how to work in Wikipedia. However, another bad faith scenario has not yet been mentioned. That is that they are both sockpuppets of the same user, and that this is a good hand bad hand shadow play.

If there is sockpuppetry, it will be found by Checkusers at SPI, and not here.

The community doesn't need this argument, regardless of what it is. In any case, they are wasting their time, each others' time, and the time of the community with this thread, which I recommend be closed with admonitions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ad hominem comments/casting aspersions

• 89MsHm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there. This user just suddenly came out of nowhere and in a bizarre manner casting several aspersions towards me (WP:ASPERSIONS), completely uncalled for. I did warn him but he continued. Generally looking at his edits doesn't conspire much confidence that he is here to WP:BUILDWP.

'His personal negative attitude towards Azerbaijan shouldn't close his eyes to facts and documents. He has already demonstrated his aggressive and biased attitude towards this country, which motivates his nonobjective interventions to the article'

'Your hateful comments on Azerbaijan are more than enough to prove your aggression towards the country. You can't threaten others just because you don't like what they say. If you have anger issues go get help. P.S. Glorious history is in the past, the future will be worse.'

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I am disturbed by HistoryofIran (talk)'s aggressive attitude towards Azerbaijan which lets me assume that his interventions related to articles on Azerbaijan might be biased. P.S. I don't know how he managed to delete his comment on Karabakh Khanate article edits where he said something like "Any official source of the dictator regime of Azerbaijan is unreliable". I hope admins can manage the situation objectively.89MsHm (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

More aspersions ^^. I'll let the admins handle the rest of this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

He hasn't deleted it, I found the comment, here it is: "In WIkipedia we use academic sources by historians who are spezialised in this field, not some supposed president library made by an authoritarian regime. Keep this up and you will be reported." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erivan_Khanate&curid=4832454&diff=975043191&oldid=975013866

1. If you look at the source, it is relied on archive documents. 2. Whatever the government is in Azerbaijan, you should learn to respect the country and its people's choice. 3. You seem to like to threaten users by reporting them. 89MsHm (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with respecting a country/people or not. Anyone with basic WP:CIR can see that. Stop this fixation towards me and your country, I couldn't care less about it (or any other country for that matter, before you start accusing me again). And no, it is still not a reliable source, not matter how much you want it to be - read the guidelines. EDIT: Admins might wanna see that this user has a history of behaviour like this [76]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Burials in Villa Castelli, Argentina

Noticed something odd going on today, and I'm not sure quite where to bring it up - it doesn't seem quite like it belongs at WP:AIV due to roving IPs, and I'm not sure about bringing it to WP:SPI for similar reasons.

Briefly: someone has been going into articles about recently-deceased individuals and adding as the burial place "Villa Castelli, Argentina" in the infobox. The edit is unsourced, and is often added to an article about someone with no connection to Argentina whatsoever. I first noticed it on Laurent Akran Mandjo and removed it without comment, thinking it was a leftover artifact from being copied from another article. Then today I spotted the exact same edit on Siah Armajani. A little bit of digging turned up the fact that a lot of similar edits were made by 137.101.89.177 - most were reverted, but one was not (I've fixed that one just now). That IP is continuing to make suspect edits, and has already received a block: now the IP at 47.60.34.125 is getting into the act making similar edits. I'm worried that there may be others out there I'm missing who are also playing this game.

How to proceed? I'm happy to block a couple of 'em again, but I want to make sure we catch everything. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The same just happened to me. I've removed the unsourced of 137.101.89.177 who has tendency to insert incorrect information into recently deceased people. In some cases the information was clearly false, so I undid his Ai Fen edit, and 47.60.34.125 just undid me. KittenKlub (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

(nac) More garbage by '177 in this diff, which I reverted. Narky Blert (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The same method is now being used by 2601:240:4180:6A50:34D9:4C7D:D435:E399. Started to focus on redirect first to stay out of sight. KittenKlub (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User: George Al-Shami

This user is back again violating Wikipedia policies. He is back after being reported for dozens of violations because the first time he was reported the administrator that looked into the case just vanished and didn't sanction this user despite all the violations he has breached and which I presented. Can someone do something about this case? Otherwise this user will not stop committing his violations. I again list the violations breached by this user.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&diff=959107360&oldid=958996232 commits WP:VAND by deleting the highest quality most reliable non-biased source that can be added to a bio article which is his/her autobiography, where it says his father was from Zahle, Lebanon. His WP:VAND also deleted the highest quality secondary source out there which is a book by Henry Louis Gates which states that eventhough Halaby states his grandparents were from Aleppo that they might also be from Zahle, Beirut or Damascus since his last name Halaby doesnt necessarily means they came from Aleppo but adopted the surname many generations back.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&diff=960795238&oldid=960757668 he comes back and publishes the unproven or questioned by Gates information about his grandparents and states it as a fact and violates WP:SECONDARY by not adding a second sentence saying that this has been put to question by Henry Louis Gates as a sourced secondary source as per wikipedia policies in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source#Strengths_and_weaknesses. By failing to do this he is also violating The Association of Professional Genealogists's Code of Ethics which states "do not publish unproven information as proven" as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy#Ethical_guidelines As I understand if something is not proven its either left out or the secondary sources need to be mentioned. I tried explaining him this is a violation of the guidelines but after I long discussion he fails to understand his violation as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Najeeb_Halaby#Najeeb_Halaby_Lebanese_Origins. I decided to move on eventhough his edit violated the guidelines.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maronites&diff=960408942&oldid=960397246 he violates WP:HOUND after he got away with his previous disruption and wikihounds me to my edition on another article to continue disrupting my editing and reverts my edition of a poorly sourced (outdated sources) with plain false statements and unexplained deletions and reverses it to the previous poorly sourced and disruptive edit again committing WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Anka&diff=964302145&oldid=964228845 after I fixed the previous source with updated sources he violates WP:HOUND again and follows me to my new edit and violates WP:SYN by merging two sentences of the source to contradict what the first sentence said as to imply something that is not stated in the autobiography which I brought to this bio as the most reliable source about Anka's descent. He also violates WP:OR by linking Paul Anka's Bab Touma, which he claims in his bio is a SMALL TOWN, to an old District of Damascus claiming Anka is not learned about his origins and made a mistake in his statement which is WP:OR and goes against evidence I presented him in the Talk Page but he keeps ignoring it violating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette .

After a long discussion and failing to making him see that he is violating policies and making disruptive edits as can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Anka#Paul_Anka's_Lebanese_descent_in_his_autobiography_and_own_words_in_radio_interview he decides to leave the consensus building talk and disappears showing his inability to understand the policies and to reach consensus violating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion.

• In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Anka&diff=967734108&oldid=967721716 after disappearing for 10 days from the consensus building discussion he comes back and violates WP:HANDLE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR by completely removing what was tentatively agreed upon before he disappeared as per my last proposal in the talk page and adds all the 4 sources at the end of a unnecessarily long quote as to imply they all say the same thing as stated in the long quote which they dont violating WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and in a way also a kind of WP:SYN . He also keeps linking the small town of Bab Touma to the Old District on Damascus again violating WP:OR which I am willing to compromise as you can see in my last edit in order to reach consensus

• After he was reported for all these breaches, the administrator that looked into it disappeared and now user is back committing the same violations.Chris O' Hare (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly not WP:vandalism [77]. Perhaps it's a bad edit, I don't know since I only have access to one source (which doesn't support the removed text) but it seems to be content dispute. Calling stuff vandalism which clearly isn't discredits your whole case. Vandalism has a specific meaning here which does not include good faith edits no matter how wrong they may be. Nil Einne (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW it's none of our business if someone violates some association's guidelines. If the person is a member of that association and you feel they've violated the guidelines, take it up with the association. Bear in mind if you do it over a Wikipedia edit, you're likely to be blocked per WP:NLT as long as the case is ongoing. Suggesting disputed information is proven is indeed a problem on wikipedia per WP:verifiability and other policies, that's what you should be worried about here. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Also what is the previous case where an administrator was looking in to it? The only recent example I found was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#Disruption by George Al-Shami at Paul Anka and Najeeb Halaby. But no administrator seems to have looked into the case. Unless I missed something, besides you two, only User:John from Idegon participated and they're not an administrator and from their comments didn't really look into anything. Instead, they kept telling you to make briefer posts clearly articulating the behavioral issues. Since you're still making false accusations of vandalism and bringing up irrelevant stuff like the guidelines of some association, this still seems to be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris O' Hare is using the noticeboards in an abusive fashion just to intimidate me and prevent me from reverting his edit, which is accompanied by a falsely stated summary. This is the third time he has falsely "reported" me. Here are the diffs 1) the first time he did it was on June 29 #[78] 2) The second time he did it was on July 14 #[79]

This is a content dispute and if anyone is interested in this, I invite anyone to scrutinize my edit. The dispute is about Anka's ethnicity, the memoir source and the Life magazine source both show that Anka has 2 ancestries: Lebanese and Syrian, but Chris O' Hare doesn't want his Syrian ancestry to be mentioned. In the memoir source My Way: An Autobiography, Anka recounted My parents were of Lebanese Christian descent and the name Anka itself had an almost folkloric history attached to it. It means noose in "Arabic" and it came about in this way: In a small town in Syria called Bab Tuma -where my ancestors are from- a man raped a young girl of thirteen.; Chris wants to keep the first part which mentions Anka's Lebanese ancestry, but keeps removing the second part "In a small town in Syria called Bab Tuma -where my ancestors are from", because it goes against his pov. In our month-long discussion I mentioned to him that to stay NPOV, both parts have to be mentioned. However he changes this direct quote "In a small town in Syria called Bab Tuma -where my ancestors are from" into "his father came to America from Syria" to deny Anka of any Syrian ancestry. The mention of Syrian ancestry is backed up by the Life magazine source. . The sentence that he uses is not supported by any source and since I mentioned to him it's original research, he has since flipped this argument in a dishonest fashion on me and is using it on the second part of Anka's sentence, which is a direct quotation from Anka. On another article about a Syrian/Lebanese person, he removed the mention of Syrian ancestry, even though he himself introduced a New York Times source which said that Halaby was "Lebanese-Syrian #[80]; which shows an agenda. Here's the diff #[81].

Also his edit of removing reference to his Syrian ancestry has been challenged by two other editors. #[82] and #[83], despite that he keeps reverting to his POV. George Al-Shami (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Nil Einne Deleting the most relevant source in a bio article which is the autobiography of the person is vandalism. I think you should review the edit or the WP:VAND guidelines carefully before you accuse me of making false accusations. Publishing unproven information as proven is violating WP:SECONDARY. I brought up the code of ethics of the association of genealogists to expand on the point.

George Al-Shami Fails to understand that just because someone comes from x country (which is the same as arriving from/immigrated from) it doesnt necesarily means the person is of x ancestry. There is no primary source out there where Paul Anka himself claims he is of Syrian ANCESTRY. In his autobriography he claimed both his parents where of Lebanese descent and the radio interview and he was Lebanese/of Lebanese ancestry and never said they were of Syrian ancestry nor that he had Syrian ancestry.

George Al-Shami is trying to word things and change the format to imply as if Anka is of Syrian ancestry and to make the reader believe "he tried to say he was of Syrian ancestry he just didnt quite say it but look guys he said this here so he must be of Syrian ancestry"

His paternal grandparents lived in Bab Touma, Damascus before emigrating to America but Anka states his parents were both of Lebanese ancestry in his biography and that he is Lebanese/of Lebanese ancestry in his radio interview which means that his paternal grandparents must have been of Lebanese ancestry and happened to live in Bab Touma, Damascus before emigrating. A similar case happened with Neil Sedaka, whose paternal grandparents were of Lebanese-Jewish descent but were living in Istanbul, Turkey before emigrating to America.

In the case of Najeeb Halaby, his father was born in Zahle (today Lebanon) and lived there briefly before emigrating with Najeeb's grandfather as a child to America. Henry Louis Gates says that it is uncertain if Najeeb's grandfather (who was living in Damascus in his later years where he worked as a magistrate) was from Aleppo, Zahle, Beirut or Damascus according to the genealogy research Gates did on Queen Noor, but user Al-Shami wants to state Najeeb's grandfather was fro Aleppo as if it is a proven fact. Yes, Najeeb himself said his grandfather came from Aleppo in his autobiography but this was put into question by the reputable genealogist Gates so that should be stated as a secondary source.Chris O' Hare (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

According to George Al-Shami "In the memoir source My Way: An Autobiography, Anka recounted My parents were of Lebanese Christian descent and the name Anka itself had an almost folkloric history attached to it. It means noose in "Arabic" and it came about in this way: In a small town in Syria called Bab Tuma -where my ancestors are from- a man raped a young girl of thirteen.[1]; Chris wants to keep the first part which mentions Anka's Lebanese ancestry, but keeps removing the second part "In a small town in Syria called Bab Tuma -where my ancestors are from", because it goes against his pov. In our month-long discussion I mentioned to him that to stay NPOV, both parts have to be mentioned. However he changes this direct quote "In a small town in Syria called Bab Tuma -where my ancestors are from" into "his father came to America from Syria" to deny Anka of any Syrian ancestry. The mention of Syrian ancestry is backed up by the Life magazine source. [2].

As you can see, again, even in his counter-arguments this user is WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and resorts to twisting what the source says to push his POV since the source says "In a small town in Syria called Bab Tuma -where my ancestors CAME from" not "where my ancestors ARE from". He also twists what the Life magazine source says claiming it mentions Anka's Syrian ancestry which is totally false. If you read the Life Magazine source on page 68 it says Anka's grandparents CAME from Damascus, just like Anka says on his autobiography but that doesnt mean they are of Syrian ancestry.

Can an administrator please sanction this disruptive user so I dont lose complete trust in the administration of Wikipedia and start losing hope in the direction in which Wikipedia might be heading if these kind of behaviors are accepted here.Chris O' Hare (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

THIS. IS. A. CONTENT. DISPUTE. If the both of you stopped talking past each other and actually had a good-faith discussion, instead of running to AN/I (you) or wikipedia-en-help (Al-Shami) to try and win the dispute by default, this wouldn't be an issue. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 18:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Chris O' Hare. You say that "the highest quality most reliable non-biased source that can be added to a bio article which is his/her autobiography" and "most relevant source in a bio article which is the autobiography of the person". That isn't true. While I don't know about Halaby, in general people are biased, see Autobiographies lie -- or anyway lots of them do Self-interest: Since fabrications and exaggerations abound, they have little in common with biographies. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We tried A little blue Bori v^_^v for a month, but it didn't go anywhere. I've pinged two uninvolved editors on the talk page of the article to help settle this dispute, @Slatersteven: and @Boing! said Zebedee:; anybody else is welcome to provide their input on the talk page. George Al-Shami (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A little blue Bori v^_^v you say this a content dispute but ignore all the violations of Wikipedia's guidelines that user Al-Shami has breached? Its impossible to reach a consensus with a disruptive user that has resorted to vandalism as his first "attempt" at pushing his POV.

CambridgeBayWeather autobiographies are still considered as THE primary source along with oral and video interviews. Unless a reputable academic or author such as genealogist Henry Louis Gates comes in and disputes this and or adds that through independent research it was found that his father was indeed of Syrian ancestry not just lived in Damascus before settling in America then we have to stick to what Anka himself has said about the ancestry of his parents.Chris O' Hare (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to believe that someone named "Halaby" would have some sort of connection to, you know, Halab? ]M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Look it's simple. If you keep making false accusations of vandalism, your complaint is likely to be ignored at best, at worst you will be blocked. And few of us give a flying flip if someone's edit's allegedly violate some association's guidelines. Bringing up such irrelevant stuff at ANI further discredits any legitimate complaint you may have. Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Its a content dispute drop it or bet a peice of Australia thrown at you.Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

M Imtiaz If you do some research on this before assuming anything. In fact this whole thing started with me presenting some of that research here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Najeeb_Halaby#Najeeb_Halaby_Lebanese_Origins which is backed up by the research done by american genealogist Henry Louis Gates on this same topic as you can read here https://books.google.se/books?id=meYbj1E6Ki8C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Almas+Mallouk+Halaby&source=bl&ots=rFkkzjZFO4&sig=ACfU3U3hlqMIm1wobTTCA4erRHx_BTcK9A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwij6KK667PoAhXPwosKHYUUDyEQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Almas%20Mallouk%20Halaby&f=false Chris O' Hare (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne How come I see you warning me (twice here and one on my talk page) about what according to you is a mislabeling of a policy violation but I dont see you warning George Al-Shami after all the violations he has breached with his 10+ disruptive edits? I find your behavior a bit one-sided which makes you less credible as a mediator in this dispute. Because you are not showning independent judgement and not enforcing warnings equally you are exhibiting tag-teamish and meat-puppet like behavior and I will be reporting you on this if you continue to do so in this dispute as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag_team

George Al-Shami is an experienced user and should have known better when he resorted to delete the autobiography source of Najeeb Halaby in his first or one of his first disruptive edits that started this whole dispute that has carried on along 3 different articles as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Najeeb_Halaby#Najeeb_Halaby_Lebanese_Origins.

How is deleting the most primary of all sources from an autobiography not an act of vandalism? How is that "done in good faith in trying to improve Wikipedia"? Removing encyclopedic content without any reason is vandalism as per VANDTYPESk. If Al-Shami didnt like how I phrased what the source said he could have rephrased it but instead he chose to remove the source along with my edit as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Najeeb_Halaby&diff=959107360&oldid=958996232

Al-Shami later admited his wrongdoing and apologized for this eventhough he accusses me of having an agenda and pushing a POV while he admits his wrongdoing as you can see in 5th sentence of the 4th message in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Anka where he states "For the Halaby article, I admit I was wrong to remove the legitimate source you employed, the memoir, because I balked and was disappointed at what I clearly saw was an agenda on your part in that you use the line that you liked and then you ignored the line that you didn't like or that didn't subscribe to your POV"Chris O' Hare (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A reason was given in the edit summary. Articles are not intended to be collections of sources. If someone is removing some info because it misrepresents the source and the source is therefore no longer needed, as was claimed in the edit summary, then that is a legitimate reason. AFAICT, George Al-Shami has agreed they made a mistake. They have never said they engaged in vandalism. Making a mistake when editing doesn't turn an edit into vandalism. And removing content rather than rephrasing is extremely common editing. It's not always the best behaviour, but it's clearly not vandalism. And why do you keep insisting it's the "primary of all sources"? It's an autobiography. As you have already been told, it's over very limited use. If it's the only source on the subject, the article should be deleted. You need to find reliable secondary sources, not poor ones like autobiographies. Finally I have not warned George Al-Shami because I have seen zero examples of clearly bad behaviour from them. I have seen a clear example of bad behaviour from you namely a persistent personal attack. I have no idea why you keep destroying your case by calling something vandalism when it isn't. As I have told you many times, vandalism is not the only bad behaviour on Wikipedia. If you would actual outline what the problem with the editing rather than falsely claiming it is vandalism, maybe people would actually care. Whether this is because there is no significant problem with George Al-Shami's editing, or it's simply an inability on your part to articulate what the problem is, I have no idea. I don't really care any more. I won't be re-visiting this case, but if you come to ANI in the future and make false accusations of vandalism again, I will support a block. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

"Removing content rather than rephrasing is extremely common editing. It's not always the best behavior, but it's clearly not vandalism".

Its not just "not always the best behavior", its a violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems and an experienced user such as Al-Shami should know its disruptive behavior. Because he is experienced I felt his edit didnt come from good faith but out of anger because it went against his POV hence the reason for me labeling incorrectly as vandalism. I dont think it would have mattered if I had label it correctly due to your clearly impartial one sided take on this dispute which I will be reporting you on.

"And why do you keep insisting it's the "primary of all sources"? It's an autobiography. As you have already been told, it's over very limited use. If it's the only source on the subject, the article should be deleted. You need to find reliable secondary sources, not poor ones like autobiographies".

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source "In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person"

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary "Any interpretation of primary source material (which includes synthesis) requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"

Since there is no reliable secondary source such as an independent academic review from a reputable genealogist such as Henry Louis Gates, the autobiography and the oral/video recording of Paul Anka become the main sources in this until a reputable secondary source debates or questions it.

"Finally I have not warned George Al-Shami because I have seen zero examples of clearly bad behavior from them. I have seen a clear example of bad behavior from you namely a persistent personal attack. Whether this is because there is no significant problem with George Al-Shami's editing, or it's simply an inability on your part to articulate what the problem is, I have no idea. I don't really care any more. I won't be re-visiting this case, but if you come to ANI in the future and make false accusations of vandalism again, I will support a block".

I came here to ANI to report an user that has wikihounded me, committed 10+ disruptions, accused me of having an agenda, disappears from consensus only to come back to edit again as he pleases and you say you see zero examples of bad behavior and instead accuse me of persistent personal attack without any evidence of that and keep focusing on my mislabeling a violation?

I told you stop exhibiting tag-teamish and meat-puppet like behavior. Since you decided to continue with it I will be reporting you.Chris O' Hare (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

66.244.121.212

As outlined in Talk:Ivar Lovaas#New changes by User:ATC and Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness, 66.244.121.212 (his other IP address is 68.45.46.177) keeps reverting valid sources describing the history of literature reviews on Discrete trial training—the structured form of applied behavior analysis that is widely used for autistic children and is based on over 50 years of research—which follows WP:MEDRS guidelines. User:Sundayclose already asked him to remove the unnecessary picture of the drawing in the Aversion therapy article, which I had to remove as well, but he reverted it back (see here: User talk:66.244.121.212#August 2020). I think he needs to be blocked. ATC ^{. Talk} 01:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Sundayclose (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Just fixed the sentence. ATC ^{. Talk} 16:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang

The OP has repeatedly shown contempt for the guidelines in his attempt to overstate the evidence in favor of discrete trial training by Ivar Lovaas. While a 2018 Cochrane review finds that evidence in favor of the technique is "weak" and at high risk of bias, the OP keeps insisting on representing the viewpoints of non-MEDRS sources, and on misrepresenting or failing to give due weight to the POV of Cochrane. The technique claims to produce normal functioning in about half of autistic children, and even to raise IQ (by 30 points!). You may be interested to know that one study found that promoters of this technique (like the OP) routinely ignore criticisms and refuse to acknowledge weaknesses in the evidence. So basicly, he's a fringe pusher.

I have tried to educate the OP about WP:MEDRS guidelines here, here, and here. I have warned him against willfully disobeying these guidelines here and here. When it became clear that things were not going well for the OP sourcing-wise, he attempted to recruite User:Doc James to his viewpoint. I politely warned him that this could be construed as an attempt at canvassing, and we went on to have a rather strange conversation in which the OP claimed that autism is caused by an "infused head growth". Doc James did not respond, and so he went on to contact User:Alexbrn (who has in the past expressed sympathy for these viewpoints), and User:Sundayclose, with whom I had recently had an unfortinite disagreement with on a related topic. This was a blatant attempt at canvassing. As you can see from my links, I said as much both users' talk pages, and neither user got involved. When this did not work, he asked Sundayclose to block me. Sundayclose declined the request (possibly because he is not an administrator), and so here we are.

I propose that the OP receive a sanction on behaviorism-related topics, as he is clearly not capable of neutrality on these issues, or of obeying guidelines in related discussions. As long as he is allowed to edit these articles, I fail to see how we can improve them. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

IP, I don't know what you were thinking when you edit warred to add that highly inappropriate image to Aversion therapy, but it was a mistake. El_C 03:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, our dispute was about sourcing, not the appropriateness of the image. While that was not the best editing I have ever done, it did not violate WP:3RR. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

That is correct — 3RR was not violated, though WP:DE might have... El_C 03:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

While you are free to add you voice to the discussion about whether or not the picture was inappropriate, as it was a well-sourced image drawn by a former resident of the Judge Rotenberg Center of an actual aversion therapy that is well-documented to have occurred there for many years. Regardless, that dispute is cold, unlike the one at present. --66.244.121.212 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No, as an uninvolved admin, I am telling you it is inappropriate. And how is it "cold" if you reverted the insertion of that image a mere few hours ago? El_C 04:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A student receives GED shocks while restrained to a four-point board at the Judge Rotenberg Center.

I apologize for my incorrect statement. My dispute with Sundayclose was cold (as we both agreed that the image was properly sourced), but I had forgotten about the revert with the OP.

It is my opinion that this image is appropriate, as it provides an accurate visual description of a form of aversion therapy that was approved by the courts, cleared by the FDA, and used at the Judge Rotenberg Center for over 25 years before it was banned in 2020. It was drawn by a former resident of the center name Jennifer Msumba, and depicts her receiving shocks from the Graduated Electronic Decelerator while restrained to a four-point board. Jennifer has graciously agreed to led Wikipedia use this image. This punishment (multiple GED shocks while restrained to a four-point board) was inflicted on many residents, as is made clear by the linked articles. I know that this is a tough topic, but per WP:NOTCENSORED, the appropriateness of such an image should at least be up for discussion. You are free to add your voice to the debate, but please do not try unilaterally make the decision, as admins do not have that kind of power. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Shoot. I thought we'd finally adopted painful electric shocks for use here at ANI, as I've long advocated. On a more serious point, the article tone and style is seriously off, with a huge RIGHTGREATWRONGS problem. EEng 07:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned, if you're able to gain clear consensus for its inclusion, then that's one thing — but in the interim, yes, I do have that authority, per WP:DE. El_C 05:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Great. Then I'll seek consensus on the talk page. And thank you for linking me that rule, which I was not previously aware of. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• New issue: After I posted this complaint, the OP began to whitewash discrete trial training and Ole Ivar Lovaas by downplaying their use of aversives. You may read the rather one-sided discussions of this whitewashing here and here. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please note that 66.244.121.212 is the IP who added over 2,000 bytes of copyrighted material to the article in question. This had to be removed by @Diannaa:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Diannaa: It's my impression that the IP is trying to WP:OWN the article, and run it as a PoV attack page against the institution. The article is extremely biased and should probably be reduced in size significantly, so it can be rebuilt in an NPoV way. I complained about this a while back, but no action was taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• The POV-pushing and copyvio are reminiscent of problems we had last year[84] (see sock suspicions below). Alexbrn (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• User:Beyond My Ken: You have reported that you think the article on the Judge Rotenberg Center is POV, but you have not raised the issue on the talk page. I would be very interested in having that discussion with you if you are still up for it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, no, I am not up for it. I have no energy to take on another badly slanted article. That doesn't mean that the article is any less of a hit job, as any fair-minded unbiased editor can easily see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Then we’ll just have to disagree. I’m open to having this discussion with anyone who wants to have it. In my opinion, the center appears to be whole notable for the atrocities that occur there: In everything I ever read about it, I found nothing positive that was reliable. Some sources try to claim that they are supplying an effective medical treatment, but the FDA made clear that this is not true in the report where they banned the GED. Other claim that they rely mostly on positive support, using punishment only as a last resort. But this is also not true, as found In multiple state investigations. Basically, what is boils down to is this— the JRC claims that what they do is medical treatment, while its opponents claim it is torture. But the FDA has declared that what they do is not medical treatment and the representative of the United Nations has declared that it is torture— so how can we give any weight the the JRC’s side?

On a related note, you may want to check out the article on the JRC’s sister school, Tobinworld. Looks slanted, right? What if I told you that the only positive story I managed to dig up on the place from an independent source was about that one time when they served their students ice cream? I didn’t include it in the article, because it really didn’t seem notable enough. So in short, these articles "look POV", but there is no clear way to improve them, which is probably why none of the people her who argue that they are POV have managed to do so. If there’s a positive story I missed from a reliable independent source, someone please post it here and I’ll admit I was wrong. Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Socking wrt Lovaas?

This controversial topic flared up last year here and at WP:FT/N, with a chief player being Wikiman2718 [85][86] who has not edited since, except once to insert one of these GED images.[87] I therefore suspect there is some kind of coordination/puppetry going on here. Perhaps an admin could dig a little? Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not socking to edit while logged out, as I never at any point managed my accounts abusively. Going to an IP to avoid harassment is a perfectly legitimate use of multiple accounts. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You say "accounts" (plural). How many do you have? It is kind of problematic to edit while logged out when it has the effect of avoiding scrutiny. Here we have another batch of WP:DRAMA around these articles, with you as the epicentre, and without my spotting it, it would not have been apparent that the issue here is an editor with a known history of problematic editing in this topic space. How many different IPs are "you"? At least 4 or 5 obviously since they all geolocate to the same place, but this makes it impossible to have a coherent conversation on Talk. I am thinking a TBAN may be in order to damp down this kind of disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I edit from whatever IP I'm to be at, of course. There is nothing at all suspicious about using several IPs. But as you were one of the two editors that I went to IP to avoid harassment from (and my currunt IP is rangeblocked), I might as well just log in now. You characterize my editing as problematic, but there was no consensus to that effect and I said the same of you. Now if we would just return to the discussion at hand, we could resolve the relevant content disputes so that it can finally determine who is POV pushing here. I see several accusations of POV, but dispite edits like this, none of my detractors seem to be able to write a better article than I have. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

At the previous ANI, after levelling charges of "harassment" at two editors (one of them me), and requesting time to make your case, you wrote "I promise that I will not make any further edits to the encyclopedia until this issue is resolved". But you've broken that promise and have returned to edit covertly using multiple IPs. Ironically, I would have been completely unaware of this thread had you not pinged me with the outright lie that I have "expressed sympathy" for the view that autism is caused by "infused head growths". Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

1) I did not mean to suggest that you had expressed sympathy for the point of view that autism is caused by and infused head growth. I suggested that you had expressed sympathy for the view that discrete trial training has more than weak evidence behind it. Is this not true? I pinged all editors that had been canvassed to, including you. 2) I have recently been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease (witch is exasperated by stress) and it was flaring up bad during that discussion. It is a very serious disease wich causes me a lot of pain, so I just decided to ghost rather than continue in that stressful situation. I had thought that I would give up editing, but about six months later when it was under control I decided to return as an IP. I made no effort to conceal my connection with this account, and never at any time pretended to be multiple users. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not "expressed sympathy" for any of the viewpoints you mention, but I have surely offered my opinion on what is best supported by sources. That is part of what we are here for. As to how problematic your "ghosting" is, I will leave others to comment. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute

Just in case anyone missed the last section, I am the IP that this thread was filed against (I am logged in now). At the heart of this issue is a content dispute on Ivar Lovaas and Discrete trial training. The content dispute may be found (and participated in) at Talk:Ole Ivar Lovaas#New changes by User:ATC, Talk:Discrete trial training#Effectiveness, and Talk:Discrete trial training#Aversives. If you look at these pages you will see that the OP (User:ATC) refuses to adequately communicate, refuses to obey medical sourcing guidelines, and maintains his preferred versions of the articles through sheer force, reverting any attempt to reinstate neutrality. This diff shows one such revert, in which he refers to my edit as "vandalism". Rather than engaging in open discussion he has stonewalled, canvassed, and tried to get me banned. This behavior is extremely tendentious, and I fail to see how I can resolve this dispute without the need for outside intervention. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiman2718, Wikipedia has a strong immune system, without which we'd be drowning in nonsense. Occasionally, it over-corrects, particularly when dealing with logged-out editors, or new accounts who focus on righting great wrongs or promoting one point of view. You seem to me to be exactly the kind of editor we should nurture, so please be aware of the immune system. Don't do anything to make it suspicious. If in doubt, go to talk. Don't edit war or edit logged out without telling people it's you. If the talk page doesn't yield results, there are noticeboards where you can ask for help, e.g. WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN. Come here only as a last(ish) resort. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that advice. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• New development: I have used another boomerang at SPI to argue that the OP used a sleeper account to report on me for socking. The present content dispute (and the OPs related behavior) is being used as evidence. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in this dispute, but something needs to be stated about this: If you look at these pages you will see that the OP (User:ATC) refuses to adequately communicate, refuses to obey medical sourcing guidelines, and maintains his preferred versions of the articles through sheer force, reverting any attempt to reinstate neutrality. I have been mentoring ATC for over a decade, and without saying more, I think you need to AGF a bit here. ATC's communication skills and editing ability have grown enormously over the years I have mentored them, and I am quite proud of them. They are not a bad faith editor, and they respond to reason. I have not investigated the rest of this matter, other than offering my views on the content on the article talk page. I went to their talk page to welcome Wikiman2718 as what I thought was a new account, when I realized this was at ANI, after I responded on article talk.[88] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Arrowversefanatic2002 (repeatedly warned)

• Arrowversefanatic2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm reporting Arrowversefanatic2002 for making an unprovoked personal attack against me and because this user has a history of making personal attacks against other users. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 08:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@JayCoop: Not sure that rises to the level of WP:NPA. I did notify them of this discussion. And now, back to bed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this particular edit is not really a personal attack, although it could have been more tactful. To support your claim that it's a common problem I suggest posting more diffs. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Malta IPs denying Soviet female ace

Can we get a couple of IP blocks? Special:Contributions/217.71.190.160 and Special:Contributions/217.71.190.245. These two Malta IPs have been removing the flying ace status of Lydia Litvyak at her bio and at List of World War II aces from the Soviet Union. Me and PlanespotterA320 have been countering this vandalism. The person has also removed Germany from the Irreligion article, and muscle mass from the Sex differences in human physiology article. In the past, Special:Contributions/217.71.190.201 was also doing this stuff. The latter IP was blocked once with reference to block evasion by User:CindyRoleder. Binksternet (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Also semi-protected a couple of the pages, given they keep switching IPs to make these same edits. Let me know if there's more that need looking at. The CindyRoleder theory seems a reasonable one. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by a promotional account

MediaManager1 (talk · contribs) at Francis Baraan IV. Relentless WP:OWNERSHIP, with the likelihood of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY [89]. The article is up for AfD [90], with the appearance of sockpuppets weighing in. One or more user blocks would help un-muddy the process. 2601:188:180:B8E0:51C4:A213:DDE6:49FA (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Blocks given at w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MediaManager1 for sockpuppetry. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

User: Nozoz and discretionary sanction notices

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

---

I have given Nozoz a discretionary sanction notice for Eastern Europe for their editing at RT (TV network) (whwere they introduced badly sourced info which has been introduced many times before, were reverted by another user, and reverted them). Then I notices that they managed to collect three DS alerts, in different topics, in a year. I them warned them that if they continue, they could be blocked. They were unhappy, insisted that their edits were fully aligned with policies, and accused me in admin abuse at their (User talk:Nozoz#Discretionary sanctions alert) and my talk pages. Could somebody please have a look whether continued ability of this user to edit is beneficial for Wikipedia? They do not have so many edits, and these mostly are not that good.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

We say, over and over and over, that receiving a DS alert is informational, not evidence of wrongdoing. If the evidence of a problem is that they got 3 of them in one year, then there is no evidence of a problem. If there is actual evidence of a continuing problem - which for all I know there might be - then please provide it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to bring attention to Ymblanter's comment on their revert of my revert to RT (TV network). Ymblanter wrote: "Undid revision 974902120 by Nozoz (talk) and, given the number of warnings, the next revert may result in a block". This is when Ymblanter left a D-notice on my talk page. This shows that: Ymblanter 1) doesn't understand that a D-notice is not an infraction, because they're using them as-if they're infractions and warning points that accumulate - I now wonder how many people Ymblanter has banned under the false pretext of having D notices? And I wonder how many people they gave D notices just so that they could ban them?; 2) Is giving D notices out when there has been no violation of WP's rules, but just to intimidate people against making edits they personally don't like (not that there's anything wrong with them). Are these not admin abuses? I see no explanation from Ymblanter for the revert of my edit, no justification for the D-notice on my talk page, and no basis for the threat of a ban the next time that I... as far as I can tell, simply make an edit they dislike(?), and no reason for any of Ymblanter's behaviour toward and against me. Nozoz (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If the link I provided is insufficient, would you mind for example reading the rant below? I am not going to take accusations in dishonesty lightly.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

When you claim you discovered 3 D's on my page, when you just put one there yourself, that is de-facto dishonest. When you accuse me of making 'mostly not good' edits on WP, that is a dishonest accusation, and it is an offence against me which I am not going to take lightly. And when you claim that my sources for my RT edit were bad, when they aren't and they're more authoritative than the sources given for the position that's converse to my edits (which, so far, is none), that is again disingenuous. And your very decision to place a D notice on my talk page and say that next time it will be a ban, when I didn't violate any WP rule, that is acting in bad faith. Your pretense of being indignant over having what I believe are inarguably dishonest actions pointed-out as such appears to me as an act, to try to push your goal through. I think it is, as I said, a pretense. And calling my explanation of things a "rant", as if I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself and explain myself, is, I think, again a will to manipulate and act unjustly. If my pointing these things out offends you so that you won't take them lightly, then how do you think I would feel about your unprovoked behaviour towards me? Nozoz (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

For the first point: I went to your talk page, clicked on "add topic", posted the DS notice, and then saw that there are three of them including these which I posted. I am not going to answer in detail the rest of the rant, because this is just a bunch of bullshit accusations, however I want to remark that RT is a topic where we have on a regular basis trolls which come there to claim RT has nothing to do with the Russian government and/or is not a propaganda outlet. These edits have been reverted before, I believe several dozen times, and they will be reverted in the future, at least unless RT stops being government-sponsored propaganda outlet. And that you have not just re-added this info, which has been beaten to death at the talk page, but reverted once to restore it, shows that in any case you are not capable = lack competence - of editing this article. Concerning your opinion on me - I apreciate it and I exactly hope that your account will be blocked on the basis of this persistently expressed opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The inspection of my edits show sthat I have not opened the new section but added the alert to the existing section. Fine, let us say I have discovered two alerts at the page where I was about to add the third one. I do not see how this changes the big picture.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't change that there are no grounds to threaten to ban someone based on the number of D-notices they have. But since you based an argument and threat of a ban upon the significance of there being three D-notices, I think it reveals something about your intention and so changes the perception of your actions. It further changes things because those two D-notices you really saw are actually themselves just one instance of receiving a D-notice, as they're given concerning the same edits made at the same time, and not different edits made at different times: One was given regarding "the Arab–Israeli conflict", and the other concerning "living or recently deceased people" - but both are concerning the same edits made to the page for Eva Bartlett. When the premise of your behaviour has been your treatment of D-notices as infractions, which they are not, then, by your own argument, it is significant that even if going by your own reasoning about D-notices, the basis for your threatening a potential future ban 'the next time' you think a D-notice can be issued (though D-notices are not grounds for a ban in any case) wasn't even there to support your own argument, action, and comments. The reason why it doesn't change the big picture is because the premise of your argument and action, that D-notices are infractions that can lead-up to a ban, is false. Nozoz (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

My premise is not that you should be blocked because of the number of DS alerts. My premise is that you lack competence to edit Wikipedia. You have proven before, and now you have additionally excelled in this thread, that you do not have a clue on how Wikipedia works. This total lack of understanding you compensate by assumptions of bad faith and multiple personal attacks, even after being told by another user to stop. To be honest, I am not sure why this has been allowed to go on even for a couple of hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Pointing out dishonesty is not making personal attacks, just as editing in WP information that isn't flattering to the topic isn't personally-attacking the topic - or, are reports of users to the Admin noticeboard also to be taken as personal attacks and so invalid? When pointing out what are false, and what I would say are overtly dishonestly statements and allegations, that is pointing to the context of what is trying to be done here, and under what guise it is being done. Since you acknowledge in your complaint to this board that an allegation of admin abuse is a part of this topic, then pointing-out the basis for that allegation is a part of the full analysis of the topic. BTW, there existed no comment from me to you about anything when you commented in your revert of my revert that I would likely be banned the next time based on the number of D-notices on my talk page (one of which you had just put there). And it must be said once again, I violated no WP rule in my edit and my revert of RT (TV network). So, your warning of a ban and placing a D-notice on my talk page remain unexplained. I have not shown in my editing of RT (TV network) that I don't understand how WP works. Rather, I acted properly in my editing and so showed an understanding for how WP works, which is why your behaviour throughout all of this remains questionable. And when you claimed that D-notices could lead to a ban, you revealed that it is you who, in this case, hasn't understood how WP works. So, when you claim that my edit to RT (TV network) demonstrates that I lack competence to edit WP, you are saying something false and hypocritical because my edit is actually in-line with how WP works and there isn't any fault with my decision to make that properly-sourced-and-explained edit, and so there is no justification to being threatened with a ban over it. I believe that it is fully clear from the extensive evidence that you are comfortable in openly-flaunting proper WP practices while abusing your adminship, and that you are simply trying by hook or by crook to achieve, in this matter, a particular outcome that has no basis in the truth and WP's goals. And when you accuse me of personal attacks for calling actions of yours dishonest, while claiming that I'm incompetent (though there is no fault with my edit that you've created this problem over), that is once again hypocrisy and baseless: There is no sign that my edit to RT (TV network) demonstrated incompetent editing - completely the opposite. But there is plenty of evidence that you have engaged here in dishonest behaviour. That's not a personal attack if it is objectively descriptive for the purpose of highlighting the baselessness of your allegation that I ought to have my editing ability removed. I fully believe that bad-faith conduct on your part is readily visible in your behaviour and comments - that is not a personal attack, and it is relevant to the analysis of this situation. The topics being discussed here are: 1) Was there grounds for you to threaten a ban based on my making a properly-sourced edit and making 1 revert in accordance with a page's 1RR rule. 2) Is there any sign that I did anything wrong justifying your threat of a ban and your request here in this Administrators' Notice Board that I be banned. 3) Have you engaged in bad-faith conduct and committed admin abuse, as even your own Admin Notice Board complaint notes that I am accusing you of. I believe that only topic 3) is substantiated here. Nozoz (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You saw there are 3 D notices after you placed one there. You did not "discover" 3 Ds on my page. Therefore, it is dishonest of you to say that you discovered 3 Ds there and act as if that indicates bad behaviour on my part and justification to threaten banning me and opening this noticeboard discussion where you are outright asking that I be stripped of my editing capability - using language that misrepresents all things in pursuit of that objective of yours. And here is another example of you using dishonest and misrepresentative language: I did not edit into RT (TV network) a claim that RT has nothing to do with the Russian government, or that it isn't propaganda - so, you bringing irrelevant ideas into this looks to me like a deflection tactic. RT is definitely heavily-funded by the Russian government. But it is not controlled by the Russian government, evidenced by the fact that the "foreign agent" registration of it in the US, reviewed and accepted by the US government, states that RT has editorial independence while its hosts have creative independence to speak their own views, and also evidenced by the fact that the head of RT UK explicitly stated in a BBC interview that there is no communication between RT and the Russian government regarding broadcasting content. Those things are solid sources backing the claim that RT is not state-controlled (though, it is certainly state-funded). State-funded and state-controlled are two different things. You, conversely, have presented no evidence, no source, no backing for your claim that RT is not just state-funded and that is fully state-controlled. And there is no pre-existing discussion on the RT talk page about this topic as of when I made my edit and when I made the RT talk page topic on it. And regardless, I have substantiated why RT (TV network) does not warrant the label of "state-controlled" with good and authoritative sources. If you have information that is greater than the sources I've provided, then you ought to engage the RT (TV network) talk page discussion I made and present that information and explain how it is more authoritative than what I have presented. My making a well-sourced-and-explained edit is certainly not an example of me being a troll, and my explaining myself and your repeated misrepresentations and mischaracterizations is not an example of ranting. Is is simply the necessary and due analysis of what is happening here, and what it emerged from. What you are really doing here is using your admin position to overrule a sourced edit based on personal opinion and suspicion, and are issuing a threat of a ban on somebody who made a good-faith and properly-sourced edit, in order to intimidate them from presenting information you find non-beneficial to your personal objective. Not only is that clear from the evidence of your actions, but you have outright just said it: When you say that you hope I will be banned for my opinion of you (though, I have only pointed-out that claims you are making are literally dishonest and misrepresentative), you are outright stating that your goal here isn't impartial and isn't about what is right by Wikipedia's rules, but is about personal bias and prejudice. And your usage of your admin power to that end, which is thoroughly evidenced here, is literally admin abuse. That you're flaunting it openly makes me suspect that you've gotten away with admin abuses enough to the point that you fear no consequence for it and feel immune from WP's rules. And calling me incompetent when the ground fact here is that I violated no WP rule, while you treated D-notices as though warning points and grounds for an upcoming ban, and that you are further openly saying you hope I get banned for my pointing-out of what you're doing, is remarkably hypocritical. Nozoz (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter is being patently dishonest in their depiction here, and I believe that underscores that they are indeed committing admin abuse. First, I'll point-out that Ymblanter did NOT discover three Ds on my Wikipedia page - they added the third one themselves in reaction to my recent edit of the WP page for RT. The other two alerts were given by two separate editors over the same edit I made on a page, while my account was relatively new with few edits, and those alerts were posted within minutes of each other. They aren't two alerts for separate occurrences, they are one alert. So, in actual total, I have one pre-existing D-notice from when my account was new, and Ymblanter has just added another seemingly under false pretext, and is now pretending as if they just saw that it was already there and that that's supposed to indicate I have been doing something wrong... when they're actually the person who just put it there, themselves. So, there is a clear willingness to dishonestly represent things right there, and they clearly added the third D out of an ulterior motive to frame me as a problem. Now, the edit I made to the RT (TV network) WP page was not badly-sourced - the sources, as detailed in the talk page discussion I made for the edit ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Calling_RT_state-controlled_is_unsubstantiated,_personal_opinion,_and_contrary_to_the_determination_listed_the_US_government's_own_registration_of_RT_as_a_foreign_agent ), are NPR and BBC. There is NO source for the converse position to my edit. Therefore, the more greatly-sourced position is the one I edited in. But that's all neither here nor there to the fact that I did no wrong by WP's rules, and that I acted in good faith when making my edit to RT (TV network). I genuinely did not violate WP's rules, and so Ymblanter trying to spin it as if I did (while arguing that a D-notice they just put on my talk page is evidence of it) is, again, patently dishonest. Ymblanter is further being dishonest when they say that my edits on Wikipedia are 'mostly not that good' - this is once again patently false. My edits are just fine, well-sourced, and factual. If this string and combination of false assertions and misuse of admin power to falsely accuse, engage in wilful false representation of themselves and their behaviour and also of me and my edits, and to ostracize me from editing by way of those things, isn't admin abuse, then what possibly could be? In light of the verifiable facts in this case, I believe that the fact that Ymblanter is acting in bad faith and with ulterior motives is fully transparent. Nozoz (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to make a correction to my larger comment here, regarding the pre-existing Ds on my page. They were not made minutes apart, but two-and-a-half months apart. However, they are both concerning the same edits I made on the page for Eva Bartlett. From what I see, the 2nd D-notice is not from a new incident, but was added long after my edits, but regarding the same edits for which the first D-notice was added. So, it is redundant all the same. Nozoz (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

NozozPlease take a deep breath, and contribute constructively to this discussion. I do appreciate that it wasn't ideal for an editor to add a DS notice and then observe that there were three such notices,, leading an incautious reader to think that these were three other than the one just added. But let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill. You added helpful advice that two of them related to the same edit but as you yourself discovered they weren't added minutes apart but months apart. That still means there are only two edits generating DS notices but the right response is to calmly point this out without using terms such as "patently dishonest". If someone else is already pointed out, a DS notice is informational and should not be construed as a warning. I haven't looked at the underlying substance, and I cannot as I have a meeting starting in minutes, but let's just take a deep breath and discuss this calmly. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Noted, I will try. When a non-provoked and unjustified attack comes out of the blue and the person making the attack goes to all lengths to try to frame their target, with there being no basis in a regard for WP's rules behind it, it is not easy to remain entirely calm. Nozoz (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Another curiosity I find with the D notice Ymblanter left on my page is that it says, "You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans". But the well-sourced edit I made on RT (TV network) was concerning the fact of RT's editorial (though not financial) independence from the Russian government. Is the editorial independence of RT (an international company) really about Eastern Europe or the Balkans, or did Ymblanter simply paint with an overly broad brush to create pretext for potential future sanctions (as they've expressed they conflate D notices with warning points leading up to a ban - and, again, how many people has Ymblanter banned over D notices?) against my account should I edit any information in those topics that is contrary to their preference? Nozoz (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I hope someone will answer this, point by point.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I again have to ask an administrator whether the accusations (in particular, that I am dishonest, all others in this situation I care less about), repeatedly raised by Nozoz in this thread, are justified.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I also request that other administrators weigh-in on this point. Nozoz (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nozoz, I am torn here. On the one hand I think a WP:NOTHERE block is justified (per WP:RGW); on the other, I lean towards topic bans from Israel-Palestine, the Balkans, Russia and Ukraine broadly construed to see if there is anything you can help with here without inserting gross bias. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I see no logic in your assertion. I didn't edit RT (TV network) to right any wrongs, I edited it to make the page more factual - which contradicts your WP:NOTHERE suggestion as it means the very opposite: That I am clearly here to contribute to making a quality encyclopedia. If you think that the intention of making information more factual and substantiated is a sign of not being here to contribute to making a higher-quality encyclopedia, while forcefully putting in unsubstantiated information and threatening people with unjust bans if they improve it is a sign of being interested in making a higher-quality encyclopedia, then I think you have something confused. This all comes down to the fact that I made an innocuous edit for the sake of being factual, and I explained the edit in detail and was never presented any counter-explanation against the edit. The edit I made was in full-keeping with WP's rules, and the intention with which I made it was also in full-keeping with WP's goals. The threat of a ban was clearly baseless, and so this comes down to someone wanting to protect biased information in WP and abusing their admin power to intimidate others from taking away the biased information they are protecting. But, all the same, the edit I made was in good-faith and not a violation of any WP rule, while the threat of a ban for innocently editing in a way that isn't against WP's rule is not a good-faith action. Nozoz (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. @Nozoz: stop acting you're completely perfect and as if Ymblanter is nothing but abusive. The source you try to interpret as RT being innocent is really them trying to avoid answering questions -- The paperwork acknowledges that RT America's parent company is financed by a foreign government, political party or other principal. But the company declined to provide details, saying only that it understands "the Russian Federation finances ANO TV-Novosti to a substantial extent. You're also ignoring the dozen other sources that describe it as a propaganda outlet, merely quoting RT's side of things through other sources. That sort of dishonestly is why any administrators who look at your actions is going to agree with Guy. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomso:, I have only spoken truthfully. I have not claimed any perfection from me, or that Ymblanter is nothing but abusive. But I have identified what I believe are clear examples of moderator abuse from them. I haven't claimed that RT is innocent or that RT is not propaganda - and so it can't be said that I've ignored any sources claiming such. Whether or not RT is propaganda isn't a part of my edit and this topic. I haven't once even opined on that matter. To call my not commenting on a topic that is unrelated to my edit and this discussion dishonest means that you haven't taken care of the first step that's required to make an assessment here, with the first step being that you understand what you're making an assessment on. Whether RT is propaganda or not is entirely neither here nor there to the topic. Nozoz (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Taking a quick glance at some of their past edits, I see:
  At Doping in Russia, Nozoz throws out the assessment of four news sources (including the NYT and the Guardian) for his interpretation of a primary source. Note that Page 70 of that source literally says "Prof. McLaren stated that the total number of individuals who were implicated in the doping and cover-up scheme was likely to exceed 1,000," and after the bit that Nozoz cherry-picks.
  At Eva Bartlett, censoring and downplaying evidence of Barlett's falsehoods and generally downplaying her connections to RT while emphasizing her accusations toward mainstream news, even to the point of praising North Korea. Here's an extended discussion where all they do is accuse everyone else of getting things wrong, never showing any sign they'll improve.
  And they're still refusing to see any problems with their actions. @Nozoz: Stop acting like you're only right, keep in mind that people are opposing your edits for good reason, and find another topic. If you don't want to do that, leave or be made to leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You are grossly misrepresenting things, and so I have to say you are coming across as not a good-faith actor.

*You said: "Nozoz throws out the assessment of four news sources (including the NYT and the Guardian) for his interpretation of a primary source]. Note that Page 70 of that source literally says "Prof. McLaren stated that the total number of individuals who were implicated in the doping and cover-up scheme was likely to exceed 1,000," and after the bit that Nozoz cherry-picks". I didn't cherry-pick anything, and my edit is accurate. Those sources you mention, including the NYT and The Guardian, didn't make their own assessment, they quoted McLaren's report. And then, later, during the CAS court hearings, McLaren walked-back on that claim and stated that he hadn't meant those Russians had for a fact doped, but said he had merely been hypothesizing. The quote and source I have given are accurate.

* I don't think that I downplayed Eva Bartlett's falsehoods, but I did remove some inaccurate claims of falsehoods, and I didn't downplay her connection to RT. I don't think of RT as a dirty word and have no need to downplay a connection there. But Bartlett is an independent journalist. Independent journalists have articles published by larger news publications on a case-by-case basis. You are looking for conspiracy where there is none.

* The Eva Bartlett page is grossly biased and filled with confirmed misinformation. I am not the only person to have pointed this out. My edits to the page were good, and they should have remained. But the page is trolled by a clique of editors who protect the misinformation for their own agendas. Nevertheless, I have not continued to try to force my edits on that page. I have explained the wrongdoing of the editors who tag-team edit that page and left it at that. You have no valid criticism in that.

* People aren't opposing my edits for good reason, but your comment here is misplaced regardless: I made one edit and one revert to the page RT (TV network), and I did not engage in edit-warring or try to impose my edit outside of the WP rules for the page. I have explained my position on the talk page for the RT page. I didn't stay and keep fighting for my edit.

It would be a good idea for you to have a handle on what you're responding to and commenting on before you make bold assertions. Here, you have not taken that first step and have made baseless claims and accusations, and given advice that is inapplicable to the situation. Nozoz (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

People aren't opposing my edits for good reason should be the motto for WP:TEND. I don't have time for this and I don't feel like the community should have to waste time on this, either. Indefinitely blocked as not here to work with the community. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Circumstances of placing DS alerts

Issues with Nozoz aside, I'm concerned that we have an admin "explaining" [91] that DS alerts are issued

when we see that a user is doing something wrong ... You managed to get three alerts, for three different areas, which means that for whatever reason you are attracted to highly controversial areas, and your editing there is not ideal. I have seen this editing pattern a lot, though you are the first person I see with three Ds alerts at the same talk page, just one after another. My message is that unless you start editing very carefully (something you are not currently doing) or move to uncontroversial areas your account is likely to be blocked.

The idea that DS alerts are badges of shame, or demerits counting up to a block, reflects a complete misunderstanding of their function. Perhaps there should be a "DS Alert Alert" we can use to remind admins what DS alerts actually are and what they're actually for. EEng 03:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This issue separate from Nozoz, yeah, someone who was completely unfamiliar with me could theoretically leave me a DS notification in good faith. Heck, if a new user walks into a DS area, goes to the talk page, and says "I have this source from (Reuters, Oxford UP, something else equally trustworthy) that says (proper and relevant quotation that should be summarized in the article), can this be added to the article?" we should still leave them a DS alert. That's why Template:Alert says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." I'm leaving a note (and trout) for Ymblanter. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Well, do not take issues with Nozoz aside. I give several dozens of DS alerts per year, and in the vast majority of cases I do not even need to provide any explanation, I just expect users to take a note that they must be careful in editing the area. However, in some cases I see serious misconduct, and sometimes even potential that a user soon will be presented to WP:AE when a prior alert is mandatory. In this case, I saw serious misconduct which prompted me to give an alert, and I discovered that they already have two prior alerts in different topic given for even more serious misconduct as well. And the user had just over 100edits. I am not at all surprised that they were indefblocked before they became extended confirmed. May be the situation could have been handled slightly better, but I am afraid the outcome would still be the same, since in retrospect we see that all their edits are about whitewashing RT using bad sources or misrepresenting the sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the point. Can you please (a) acknowledge that (contrary to what you said in your post quoted above) the fact that an editor has received a DS alert, or several DS alerts, or several DS alerts in a row, is not evidence of misconduct; and (b) assure the community that you'll stop saying such things? This shouldn't be hard. EEng 13:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(a) By itself, a number of DS alerts is not an evidence of misconduct. However, in this case all Ds alerts have been given for misconduct. (b) this is a question "have you stopped beating your wife". I am not going to stop calling misconduct misconduct. Sorry to disappoint you.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not a beating-your-wife question, because you are being asked to stop doing something you clearly have been doing. Now yes or no: Will acknowledge that you will stop issuing the false statements you made in your post quoted at the start of this subthread? This is a formal request per WP:ADMINACCT. EEng 14:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not made false statements. I actually never lie, though I remember it was for you last time impossible to believe. I said that behavior of that user is disruptive, and we have a chance to check that I was right, even if the form I used was possibly not optimal. I am not sure what is difficult here to understand. For the rest, I am afraid, you will have to go to ArbCom if you believe that my behavior is contrary to ADMINACCT.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I see the problem. This can be (and probably was) interpreted that DS alerts are given for serious misconduct. Whereas this user has performed reasonably serious misconduct, I promise to be more careful choosing the wording in the future.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I was half expecting you to say that you not only never lie but that you're incapable of error as well. There's hope for you yet. EEng 16:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Aww c'mon let's be honest. "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" is a lie. 99% of the time when an editor gives another editor a DS alert, it's immediately following something the recipient did that the poster didn't like. Getting a DS alert, contrary to the notice, does in fact imply that there are issues with your contributions to date. The template notice ought to be updated to describe actual practice. It should say "I am leaving you this notice so that if you repeat your behavior, you can be more easily sanctioned." The proof? An editor can inform or remind another editor of the existence or import of DS with a normal, non-template message. That makes the editor aware of DS without fulfilling the actual DS awareness requirement. The only reason to make someone aware of DS using the template is to fulfill the awareness requirement, and the only reason to do it that way instead of with a regular message is to clear the way for future sanctions. Lev!vich 14:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  An editor can inform or remind another editor of the existence or import of DS with a normal, non-template message – I don't believe that's true, actually. IIRC, to have effect a DS alert must be in the exact form of the template, without modification (though you can append other stuff after it). EEng 16:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's my point exactly: the only reason to use the template is "to have effect", i.e., to trigger the awareness criteria that makes the editor subject to DS, i.e. to pave the way for future sanctions. If we wanted to inform someone without paving the way for future sanctions, we would say "Hey, FYI, this article is under WP:ACDS" (which many editors do write to each other), rather than go through the cumbersome process of posting a DS template (which requires checking three places for prior awareness; even the script requires running twice as a failsafe measure). Very few editors will go to that trouble unless there's disruption. Lev!vich 17:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Probably 75% of the time I've given alerts I have no clear opinion on the editor's editing, and 95% of the time it's not in response to any particular edit. I haven't given that many warnings, but from what I've seen there are a large number of editors like me who do give alerts regularly to editors when they seem them active in an area or article, especially an area that has had significant problems recently (to be clear, an area here doesn't mean the whole DS area but some more limited area of the encyclopaedia, of one article). There are also a number of times when someone comes to ANI or AN and complains about an editor who is editing in a DS area. Rather than wasting time working out if anyone did anything wrong, it's hardly uncommon to simply DS alert the editor (and probably the complainer if they aren't aware), and tell the people concerned to use the discretionary sanctions process in future if needed. I've also seen this happen elsewhere. Note that this is distinct from what you're saying. Some editor may think they need to be sanctioned in the future, but it's not the editor actually giving the alert. The editor who thinks they need to be sanctioned may be completely wrong, the point is it doesn't and shouldn't matter, there's no point wasting time working out if they do. I've also remarked before that IMO the best DS alerts are given by editors who agree with an editor's edits. I'm not denying that some editors do give them because they disagree with an editor's edits and think they may need to be sanctioned in the future, but you said 99% which is an extreme number. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Usually what I do is I come across some disruptive editing on a given page, look at the page history, and give an alert to everyone involved on that page. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's a great practice. EEng 16:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe we should update the template to "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. It might be the other editor. ;-) Lev!vich 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  When I have given the notices, it's either been to a relatively new account that I think may not be aware of the standards on DS articles, or it's a way of reminding an experienced editor to stay calm and reflect on recent engagements -- not necessarily with me. But even in the second case, the editor placing the notice is not signalling Admin disapproval or a pending sanction, just that editor's personal concern. And some Admins routinely place the notices on a large number of user talk pages when they see a new user in one of the topic areas. Short of automated messages listing all DS and GS topic areas, updated annually by a bot, I don't see any better way to do it. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Non admin here. For the record, every instance in which I've been "notified" of DS in a topic area it never felt like useful information. It felt like a warning. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Think of it as an informative warning. EEng 13:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  It's definitely a warning, just not one that assumes any wrongdoing on your part. The same way that you might see a shark warning at a beach, to ensure you know what you might be getting into before you head out into the water. Grandpallama (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  A DS template is not at all like warning people of sharks or other dangers. DS sanctions can only be applied to editors who have been made aware of DS, e.g. with a template message. Thus the message doesn't warn of a danger, it creates the danger. If sharks only attacked people who had received a warning first, then no one would warn people about sharks. Lev!vich 20:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich: That is perhaps the best example of your work I have seen on all of these many notice boards. A classic. Mistaken, but a perfectly stated false analogy 👌😎 SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Does this sound familiar?

MohanaShashi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created what appears to be a hoax article (Sunny Rainbow Kids: Young Mohana) about an non-existent Disney+ show that is a spin off of another non-existent show. Does this match any editing patterns of any LTAs? Goose^(Talk!) 18:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@SuperGoose007: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camilod/Archive is a decent bet. Also could be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reggieplata/Archive. There are more, but it would take a CheckUser to know for sure. Might want to file an SPI. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I honestly have no clue, but is this a possibility? Plenty of hoaxes throughout the socks, and the reason I've known about that SPI archive is due to this recent user who was suspected of being another sock with many blatant hoaxes such as this and this- but was only blocked indeff. 18:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If this helps, the user posted this on Talk:Sunny Rainbow Kids: Young Mohana: "If you have any questions for the talk page, answer them here and leave them on what you think. :] Be careful no inappropriate questions allowed, cuz I will gladly remove them for good!! >:[" Goose^(Talk!) 18:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@SuperGoose007: And they've recreated it... hoax back at both Sunny Rainbow Kids: Young Mohana and User:MohanaShashi/Sunny Rainbow Kids: Young Mohana. I'm sensing a block will be needed soon... Magitroopa (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

And this message on the talk page as to why it shouldn't be deleted, "Because I created the wikipedia and I don't want it to be deleted, so that would just be a peaceful wikipedia page. Please understand this, it doesn't need to be removed and helped for the Disney+ channel to grow." Magitroopa (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

75.186.4.43

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

Looking through their edits and warnings they have a long history of making unexplained content changes (sometimes just completely making things up) and changing of historic results. I'm not sure what to do here, it's looks like they're just trying to rewrite history in subtle ways by changing results. Most of their edits look okay, it's just some of them that don't seem right, it doesn't seem like they know how to use the Talk pages though and they provide no edit summaries. FozzieHey (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

FozzieHey It is customary to provide evidence by citing diffs. See WP:DIFF. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 22:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Just from today: [92] [93] [94] [95]. This is changing info without changing the source. This means either this is vandalism, or all these articles contained wrong info for a long time (I have not checked the sources).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

A few more recent diffs are here: [96] [97] [98] [99]. Basically just unexplained content removal and changing / adding unsourced content. I don't think it's intentionally malicious I just don't know what to do if they don't know how to use a Talk page and they don't provide any edit summaries. FozzieHey (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of edit summaries would be nice.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The Gold Bar Reporter

The history of the The Gold Bar Reporter is essentially a slow-motion dual of SPAs and IPs. Quite a few of those reversions seem to need to be RevDel'd. I'll leave the existence of the article to AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think I've got all the BLP violations and revdeleted them. Some had been there for a long time. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, what was left, was a clear WP:CSD#A7. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: No it wasn't, because A7 only applies to "real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content,[8] or organized event" - this was an article about a newspaper. Additionally, per the policy, "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedily deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria", which this isn't as a PROD has been contested; also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gold Bar Reporter closed as "no consensus", AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gold Bar Reporter (2nd nomination) is open and one editor has !voted "keep". I am reversing this deletion as a violation of multiple policies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A newspaper isn’t a commercial or non-commercial organization?? —JBL (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

W28394 - Disruptive editing and Edit wars

This user W28394 has been involved in edit wars and is involved in disruptive editing on multiple articles. He has been edit warring and has reverted edits of multiple users such as User:Anupam, User:NavjotSR, User:Editorkamran. All of them have tried to engage with this user on the talk pages of the following articles but he keeps on reverting the information without even providing any references.

• Disruptive Changes and Edit Wars

Article : Khalji dynasty [[100]] [[101]] [[102]] [[103]]

Article : Jalal-ud-din Khalji [[104]] [[105]] [[106]]

Article:Hindkowans [[107]] [[108]] [[109]] [[110]]

• Warnings against this user:

[[111]] [[112]]

• Here he has accused me to be a Sockpuppet of User:Editorkamran

[[113]] [[114]]

Please look into this as he is removing big chunks of articles without even providing any credible source and is reverting all constructive edits. Kami2018 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of vandalism by Kami2018

Good Evening, unfortunately, I have to write on your talk page due to the petty targeting, complaining, and accusations initiated against me by Kami2018.

I have been accused of edit wars, disruptive editing, etc, for making factual and well sourced changes to articles. I have provided all required sources for every change I have made. You can find the reasoning and sources for them on the talk pages here [[115]],here [[116]] and here, [[117]].

Rather than engaging and replying on the talk pages, Kami2018 has resorted to flippant behavior and is trying to get me banned by various editors/moderators. Kami2018 has been obtrusively imposing his views on to others and has been warned against doing so by various users numerous times in the past as well. Thank you.

W28394 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by third-party editors

Thank you to User:Kami2018 for pinging me here. From what I can see, several editors have reverted and/or opposed the changes of User:W28394 on the article about Hindkowans, including User:Kami2018, User:Editorkamran, User:Fylindfotberserk, and User:NavjotSR. As of now, there is a consensus on the talk page that opposes the revision suggested by User:W28394. Both User:Kami2018 and User:W28394 have commented on my talk page asking me to examine the situation and my recommendation has been for User:W28394 to self-revert and allow the talk page discussion to continue, rather than continue the behaviour of edit warring. Whether User:W28394 complies with WP:BRD and the current consensus should, in my opinion, play a role in the result achieved in this WP:ANI discussion concerning User:W28394. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• W28394 is WP:NOTHERE as evident from the diffs provided by Kami2018. I would support an indef block. NavjotSR (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Noncommunicative/disruptive user seemingly edit warring as both IP and user

• Sharkman720 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.74.234.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

So as the title states, there's a user here who seems to be entirely non-communicative and is continuing disruptive edits/possible edit warring on Dancing with the Stars (American season 29). They are continued to edit the sentence that currently states, "On August 24, 2020, it was reported that AJ McLean, member of Backstreet Boys, would be a celebrity participant as well; McLean was later officially revealed on August 27." to something such as, "On August 24, 2020, it was reported that AJ McLean, member of Backstreet Boys, would be a celebrity participant as well; On August 27 2020, AJ McLean was officially announced." which I believe would be entirely improper grammar.

I've also numerously said that there's no need to change the sentence, it's perfectly fine using a semicolon and not repeating the full name and full date (including year) again (Because the semicolon allows for the full date + name in the first part, then the second part can just be the last name + date without the year).

It seems though they are continuing to edit war over this without communicating at all. Furthermore, it definitely seems like they are doing this over IP and their user account, even after the page was protected for disruptive editing. Currently, the only they've actually communicated was here (as I was typing this out, actually), but they rarely ever communicate, with basically 0 edit summaries (Okay, 26 times / 3.5%...) in use since they joined in 2012. Prior to that response on their talk page, they haven't said anything on any talk page, Wikipedia page, and (Again, prior to their response today) last discussed on a user talk page in December 2018. Not sure what to go about it, but they definitely need to communicate more rather than edit warring through their account and IP (See the recent edits on both, strikingly similar/just about the same exact edits/editing style...)

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's also a few diffs from the IP and the user:

• [118]
• [119]
• [120]
• [121]
• [122]
• [123]
• [124]

And then disruptive edits from the user following page protection:

• [125]
• [126]

Hope the diffs help. Magitroopa (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Might be time for a range block

Persistent disruption from range 2600:1700, with a special interest in these animation articles [127]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Or throw a lock on all the The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season) articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)‎
  • The /64 range has been blocked 31h by Materialscientist. Best, — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, Blablubbs. [128]. Let's designate this child the Boca Raton vandal. They've been at this a long time, and have a much wider expanse than I thought. Could merit a longer block based on this history. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Materialscientist, they're back. I reverted a few innocuous edits. See if you think a longer range block is necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

CU range block needed

Could a checkuser please block an IP or a range where Hooker82, DMackz, and RealityMaster728 were editing from? Undoing their edits become a real pain. No need to reply here, just do it please.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Meters

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

---

User:Meters is harassing me. 101.100.139.52 (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

IP has been reported at AIV for trolling, harassment and personal attacks.Meters (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

And IP was blocked at 9:33. Meters (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 48h for inappropriate behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent unsourced sister city additions from multiple IPs

A user operating from multiple IPs is persistently adding unsourced sister pairings variously involving Cary and Raleigh, North Carolina, USA and Salzburg, Austria. With roughly 60 edits spread across four IPs so far, the user has also on occasion improperly deleted other cities from the lists. I initially left edit notes indicating that I was reverting due to unsourced content, then escalated to talk page notices, but the multiple IPs have made things rather futile.

Involved IPs:

• 2606:A000:4508:A00:CD71:BF28:347F:3383 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2606:A000:4508:A00:243C:D98E:414E:4A78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2606:A000:4508:A00:DCE0:99F2:91B8:E57F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2606:A000:4508:A00:6D5A:DAD9:E155:1845 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Involved pages:

• Raleigh, North Carolina
• Cary, North Carolina
• Salzburg
• List of sister cities in North Carolina
• List of twin towns and sister cities in Austria

All of the additions are unsupported by current lists of sister cities, including for Cary and Raleigh and in the membership directory of Sister Cities International. WildCowboy (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not overly impressed by the sources: do they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Nevertheless, the prior list at had some sourcing, unlike the IP's efforts. I've partially blocked the /64 range from editing Raleigh, North Carolina indefinitely for now. On the slim chance that another IP is allocated the address and also wants to edit the Raleigh article (the IP does geolocate to Raleigh), I'm happy for an unblock with a convincing reason to happen without consulting me. --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

On further investigation, I found https://raleighnc.gov/raleigh-sister-cities which confirms the prior list and sources and looks like the authoritative site. I've instead partially blocked the IP from all five pages for 3 years for now. If they have genuine reasons to edit those pages, they will have to engage in talk somewhere first. Hopefully that fixes it. On the slim chance that another IP is allocated the address and genuinely wants to edit those articles (the IP does geolocate to Raleigh), I'm happy for an unblock with a convincing reason to happen without consulting me. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reduced your indefinite block to 3 months. Please don't do indefinite blocks on IP addresses, or block random IP addresses for years. Sometimes a residential cable ISP will allocate a /64 to a single customer for a very long time time, but you can not assume that it will last years. As a CheckUser who has done thousands of CU lookups and thousands of range blocks, I can tell you that this will cause unacceptable collateral damage. Partial blocks mitigate this, but they still need to be reasonable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone...much appreciated. Will keep an eye out for future edits from any additional IPs. WildCowboy (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback

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

---

Hi, I'm sturggling to see why General Ization (talk · contribs) used his rollback privilesgs here [129] to edit war as part of a content dispute that was under active discussion. Please can someone remind him that it is only to be used in teh circumstances permitted by the guideline. Thanks. Amisom (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please review the definition of the term edit war, then consider removing this complaint. One edit, by definition, cannot constitute an edit war. As to my reversion, I acknowledge that I should have used undo and included comments directing to you to the discussion on your Talk page, which I think makes abundantly clear why the content you removed was restored. General Ization ^Talk 19:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edit formed part of a "a series of back-and-forth reverts" (see WP:EDITWAR). There was a discussion ongoing (albeit your own contributions to that discussion have been threatening and unhelpful) and there was just no need for you to edit the page until it was concluded. Rollback misuse is against Wikipedia policy. Amisom (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The editor also accuses me on their Talk page of violating the spirit if not the letter of WP:OWN, which they also apparently do not understand, merely because I disagreed with and reversed their edit. General Ization ^Talk 19:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

This is just a slightly acrimonious edit dispute, I don't think any admin action is needed yet. Yes, that was inappropriate use of rollback (and I'd also suggest General Ization avoid using "with multiple privileges" as a reason they're more likely to be right), but the mistake has been admitted and there's no further action to be taken as long as it doesn't happen again. It looks like Amisom has opened an RfC on the talk page which should be a reasonable way of solving this, though please do try and avoid personalising the dispute from the first entry on it. This is a perfectly reasonable area of editing to disagree on, it just needs productive cooperation. ~ mazca ^talk 19:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the references to "multiple privileges" had nothing to do with me. I was referring to the OP in the discussion. In any case, thanks for the correction and the recommendation. General Ization ^Talk 19:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Why am I being told I made an edit? I never have, much less a vandalic one

I had a message banner at the top of my screen when I entered Wikipedia today. It said that some administrator called Xdamr had reverted some imaginary edit that I supposedly made to the article on Prometheus, due to it being considered vandalism. I have made no such edit, and have made no edits to Wikipedia in any article. It appears that the message reached me through my IP address, since I am not logged into any account. If any edit was made, it wasn't by me, and I would appreciate not being accused of being a vandal. I just spent twenty minutes looking through what might be the clunkiest menu system in the world to get to this page to post this somewhere, *anywhere* on this damn site so that whoever is running it can see the problem and, hopefully, unfuck it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:6900:2E0:9D58:4C6E:19CA:A837 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You are evidently using a different IP address now; IP addresses can be used by different people both on the same device and different devices. If you don't recall making the edit the warning was for, then you didn't. You should create an account so your contributions are your own and you won't get messages intended for others. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Xdamr has made 3 logged actions in the past decade; this must be something ancient. This is also the first edit from the IPV6 editor's /64, so the warning must have been for some other IP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, almost certainly User talk:71.9.135.235 and Xdamr's revert (March 2007). Both IPs geolocate to Redding, CA. --DB1729 (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA

John Pappas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single-purpose promotional account that has only edited COI articles, including one about himself that was deleted via AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Pappas (2nd nomination)). He has repeatedly made baseless claims/attacks against me ("or maybe the fact that I'm born in Oakland California, home of the Oakland Raiders is another contributing factor in his possible resentment of an actor/playwright having a place in Wikipedia", "just ask eagles247, a name that can be defined as someone who has no life other than being a team fan!"), and keeps somehow creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally TV (2nd nomination) to post messages, but neither he nor anyone else can figure out how he found a link to create that AfD page in the first place. Several users have tried communicating with him (thread 1, thread 2, thread 3), but he appears to ignore all advice and just continues his ranting. See deleted contributions as well as the relatively few live edits he has. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to what Eagles247 said, but I can corroborate all of the above. He John Pappas seems to be under the impression that the article on him was deleted so that a football-playing John Pappas can take its place (see the second diff above) even though at least one editor (me) had explained that this almost certainly wasn't the case. His comments haven't yet risen to the level of personal attacks with me, but have started verging on the personal ("you said you've donated too but you don't have a page on wikipedia? if you could I'm sure you would"). YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 21:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC); ambiguous pronoun clarified 22:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr Pappas appears to be confused and upset that the article about him has been deleted. However, all is not lost (for Mr Pappas) because there is an alternative outlet that is not concerned with notability standards or other requirements and he can find his article there. Perhaps he might be pointed in that direction? P.S. I appreciated the ping, thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

yeah I am not pleased with my article being removed. I don't know how this stuff works I told you all. I never attacked anyone personally or otherwise. this is not "promotional" it's history and the truth. I did see a couple articles were no longer on the internet but I sent a couple L.A. Times articles that were still online and the fact that you say my writing and directing my works isn't valid is not valid to me. My play Increments Of Three was reviewed by Dan Sullivan, head critic for the LA Times, I believe he's an important historic critic and source in the Los Angeles Theatre community. It is one of his last reviews if not his last before leaving the LA Times. The football coach who Eagles 247 replaced me with, is only listed as a coach, nothing more in fact I got 404 doesn't exist notice while doing a search. That's not favoring a football coach who spells his name papas not Pappas or my credits? I believe it is. I am a living actor writer and playwright. I'm also a published poet but I didn't include that in my history being concerned with that might be interpreted as self promotion. I don't know how to write in here. I don't what AfD means. if anyone truly wanted to communicate with me and they have I have spent much time trying to find where the hell they left their messages. was it in talk? was it sandbox?? come on give me a break. sincerely John Pappas. 2 P's — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Pappas (talk • contribs) 22:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

More #WPWP disruption

• Laeliza23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Laeliza was warned a few days ago to Please (1) add proper English-language captions to images when adding them to articles, instead of copying meaningless filenames; (2) learn how to properly add images to infoboxes, and check after each edit that you haven't broken the template code, but they're still breaking infoboxes ([130] [131]) and leaving meaningless captions (essentially all their recent edits). How have we been dealing with these users? Are we fine with mass-rollbacking all their #WPWP edits, including any possibly good ones, since so many are terrible? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

And now they've continued, in spite of being notified of this discussion. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

They added a pic of Neil Patrick Harris to the infobox of an article about Peng Qui,a fictional character from Chinese literature?! [132] If there is a connection, it isnt mentioned anywhere in the article. Curdle (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Too many of their edits have problems -- either breaking templates or having meaningless captions. I think a block to force them to engage with the community may be called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave her a message. If she doesn't repond, I can do a partial block that stops her from editing mainspace. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Anhaabaete

This account broke WP:3RR on Sara Winter. They are trying to push their POV on this article and they have been reverted by other editors. Just looking into their talk page, one can see that the editor has a history of pushing POV and they have been warned by other users. They are clearly not here to build a encyclopedia they are here to push their POV. I would like someone to look into this, please.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 21:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Cú Chulainn and Ferdiad - user persistently removing cited information

The articles about the Irish mythological characters Cú Chulainn and Fer Diad both contain a reference to the interpretation of their relationship as a sexual one. This is discussed in the critical literature and is cited in both articles. User:CreativeFlesh93 is persistently removing this reference from both articles, apparently because he doesn't like the cited book. He also keeps insisting that when I linked WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, that was me calling him a homophobe. I asked for help from the WP:Wikiproject Mythology, and got one revert by User:Enuui, but CreativeFlesh93 has continued his campaign. I can't maintain this alone without risking being called for edit warring or 3RR. Someone, please, lend a hand. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because it was written by someone (who is not an expert in the field of Irish mythology or mythology in general) does not make it a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeFlesh93 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

(nac) CF93's edit summary "Just because it is in a book does not make it accurate" (the book in question being an encyclopedia published by Cassell) and their comment here suggests that they may be unaware of WP:TRUTH. Narky Blert (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User: Rohitashchandra ignoring topic ban from Ayurveda

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

---

User:Rohitashchandra was topic banned from Ayurveda yesterday by User:Salvio giuliano but has made further edits to Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery. PainProf (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

PainProf, they did indeed. I have blocked them for a year as an arbitration enforcement action. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Namuwiki halfling Season 2

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

---

• Namuwiki halfling Season 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is vandalizing their own talk page. Please reblock this user with talk page editing privileges revoked. –User456541 02:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done by only. –User456541 02:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

TimothyBlue mall AFDs

TimothyBlue (talk · contribs)'s recent editing patterns have become incredibly concerning.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tri City Mall. Even after Raymie (talk · contribs) and I greatly expanded the article, TimothyBlue argued that the sourcing was "run of the mill" and argued that he was "separating wheat from chaff" by pruning "run of the mill" articles in order that other editors could focus on "truly notable" malls. A query as to how the added coverage was "run of the mill" -- which included the fact that not one, but two retail chains sought out this mall for their first location in the entire state of Arizona -- went unanswered.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original Outlet Mall. Even after Pokemonprime (talk · contribs) greatly expanded the article, TimothyBlue argued that "first outlet mall in the state of Wisconsin" is not a claim to notability without backing this up.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Arcos Mall. Even after Raymie (talk · contribs) greatly expanded the article, TimothyBlue argued that "The sources added to the article are all routine run of the mill coverage and announcements." without clarifying how the sources were "Run of the mill".
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield Mall. "How is a mall that becomes an office complex still a mall?" Apparently a mall that underwent such a unique redevelopment as being turned into offices for Google -- a fact that has led to pages and pages of sources long after the mall ceased to be -- still somehow constitutes "run of the mill, routine coverage". This also smacks of ignoring WP:NTEMP -- the fact that it's no longer a mall is immaterial to its notability since the redevelopment is what makes it notable.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawthorne Plaza Shopping Center. Apparently a mall that has been used in dozens of movies is somehow not notable at all, and every bit of coverage verifying its use is "routine" and "run of the mill".

No matter how many times he is asked, he refuses to elaborate on how any of the coverage is "run of the mill". Attempts to get elaboration have only resulted in him parroting the same phrases ad nauseam, or just ignoring the response entirely (this is where the baseless "wheat from chaff" argument came from; seriously, wtf) and immediately archiving it. Or worse, falsely accusing me of calling him names. An attempt to ask if articles such as Great Lakes Crossing Outlets or Colonial Plaza, GA-class articles with the same level of coverage that Los Arcos and Tri City have now, went unanswered.

Even after existing AFDs (such as the Mayfield Mall one) are unquestionably being headed to a "keep" consensus, TimothyBlue is failing to engage in conversation and merely stonewalling other editors with the same walls of text. Nor has he shown any attempt to actually anaylze the depth of coverage, instead immediately dismissing even the most valid claims (such as "first in a large state", "first by a major developer", or "used in multiple movies") as "routine, run of the mill coverage" -- even when he's spamming every single AFD with a giant table that shows every single source used in the article, he still instantly dismisses every source on sight without showing evidence that he's even read it.

A lot of the implications seem to be that the mall has to meet WP:NBUILD's guidelines of having some sort of architectural and/or historical significance which is absurd to assume of a shopping mall other than pioneering ones such as Northland Center or extremely superlative ones like Mall of America. It is clear that WP:GNG and WP:OUTCOMES have superceded anything else, as countless mall AFDs have been closed as "keep" to show a consensus on what kind of coverage is significant to establish notability for a mall.

The fact that he is still opening new AFD after new AFD at a breakneck pace is concerning, even after so many of the ones he's already opened are clearly headed for "keep". It has gotten to the point that he is clearly getting confused about what he's even nominated (such as saying that Original Outlet Mall was in Arizona and not Wisconsin), and is pestering literally every single editor who dares disagree with him. This is very much WP:TEND and WP:IDHT territory.

While he was warned to slow it down, said warning came with the following baseless accusations from him:

• "I think the problem is they don't want any malls deleted period" -- patently false, as many other editors have gone out of their way to improve the articles and prove that they do meet notability guidelines with ease

• "I know some people are getting emotional about it." -- clearly projecting, none of the other editors !voting "keep" have had reactions that I would call "emotional"

• " those consistently voting to keep without justification based in policies or guidelines" -- implying that those of us saying "keep" are merely using WP:ATA and not things like "this building has an extremely valid claim to notability, and the extent of the sourcing is clearly enough to pass WP:GNG"

• "If those on the Keep side were providing RS that show the article meets notability GNG or NBUILD, I'd have more than enough to do rebutting them and wouldn't have time to nominate more. It's really the voting and the lack of !votes here that is causing a problem." -- this while merely filibustering and instantly dismissing literally every source as "routine" and "run of the mill" while simultaneously ignoring patently valid claims to notability (again, "first in the state" or "first by a major developer" sure sound noteworthy and not-routine to me!)

• " Further, if my AfD's keep getting kept, I would simply stop because it would be pointless, the consensus would be clear that my AfDs are incorrect, and continuing would be disruptive." -- the last several ones (Mayfield, Los Arcos, Tri City, etc.) all look like absolute slam-dunks for "keep", yet he keeps arguing with literally everyone in the AFD and blitzing his way through more patently invalid nominations anyway

tl;dr: "Routine". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• ETA: One thing that @TimothyBlue: has failed to realize is that WP:ROUTINE only applies to events, not places, invalidating his arguments even further. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  TenPoundHammer, WP:ROUTINE defines what is considered a routine news item. GNG and NBUILD state an article must have significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in-depth. Routine news items such as announcements about openings, closings, mall special events, etc, are not significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in-depth.   // Timothy :: talk  06:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @TimothyBlue: You clearly did not read the top of the page that WP:ROUTINE is on. That page is called "Notability (events)" and describes notability guidelines for just that, events. Exactly how is a mall an "event"? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes it is about events. The soures people are providing are sources about events. They are ROUTINE news items about events at a mall. They are not SIGCOV about the mall. They do not address the subject directly and in-depth.   // Timothy :: talk  07:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Because again, that's what malls are meant for. They host individual stores that open and close. They host sales. They host shows. Some host movies. Some host food festivals, boat shows, car shows, concerts, what have you. That is exactly the kind of "significant coverage" one would expect from a mall. So now to turn this question around, can you show me an example where the coverage of a shopping mall is "significant" by your standards? Because it seems that literally every other editor who's ever touched a mall article is against your take. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Response from TimothyBlue:

I think the AfD discussion and my contributions speak for themselves, so I hope others go there and comment on the sources and the nominations. Some experienced neutral editors would help a lot in evaluating the sources in these AfDs.

The keep votes for these AfDs basically amount to using routine, run of the mill coverage of events such as openings, closings, special mall events, the mall being torn down, the site of the former mall being redeveloped as excuses to claim notability. There is a small faction of mall editors that is determined to side track AfD nominations with non-notable routine news coverage.

Contray to what Ten Pound Hammer claims, I have commented extensively on the sources, even creating source assessment tables for some (I can create more but they were being ignored). [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138].

Some of the typical arguments:

• [139] "106 store regional shopping mall in Washington State. Passes WP:GEOFEAT. There is much RS available." but no sources cited
• Plenty of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comments such as [140], [141]
• [142], "Being the first anything is very much a valid assertation of notability."
• "Keep per sources in the article and above." when this is a typical collection of sources supposedly showing notability (see source assessment tables) [143]
• "The sources in the article establish notability, and I have easily found further sources on newspapers.com", but provides no sources (also check the quality of the sources in the article they claim show notability. [144], also see [145], [146]

Some of the more memorable nonsense arguments in favor of notability:

• [147], here is a mall that was abandoned, but later made into an office park, and this somehow makes the mall notable.
• [148], here its argued that because the vacant lot of Indian Springs Mall was turned into a drive-thru pickup location for Harvesters to give food to families, the mall is notable and
• [149], an article about land redevelopment makes the mall notable. Redevelopment plans and ideas for vacant lots and abandoned malls have frequently been used as reasons for notability of a mall. [150],
• [151], the first mall built by a particular developer makes the mall notable.
• [152] "Explain to me how the first of anything is not notable." when speaking about being the first outlet mall in Arizona.

In addition to statements that "sources exist" or "I found souces" and not listing them, When others state the sources in the article show notability and I ask which ones, its ignored. For example:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amigoland Mall (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westwood Mall (Houston)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methuen Mall

WP:NBUILD does not supersede WP:GNG, but it does help understand what GNG means in terms of Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail. NBUILD says "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."

If there is something special about a mall that makes it "worthy of note" per GNG and SIGCOV, then it is notable. Otherwise, NBUILD requires SIGCOV of the malls historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. If it meets this, then it would meet GNG, but absent meeting this, there needs to be SIGCOV of something "worthy of note". This has been completely ignored.

By the standards being used by Ten Pound Hammer in these AfDs, literally every mall would be notable, because every mall has the kind of coverage they are claiming make its notable.

If there is a consensus that I am misinterpreting GNG or NBUILD, have a misunderstanding of what routine, run of the mill coverage is, or am not arguing in good faith with evidence, sources, policies, and guidelines, I will accept it and move on. I may not agree, but I will move on.

If however there is a consensus that others are misinterpreting GNG or NBUILD, have a misunderstanding of what routine, run of the mill coverage is, or am not arguing in good faith with evidence, sources and policies, and guidelines, this needs to be addressed. If they are not willing to accept the consensus and move on, then a topic ban is in order.

If someone wishes me to respond to something specific in Ten Pound Hammer's comments above, I will, but I think his reasoning and comments speak for themselves.

I'm not perfect, neither are my AfDs; I make mistakes, but these are the exceptions. I believe the nominations are overwhelmingly (maybe not all, no one is 100%) solid and well-argued, and that a fair and honest evaluation will show this.   // Timothy :: talk  06:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a disruptive trend in these AfDs by the keep votes to ignore policies and guidelines, ignore rebuttals by others, and distort sources. I believe this is disruptive to AfD. This should be evaluated.

I believe the comments and reasoning that TenPoundHammer is using violates WP:DISCUSSAFD. This should be evaluated.

I also believe Ten Pound Hammer's accusations and aspersions should be looked into: [153], [154], [155], [156]

I also think in addition to reviewing Ten Pound Hammer's contributions, @MB, Raymie, and Epicgenius: contributions should be looked at in light of WP:DISCUSSAFD.

I will leave it up to the community to suggest a remedy if they find a problem here.   // Timothy :: talk  06:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

AFD Stats

I did an analysis of TimothyBlue's AFDs today and found that he sometimes says KEEP on his own nomination when he is convinced by other editors that an article should not be delete (I'm not sure of the reasoning - this is not the normal way to withdraw an AFD). It is very unusual for a nominator to make any !vote on their own AFD. What this has done is invalidated their AFD stats by changing outcome matches. The tool calculates a match of 70% delete on his nominations. I have manually adjusted this by counting all his nominations as DELETE, (disregarding when he !voted differently) and determine that his actual match rate is 59%. It is my opinion that some with such a low "success rate" should proceed more cautiously and have a better understanding of where the community stands before nominating so many articles. It may even be lower than 59% because I saw one article that was closed as delete, but promptly Refunded and expanded. MB 06:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• In response to TimothyBlue's text-wall:

"The keep votes for these AfDs basically amount to using routine, run of the mill coverage of events such as openings, closings, special mall events, the mall being torn down, the site of the former mall being redeveloped as excuses to claim notability." Yes, because that's what happens to malls. Stores open and close in them. Special events happen in them. Sometimes they don't work out and get torn down, and that may be what makes them notable to begin with. Dixie Square Mall was used in one of the most famous movies of the 80s, but your dismissal of a mall no longer existing as an "excuse" implies that even it is automatically non-notable simply by merit of not existing anymore. And again, WP:ROUTINE does not apply to buildings and places, solely to events. This bold italic part alone invalidates literally your entire argument from the word go, but I'll continue anyway.

" There is a small faction of mall editors that is determined to side track AfD nominations with non-notable routine news coverage." How is good-faith expansion of the article "side tracking" the AFD? That's exactly what editors should do if they think an article nominated for deletion is worthy of improvement -- they improve it. This kind of thing is documented in Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard.

" I have commented extensively on the sources, even creating source assessment tables for some". And you dismissed literally every source as WP:ROUTINE without explaining why, especially since again, WP:ROUTINE does not apply to places and buildings. Likewise, you have ignored or dismissed extremely valid claims for a mall's notability.

"Some of the typical arguments:" Okay, so not every argument is up to snuff. WP:ATA happens to the best of us. But you're acting like everyone is just saying "keep" and then sitting on their asses when that's not the case. Mayfield Mall is notable because its redevelopment has been widely discussed in all kinds of sources. Original Outlet Mall is notable because it was the first outlet mall in a fairly large state. Los Arcos Mall and Tri-City Pavilions both got massive expansion jobs in direct response to the AFD because several other editors and I feel that the article is worth improving.

"here is a mall that was abandoned, but later made into an office park, and this somehow makes the mall notable." Yes, it "somehow" makes it notable because again, dozens of sources have paid significant attention to this very fact. The redevelopment of Mayfield Mall into offices for Google is something that no other mall, past or present, can claim. It is a very widely-documented fact that makes the property unique even if it is no longer a mall. Notability is not temporary. If a building gets torn down or developed into something else, it does not stop being notable automatically.

"Redevelopment plans and ideas for vacant lots and abandoned malls have frequently been used as reasons for notability of a mall." Again, that's a common outcome for a mall. If it fails under its intended purpose, then that failure in and of itself is often a topic of discussion. Is Swifton Center, the first mall in Cincinnati, no longer notable because it was torn down?

"the first mall built by a particular developer makes the mall notable." Yes, it absolutely does. As do the dozens of sources added by other editors, showing that the mall had a long lasting impact on the community and the developer, and is still a topic of discussion after its demise.

"...when speaking about being the first outlet mall in Arizona." Yet again, Original Outlet Mall is in Wisconsin, not Arizona. This is not the first time you've made this mistake, and it suggests that you're not even paying attention to what you're nominating.

"If there is something special about a mall that makes it "worthy of note" per GNG and SIGCOV, then it is notable. Otherwise, NBUILD requires SIGCOV of the malls historic, social, economic, or architectural importance...there needs to be SIGCOV of something "worthy of note". This has been completely ignored." Yes, because "its very redevelopment is a topic of discussion all on its own" or "it had the first locations in the entire state for not one, but two department store chains" (Tri-City Pavilions) aren't "special" in your and only your eyes. By that same token, which malls specifically would be "significant" in your eyes? Is Castleton Square "significant" because it's the biggest mall in its entire state and has been since 1972, or is it still just "run of the mill, routine" to you?

"There is a disruptive trend in these AfDs by the keep votes to ignore policies and guidelines, ignore rebuttals by others, and distort sources." You mean editors such as myself, Pokemonprime, and Raymie who are acting in absolutely good faith and improving the articles as we see fit? I haven't had time to get to all of them due to my work schedule, but Methuen Mall is on my docket. I immediately added two sources from the Boston Globe, which were just the first two I happened to find. Again, several editors are using the Heymann Standard to draw greater attention to a topic of interest to us, which is exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia is meant to do, and your view of genuine, good-faith article improvement as "disruptive" is extremely ignorant.

"I also believe Ten Pound Hammer's accusations and aspersions should be looked into". At what point was anything I said to you inflammatory or attacking?

There is also one fact that you, @TimothyBlue:, are patently ignoring. On what page is WP:ROUTINE located? That's right, it's at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (events). A shopping mall is by no means an "event"; therefore, nothing on a page titled "Notability (events)" could possibly apply to the notability, or lack thereof, in a shopping mall. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, you have left this same comment in three places; two here and on my talk page. I have explained it to you already. Stop repeating yourself in multiple places.   // Timothy :: talk  07:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"Stop repeating yourself in multiple places", says the guy who has made the same carbon-copy, equally invalid arguments on every single AFD and repeatedly responded in the exact same way to literally every single "keep". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

TPH, you refer to Timothy's reply as a "text-wall", but your own OP is a text wall, as is your sur-reply. I would think you'd be more respectful of a long reply given your long initial post. Lev!vich 15:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

MB:

1. Your math is bad. Very bad.
2. Your analysis of AfD reports is simplistic, it no matches merges and drafts and in this case if notability was established they would have been keeps. They weren't notable, so they were merges or drafts. I didn't get the merge or draft right, but I got the notability correct.
3. Your statement about me voting is false. I clearly said in each of the withdrawls I was withdrawing. I never thought someone would be combing through my AfD report

  // Timothy :: talk  07:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Temporary Injunction

The comparative messiness, non-clear discussion, and (more significantly) ongoing issues makes me feel that we should implement an interim injunction (active until the sooner of 2 weeks or this ANI discussion closes) for Timothy, stopping: opening any more AfDs or participating in AfDs that they have not already participated in - unless they created the article. It doesn't close off all potential issue routes, but it's designed to minimise collateral issues.

• Support as proposer Nosebagbear (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see anything sanctionable here or even wrong. We don't sanction people for disagreeing at AFD. The nom success rate looks fine to me. I doubled checked what MB was saying about Timothy !voting "keep" on their own noms and thereby artificially increasing his match rate, and I came up with different numbers. Here are Timothy's last 200 noms. Excluding "no consensus", not closed yet, and other uncountable votes, that list of 200 reports 91 "matches" (green) and 34 non-matches (red). 11 of the 91 matches are "keep" votes, which if you count those as false positives (I'm not sure about that logic but let's go with it for now), means we should subtract the 11 "keep" matches from the 91 matches to arrive at 80 matches. 80 matches + 34 non-matches = 114. 80/114 = 70%. A 70% match rate for noms is fine. (And that's before making further adjustments favorable to Timothy, e.g. the tool counts a "merge" or "redirect" result as a non-match, when in fact it is a match for a delete nom.) Lev!vich 14:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Levivich, just for clarity since could you show the math for the last 30 days instead of the last 200. Thanks :)   // Timothy :: talk  15:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am short on time so I have not read this thread carefully (the great walls of text above don't help). However, the AfD tool counts redirects as a match (see Concubine Rong, of the Liang clan as an example from that run). Also wouldn't the correct math, in the version unfavorable to Timothy, be (91 matches - 11 keeps)/(91 matches + 34 non-matches) for a match rate of 64% on noms? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah you're right, if we count the "keep-noms" as non-matches, then it's 64%; I was taking them out of the counting altogether to get to 70%. I don't really agree with how the AFD tool counts a "match". For example, redirects, merge, and delete should all be counted as a match to each other. That aside, I think the core question here is whether Timothy is nominating a lot of articles that shouldn't be nominated. Whether his nom rate is 70%, 64%, or 59%, the numbers, to me, suggest the answer is clearly "no". If it was below 50% I'd have a different opinion. Lev!vich 17:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think a sufficient case has been made here, per what I wrote below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- Firstly, Timothy's responses here indicate that even if there has been a problem (which I doubt) it will no longer be one going forward. Secondly, call it an injunction if you like but it's actually a topic ban. And topic bans are permanent scarlet letters on your record even after they've expired. Timothy definitely has not deserved that. Reyk _YO! 15:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction none whatsoever seeing as TimothyBlue has been well informed and accurate thus far in most of his AFD related activities. His misdemeanors(if any) are negligible. Celestina007 16:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not particularly convinced all the "Keep" reasons touted as obvious examples of notability are really all that obvious. Buildings are definitely not in my interests so I don't know what the standard guidelines are, but I certainly wouldn't think something was inherently notable because it was the "first" of anything. I also would interpret ROUTINE to apply to events like mall and mall store openings/closings -- is this not the case? Mayfield looks to meet GNG from the very brief skim of its refs, but Westwood, Amigoland, and Methuen seem to rely wholly on standard coverage that one would expect for literally any local business. I'm pretty sure my hometown Fred Meyer has had more reporting than those malls... JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Couple of questions: 1) what action do you want admins to do here? Are you asking for a block, or a topic ban, or what? 2) Is this dispute more than people looking at the same sources and disagreeing about whether they're crap or not? Reyk _YO! 07:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Reyk: I think the issue here is TimothyBlue's casual dismissal and bad-faith assumptions in the actions of good-faith editors, false accusations of inflammatory behavior on my part, rampant filibustering and wikistalking (again, responding to literally every "keep" vote and every post about him with a giant text-wall), gross misrepresentation of policy (malls aren't events, so WP:ROUTINE holds no weight), constantly saying that things are "routine" and "run of the mill" with no evidence, and reckless mass AFDing to the point that he gets topics mixed up. It is clear that his views line up with literally no one else's, and are doing more harm than good. It is equally clear that no amount of discussion will get through to him (to the point that he's told me to stop posting on his talk page entirely), and so I think a topic ban from either shopping malls/retail, XFD, or both would not be a bad idea unless other admins have a better solution. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Reyk, all I want is 1) someone to go through the mall AfDs and evaluate the sources and evidence, based on policies and guidelines and !vote accordingly so they are closed properly. Admins can evaluate conduct in the discussions as they see fit. The above accusations and aspersions need to stop along with those in the AfDs.

As far as what this is about, the mall faction can't win the debate based on policies, guidelines, and sources, so they have come here to do an end run around AfD. They've also decided to make this personal with insults, accusations, aspersions, because they are not happy someone disagrees with them.

  // Timothy :: talk  08:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• I just want to bring up that I think TimothyBlue might have his standards set too high; he nominated Harundale Mall for deletion, actually got it deleted initially- It was *the first* mall ever built on the east coast of the United States. I think to say that is entirely non-notable is wrong. Additionally, I think his WP:BEFORE is weak- even if he claims to have done it. Sources were easily found to widely expand some of the articles he nominated, yet he claims they totally fail GNG or that all the sources we ever dredge up are "routine". In addition, he almost completely skipped "C". He never brought it up on a talk page, he never contacted editors, he never brought it up at WP:MALLS. He went straight to AfD when it wasn't needed.Pokemonprime (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just a couple of things:
  1. People are allowed to have more stringent sourcing requirements, nobody is answerable to wikiprojects (who, let's face it, tend to say everything in their subject area is notable no matter what), and it genuinely is possible for two people to look at the same sources and disagree about their relevance and quality. Thinking a source is trivial crap does not automatically amount to a failure to worship at the altar of the Holy Gospel of WP:BEFORE.
  2. We can't start topic banning people from AfD just because their !votes don't match the outcome often enough. That would set a terrible precedent. You'd just have to decide you don't like someone because they !vote delete too much, mobilize a couple of your friends, follow him around to vote against him on every AfD he starts, and then come running to ANI to get him topic banned for too many unsuccessful AfDs.
  3. Badgering people on AfDs isn't just annoying, it's futile. Closing admins read the bolded !vote and maybe the reasoning for it, nothing more. They generally don't take any notice of comments and replies to !votes. You're just wasting your time arguing endlessly with people.

• Reyk _YO! 12:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Reyk:, I can't speak for every other admin, but those I've talked to do read both the reasoning and the objections to that reasoning, as do I. Large walls of text to each might put me off ever actually processing the AfD, however. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, when I've tried to object to personal attacks, bogus accusations, and canvassing in AfDs I have found it impossible to get closing admins to even acknowledge it, much less act on it. If clear-cut misbehavior gets ignored, then all the endless tedious and abstruse bickering about whether a particular source is substantial or not has absolutely zero chance of being read. Reyk _YO! 13:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it will stick or be useful here but I added (standard GNG wording) "in depth" to the coverage requirement at the SNG, plus a discussion regarding it on the talk page. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Regardless how right or wrong Timothy is here, this is a situation that screams to fall under WP:FAIT and that Timothy needs to absolutely slow down and stop nominating articles for the time being until some resolve can be made. --Masem (t) 13:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It's still happening. After this discussion, he left a comment on the Mayfield Mall AFD claiming yet again that everything in it is "routine, run of the mill" coverage and that "malls seek out advertising to get coverage". Dude, do you not get how malls work? And why are you failing to acknowledge that being turned into offices for goddamn GOOGLE is a noteworthy transformation for a mall that absolutely merits notability? Name me one other mall that's had that happen! Because that is absolutely not routine or run of the mill, nor something sought out as advertising. TimothyBlue needs to put down the stick and stop badgering people at AFDs where he's clearly not getting his way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment As the creator of one of the articles AfDed and having expanded three of them (two 5x) plus a non-mall PROD, I will simply say that one of the reasons this has been so frustrating is that Timothy generally fails to respond to substantive article improvements, sustained/intensive news coverage, unusual happenings for a mall (the hotly debated hockey arena, turning into offices for HP and Google), and assertions of notability that are already in the article. I am improving pages in good faith and it feels like I'm talking to a brick wall who thinks that nothing I can ever do will redeem the page. Raymie (t • c) 14:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A few points, based on this discussion:

• These all seem like legitimate differences of opinion about what does/should constitute notability of a mall. There are an awful lot of things stated as factual on one hand or problematic on the other that are very much not resolved.
• For example, the repeated debate over WP:ROUTINE. Yes, that link point to the events page, which is confusing, but many people mistakenly use it as shorthand for the role of routine coverage in other notability guidelines. For example, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which certainly applies. Whether it applies in every case Timothy said it applies in is a different matter, though.
• The very beginning of this thread made me raise an eyebrow: 'TimothyBlue argued that "first outlet mall in the state of Wisconsin" is not a claim to notability without backing this up.' How does one back up the absence of a notability criterion? Linking to all of the notability guidelines or the absence of a WP:FIRSTOUTLETMALLS shortcut? People make assertions about what facts (as in, regardless of sourcing) make something notable all the time at AfD, and it's usually on the more experienced editors to point out that if it's not in one of the notability guidelines, then it doesn't make something inherently notable.
• Voting keep in an AfD you started is functionally the same as withdrawing it. If there are no delete !votes, Timothy should just withdraw in those cases. Otherwise, this is a good behavior. We want people to acknowledge when they've made a mistake. Yes, ideally he just wouldn't have nominated it, and if it becomes extremely common then it would be worth revisiting a pattern of slipshod WP:BEFORE, but that doesn't seem to be why we're here.
• In short, I see a difference of opinion of what kind of coverage should constitute mall notability. IMO it's probably somewhere in between. I see in-depth sources about mall construction/openings that are being dismissed as routine, and I see sources about events in the mall and individual shops opening/closing being held up as in-depth coverage of the mall... but that's a better discussion for a notability-related page (or the AfDs). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, Voting keep in an AfD you started is functionally the same as withdrawing it. Not quite. When I withdraw a nomination my AfD stats reflect that. If I let the nomination stand, but !vote keep that shows in the AfD stats as agreeing with consensus. I could make a whole bunch of bad nominations, then !vote keep when I see that the consensus is to keep and show a 100% percent match with consensus, which, of course, is not what actually happened. Vexations (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Vexations, There's also times when you complete AfDs on behalf of an IP editor, who cannot create the actual discussion page. If I do that and later decide I want to vote keep myself, I don't think that should be an automatic withdrawal. Reyk _YO! 14:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Reyk, very true, and it may not be possible to withdraw if there are delete !votes. The AfD stats are merely an approximation of one's AfD record. My suggestion to editors who make a nomination that they want to withdraw is to just withdraw it, and not artificially inflate their accuracy by !voting keep. Vexations (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reyk, Vexations, I do appreciate the time you both took here. I think this is really a side issue (12 withdrawals out of 469 nominations). It's also easily resolved; since some people find it problematic, I'll simply start using a comment instead of a Keep and saying "consider this a Happy Keep vote, not a sad surrender" as I did with Girth Summit recently. My intention was to be friendly and collegial in acknowledging new information, something that is too often absent at AfD. Thank you Reyk for pointing out (far above) that this is often a problem.

The important issue for me that I hope will be evaluated is the issue of sources and how they are interpreted as being significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in-depth.   // Timothy :: talk  15:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• If someone is "making a whole bunch of bad nominations, then !voting keep" to game AfDstats, we can deal with that. My point is that it's functionally the same. If there are no delete !votes, then yes, Timothy should just use the word "withdraw" instead of "keep". I don't see evidence that this is an intentional attempt to game the stats, though, and if there are non-keep !votes, then !voting keep isn't unreasonable since it cannot be withdrawn. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• The core of this matter is the issue of sources and how they are interpreted as being significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in-depth.

• If I'm interpreting the sources wrong and they do amount to significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in-depth, the articles should be kept and I'll yield to the consensus.
• If I'm correct in interpreting that the sources used are not significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in-depth, then the articles should be deleted and the keep side should yield to the consensus.
• Other non-core issues related to this matter will fall into place with the resolution of this question.

Either way, I think the guidelines for malls need to be clarified, so this issue is not repeated.   // Timothy :: talk  15:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• My recommendation is that TimothyBlue slow way heck down. It seems like his view of what constitutes routine coverage is way out of step with most Wikipedia editors', and he could have realized this by nominating handful of defunct malls for deletion rather than dozens at a time. I hope that reads the various deletion discussions and uses them to calibrate his own views of mall notability before nominating further malls for deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Calliopejen1, (and others) "way out of step" is not an accurate depiction of the conversation here. There are a few editors on all the AfDs that have opposed my interpretation of routine coverage here and there, but there are some at AfD that have and many here who have supported my interpretation.

  These malls have been deleted recently [157], [158], [159], [160], [161] and you could show the same kind of routine coverage for those malls that is being claimed for the ones the Keep group is supporting. I'm not using this as an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type argument, but one to support clarity in guidelines. As much as possible, we need guidelines that are clear enough to be consistently applied. This can't be 100% but it can be better.

  What will resolve this is clarifying the issue of sources and how they should be interpreted as being significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in-depth. If people feel that news stories such as openings, closings, short events not related to the function of the mall, demolition, land redevelopment are sufficient to prove notability then this should be clear (and all malls will be notable). If more is required to meet significant coverage, then this should be clear.   // Timothy :: talk  22:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  Two of your five examples are in the process of being rewritten and restored. It doesn't look like many of the other three attracted significant attention, so I'm not sure that I'd hold them out as examples. I don't have any particular experience with mall articles or love for malls, but I was concerned when I saw so many questionable nominations all at once, including an AFD nom for the largest mall in Ecuador. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• This whole discussion is getting extremely tl;dr, but just in the course of 24 hours I think it's clear that TimothyBlue has not learned a damn thing and is still making the exact same mistakes. His point of constantly filibustering the exact same arguments ad nauseam, and failing to acknowledge valid counterpoints, shows an editing behavior that is very unfavorable. I know because I've been down that road way too many times myself and I see many of the same patterns. It's the same reason I was topic-banned from XFD for over a year. It's for this reason that I see his behavior as bad-faith and disruptive. Hawthorne Plaza, Mayfield Mall, Tri City Mall, Original Outlet Mall, and Los Arcos Mall all seem like they have a unanimous consensus to keep, to the point that I would like to ask an admin if they feel like any of those should be closed per WP:SPEEDYKEEP (especially given that Tri City, Original Outlet, and Los Arcos were all substantially expanded in the course of the discussion). I still remain unsure if TimothyBlue should be reprimanded or not, but at the least he should seriously reconsider his approach to AFDs lest the problem exacerbate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Jaggi9988 keeps adding unsourced material despite requesting him not to do so on Maratha and Maratha caste related pages

The user is probably making "assumed good faith edits" but is ignoring wikipedia guidelines of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and even copyrights. He seems to be ignoring talk page. Please see his edit history [162] I do not want to judge the editors intent, but all edits seem to glorify Maratha related pages and personalities without any WP:RS. I do not wish to engage in an edit war with him by reverting his un-sourced and inaccurate changes such as [163] but please educate the user on WP:RS as he seems to be ignoring any comments. Thank you LukeEmily (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The user has 39 edits and has never used any talk pages, despite collecting a number of warnings and receiving a Ds alert yesterday (yes, Ds alert is not by itself an evidence of wrongdoing, but it could have at least induce some curiosity?). I am afraid a block for WP:CIR is the only possible outcome here.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

IP edit-warring at Template:Protected areas of Georgia (country)

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

---

I have 184.148.37.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) edit-warring at Template:Protected areas of Georgia (country). They remove areas located in Abkhazia claiming they are not part of Georgia. Abkhazia is internationally recognized part of Georgia (which for example the Wikipedia article says), only few countries recognize it as independent. The area is under discretionary sanctions (Eastern Europe and Balcans), and the IP has a number of warnings on their talk page. They have removed the info [164] and subsequently twice reverted me [165] [166]. Could somebody please block them and/or protect the template. I would have blocked them myself but if I do this I am sure somebody would call the block to be involved, so it is best if an independent administrator would have a look. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

(nac) On their talk page, "Warnings from cultural Marxist degenerates are to be ignored" has a nice ring to it. Narky Blert (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Voluminous edit history of unsourced and unencyclopedic content

MtShastinian1 (talk · contribs) and apparently associated account 99.59.237.20 (talk · contribs) both have histories of adding unsourced and promotional content to multiple articles, most recently at Draft:David R. Sams and RollerGames. The IP has received numerous warnings, but returned in the last week for more of same. Requesting a block on both accounts, and the edits will need some overview and reversions. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Conversation here may be relevant [167]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk · contribs) has displayed rude behavior instead of helping with trying to explain the rules and policies for Wikipedia. I request his account be blocked and my account be spared. I have explained that 99.59.237.20 (talk · contribs) is NOT me, but he refuses to listen. He doesn't even appear to have an account and is only listed as a "special/contributor". MtShastinian1 (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• MtShastinian1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very likely a sock of Ccwstandard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Not sure on 99.59.237.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but appears to be someone else based on edit history of only film/tv, no sports, and possibly wrong location based on IP (I got either Redmond, WA, or Irvine, CA). Yosemiter (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ah, the one a former user warns me about on a Facebook group page at Wikipedia Editor Victims Support Groups. Apparently, you were called out by the former user to answer the accusations. I am NOT 99.59.237.20 (talk · contribs) and definitely NOT Ccwstandard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and NOT a sock. MtShastinian1 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not coincidentally, that "group" (which has two members) was created on the same day the account NostalgiaBuff97501 was blocked (and also had a sock called Shastinian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). No other explanation is needed as to why this "new" user would even know about that group unless it was the one active member there. Yosemiter (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

H0llande

H0llande. This user has been editing in line with his own POV, providing poor or no references, and harassing me. The user restored an edit by a banned user 1 (MixedButHumann) without any consensus on the talk page, where the user demonstrated a clear inability to edit Wikipedia properly, editing and revoking his own edit 24 times [168]. The user has repeatedly stated my perceived ethnicity is a driving factor in my edits 2 3 (the user falsely states I am an Assyrian when in fact I'm not), and argued I shouldn't edit any relevant articles. At Naum Faiq, the user has repeatedly removed sourced content with bare urls and poor references (4 5 6), and after an attempt at discussion on the talk page, the user continued to assert his own edit with no explanation or justification 7. At Shamoun Hanna Haydo, the user demonstrates a failure to understand WP:BURDEN and has repeatedly changed content to reflect his POV without providing sources (8 9 10), and again after a discussion at his talk page, the user asserted his own edit with no explanation or sources 11. The user changed content without providing references in line with his own POV elsewhere (12 13). The user has been warned three times this month, and twice in the past. Mugsalot (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• • user:Mugsalot, excuse me but where did I harass you or anyone? Can you redirect this, because I’m not aware of it. And I already did apology for mentioning your ethnicity (However it was never my intention to personal attack anyone, but rather to keep Wikipedia a neutral place without POV politics), but on you’re talk page you stated yourself you are an Assyrian, and I did not said that you shouldnt edit relevant articles, but rather that you are not neutral enough to join the discussion on the page about Arameans. I edited 2 articles today Shamoun Hanna Haydo and Naum Faiq in which I both redirected to a biography book about Shamoun his life and I redirected to Naum Faiq his own magazine, how are these sources not reliable to you?H0llande (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Potentially deceptive characters in username

Note the unusual characters in this username: 𝗺𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲. This appears to be an abuse of the charcters from the Unicode block Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols. I've added some patterns at User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist to try to catch any repetition of this or similar ruses, but I'm surprised this wasn't caught at source by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or similar mechanisms. Does anyone know how this might have been achieved, and how we could stop it from happening again? -- The Anome (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)