Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046

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)

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. [1] [2] 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 [3], violating [4].

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 [5] [6][7], 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 [8]. 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 [9] and other people's user pages [10] [11]. Moreover, both users claim to be from the UK, and Scope creep's sock ip [12] is from New England, where Eggishorn also claims to be from [13]. 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 [14], 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. [15] [16] 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 [17] 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 [18].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 [19], 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. [20] [21] 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 [22] 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 [23] [24].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)

Persistent disruption by a promotional account

MediaManager1 (talk · contribs) at Francis Baraan IV. Relentless WP:OWNERSHIP, with the likelihood of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY [25]. The article is up for AfD [26], 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)

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. [27], 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: [28]. 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 [29]. 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 [30]. Also at 2:40 the user made an empty edit request [31] 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.[32]

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)

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)

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:

• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]

And then disruptive edits from the user following page protection:

• [40]
• [41]

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

User: Rohitashchandra ignoring topic ban from Ayurveda

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

---

User: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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Namuwiki halfling Season 2

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

---

• 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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: [42] [43] [44] [45]. 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: [46] [47] [48] [49]. 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)

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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate use of rollback

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

---

Hi, I'm sturggling to see why General Ization (talk · contribs) used his rollback privilesgs here [50] 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

---

I have 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 [51] and subsequently twice reverted me [52] [53]. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voluminous edit history of unsourced and unencyclopedic content

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

---

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 [54]. 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)
    • Yosemiter, thank you. If the 99 IP adds more unsourced content, I'll report separately at AIV. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Not here (pas ici)

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

---

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

Their brief stint here so far includes some useless WP:DRIVEBY tagging and a couple trolling talk page messages, complete with outrageous French accent-speak, you silly king (diffs: [55], [56]). Don't see any reason to indulge any further. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah have, 'ow you say, indeffed ze usair. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability, LMAO. Always refreshing to see admins with a healthy sense of humor. Celestina007 03:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters, but I'm fairly sure this is a sock of IP who's been active at Talk:Jenny Durkan. The sock came about after the IP largely gave up on good faith editing and started to post nonsense on the talk page [57] (including continually pinging me after being asked to stop), made 4 nonsense posts on my talk page in quick succession [58] and other weird stuff [59]. And you can see the IP replied to the nonsense on the Jenny Durkan talk page within a minute with a similar silly post [60], and the account's posting to JBW's talk page [61] was a few hours after JBW dealt with the IP via anon only blocks (e.g. [62]) and semi protecting the Jenny Durkan talk page [63]. P.S. The IP changes enough that it's impossible to notify them, so I won't bother with technical compliance of the requirement which is pointless here even if the IP didn't change so much. Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Tom Wolf

Resolved

This needs protection and a rangeblock for York, PA. I've taken this to AIV and asked for page protection. You may want to do a bit of rev/deletion. Seriously, we have to consider locking every political WP:BLP if this crap goes unabated for days and weeks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

All of this has been taken care of, for this particular article. — Diannaa (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editor

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

---

Hi, admins' eyes would be useful regarding the editing profile of this user. Here is their talk page. Sounds like a WP:NOTHERE case in my humble opinion ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked while i was typing this report.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Another block evasion by 175.118.193.119

117.110.114.114 (talk · contribs) is a same vandalize edits again on the Incheon International Airport Terminal 1 station and Incheon International Airport Terminal 2 station - AJP426 (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:26, 2 September 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)

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 [64]. 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 #[65] 2) The second time he did it was on July 14 #[66]

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 #[67]; which shows an agenda. Here's the diff #[68].

Also his edit of removing reference to his Syrian ancestry has been challenged by two other editors. #[69] and #[70], 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)

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)

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)

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 [71]
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) [72] Representative non-neutral message here
3. 13:47, 23 August: Maxim.il89 warned on their talk page about canvassing [73]
4. 19:39–19:44: Maxim.il89 canvasses 10 WikiProjects with ties to the British politician 23 August 2020[74] 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[75] Rikster2 discloses these notifications on the RM thread [76] 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? [77]
7. 07:48: Maxim.il89 notifies another project [78]

Other editor's have warned Maxim.il89 on their talk page that they are canvassing and being disruptive, but Maxim.il89 does not listen.[79]

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 [80] 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 [81] (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 [82].

  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 [83]. -- 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 [84]. They later followed that up with a vague and (and again IMO) unhelpful comment [85] 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 ...[86] 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)

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 ([87] [88]) 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?! [89] 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)

TimothyBlue mall AFDs

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

---

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). [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95].

Some of the typical arguments:

• [96] "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 [97], [98]
• [99], "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) [100]
• "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. [101], also see [102], [103]

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

• [104], here is a mall that was abandoned, but later made into an office park, and this somehow makes the mall notable.
• [105], 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
• [106], 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. [107],
• [108], the first mall built by a particular developer makes the mall notable.
• [109] "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: [110], [111], [112], [113]

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

---

The 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)

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

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'm with NBB. I read every byte of any AfD discussion before taking an action. I would hope that's true of any closing admin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, that's even worse. It implies that if someone points out personal attacks or canvassing in an AfD, closing admins read the protest through thoroughly but then simply not give a shit. Reyk _YO! 11:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Reyk, if you ever see me close a discussion where you think I've ignored that stuff feel free to ask/call me on it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 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 [114], [115], [116], [117], [118] 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)
  • Is there new evidence? It seems like you're taking for granted that there's consensus that there were sanction-worthy problems to begin with, which are now continuing. The only issue I see, apart from standard AfD disagreements, was not using the word "withdraw" when withdrawing. PS: Wikipedia:Not so arbitrary breaks :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, most of the evidence is right above. TimothyBlue is continuing to filibuster to literally everyone who addresses him in this very thread and throw around the same phraseology without acknowledging anything. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I feel like both TenPoundHammer and TimothyBlue should just drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. There's bulverism happening which is impeding the overall goals of Wikipedia. – The Grid (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang Request

My conduct and contributions have been under a microscope here, I feel it's fair to ask that TenPoundHammer's behavior also be examined.Since they haven't been shy about asking for me to be "reprimanded" and sanctioned, I will ask for the same consideration regarding their behavior.

First I would like to ask, why Ten Pound Hammer removed part of my comment yesterday, specifically the header that states "Boomerang Request" [119]. Removing another editor's comments is disruptive; even more so at ANI, plus it's in the context of the accuser modifying the accused comments, and removing this header is particularly manipulative. I think this is illustrative and should be seriously questioned by admins. There is no way this is accidental and it deserves sanctions, especially when considered in light of the below.

I'm also asking that their comments be evaluated per WP:PA, WP:UNCIVIL. Examples:

• [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]

I could add more, but I think the above illustrates the point of accusations of bad faith, general uncivilness, hostile over the top behavior, and personal insults.

In addition to the actual comments, the intentions behind this pattern of communication should be evaluated to see if it is designed to make me leave AfD and to discourage other editors from participating because they do not wish to suffer the same treatment. per WP:DE.

Finally, there is a disruptive trend in these AfDs by the Ten Pound Hammer to ignore policies and guidelines, ignore rebuttals by others, and distort sources. I believe this is disruptive to AfD. This should be evaluated per WP:DISCUSSAFD and WP:DE.

I could list more examples for all of the above, but I won't bludgeon the point; I will ask that admins look at the AfDs to see everything in context.   // Timothy :: talk  02:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I only removed the header because it was disrupting the flow of other discussions on the page. And what part of all of that was uncivil? I asked you the same question previously and you ignored it. And yet again, you are just repeating the same phrases over and over again. You've said "ignore policies, ignore rebuttals, and distort sources" at least three times, and not once have you backed it up. How are sources being "distorted"? You have not shown any evidence of this once. I think it's clear that admins have looked at the AFDs. I also think it's clear that most of them are headed for a "keep" consensus particularly in light of the recent expansions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Not enough yet for a boomerang, no. And not enough for any sanction against Timothy, either (as per what I wrote above). The longer this thread stays open, the more likely these facts are to change, though. Best to close this as within the realm of standard AfD arguments and add "malls" to the list of "things you may be surprised are actually controversial on Wikipedia". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, I believe the repeated accusations of bad faith in the examples and the removal of my comment headings should be considered. It might not be enough for sanctions, but I should be enough for a discussion. WP:AOBF "Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack.".   // Timothy :: talk  03:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Motion to close. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment When considering this extremely fast motion to close by Ten Pound Hammer, admins should consider that above I noted they removed my header that states "Boomerang Request". Its clear they don't want their actions and comments to be evaluated.   // Timothy :: talk  03:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I thought this section a blunder by Timothy (and maybe still do) but I am less confident of that assessment after seeing the TPH removing Timothy's previous heading calling for a boomerang, quick motion to close here, and call at AN for snow closing of the AfDs that triggered this report. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• There was no malicious intent in removing the "boomerang request" header. I had never encountered that term before and thought it was something Timothy made up. I only removed it because it was a section 2 header that was interrupting the flow of the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• If I've interpreted it right looking at the diff of the boomerang removal [135] its setting at level 2 not level 3 was incorrect as it began "These AfDs" and therefore reliant on the previous level 2 and failure to reference WP:BOOMERANG for people not familiar with that link to that humorous essay. So it needed to be clerked but it was poor practice from TPH to clerk it the way they did, indded it seems Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot, and was probably best left to someone not involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 06:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• While I am on the side here of keeping most mall articles, I think this ANI has gone on too long and both sides have dug their respective trenches too deep. This ANI should probably be closed, and what we really need is a good guideline on mall notability. I was cautious about going to ANI from the start, quite honestly, but I did believe something needed to be done about the rapid pace of AfD noms. If I'd known it would have sprawled into this, I think I would have just dealt with another day or two of AfD barrages.Pokemonprime (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Having been involved in some rescues where AfD was swamped; and ultimately being mentally and behaviorally damaged by those rescue (33%+ save; 33% merge/redirect, some tricky; < 33% deleted) an AfD nom. can use the system to put X amount of effort in at the time of their choosing and rescuers will be required to put in perhaps 10X+ effort not at the time of their choosing. If articles are being rescued then it ought to be a indicator to the nom. they are probably failing in their WP:BEFORE. I'm also strongly of the opinion an AfD nom. is targeting a particular class of article then should probably make an engagement with the WikiProject first to identify the set of problem articles and see if a solution can be reached before AfD. Ultimately though its nearly impossible to get anyone sanctioned for disruptively raising AfDs unless their overtly vexatious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 06:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

On a hopefully humorous note can we close this and let Timothy get back to his Arduino IDE and possibly try to slow down a little on the AfD's, take feedback from results, and emphasise with the resource others may have to put it (NB: I am on the ANI currently at the top of this). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• If you've seen one shopping center, you've seen a mall. Narky Blert (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure its not been mentioned here but I've just noticed Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines, which if I've got the dates right was raised prior to the ANI. I'm a great advocate of engaging with the project if doing multiple deletions in an area and as that is in progress surely the focus should more positively be on that. ( The RFC is referenced from the project talk page ). As this sections is about TPH my rough guess is they made some mistakes here but probably right to raise concerns however from once project engagement has been initiated we should AGF of Timothy's intentions and closing this ANI. (I'm on P1 on ANI at the moment so I'll take the flak I may have a vested interest in saying this). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• That was made after the AfDs but before the ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymie (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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: [136] (nominating an image consisting of the letter "T" for deletion), [137] (nominating a file consisting of a black background and three "B"s for deletion), [138] (nominating a free file for deletion as if it were non-free), [139] (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)

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? [140] 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)

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 [141] 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 [142] 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)

He is still doing it talk. Including reverting changes by admin. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Might be time for a range block

Persistent disruption from range 2600:1700, with a special interest in these animation articles [143]. 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. [144]. 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)

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)

OWN and IDHT issues on Talk:FOCSA Building

I am reporting some WP:OWN and WP:IDHT issues with Osvaldo valdes 165443 (talk · contribs) on the FOCSA Building article. Back in May, I responded to a WP:3PO request by GeneralNotability, see Talk:FOCSA Building#Trimming the article. The issue was too many images and WP:COATRACK information regarding the building process (see [145], [146], among other edits). Osvaldo valdes 165443 then personally attacked GeneralNotability, saying they should edit something more on your level, see this edit. I added my opinion, the discussion evolved into sourcing disagreement, with Osvaldo valdes 165443 saying Please stop contacting me I don't consent to being harrased where the discussion ended, see this edit.

Fast forward to this past week, Lord Belbury created a new thread, Talk:FOCSA Building#Too many images, again about the article having too many images. Osvaldo valdes 165443 then claimed I "trashed" the article saying You and especially User:LuK3 trashed the article citing MOS:PERTINENCE. I came close to reporting him for vandalism; YOU ARE HEREBY WARNED, see their response in full. I, along with two other editors, calmly tried to explain what was wrong with the article, however I do not think Osvaldo valdes 165443 is getting the point. I am not requesting intervention with the article content because that is not what ANI is for. I am, however, requesting a look into this editor's behavior. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A little backstory: my involvement here (which set this whole chain of events off) was fairly random - I was going through the list of images which might be movable to Commons, saw a bunch of images of the inside of this building, decided they weren't especially necessary to the article, removed them, PRODded them, and cleaned up the article. Osvaldo valdes 165443 reverted, I went to the talk page per BRD, and we ended up with the discussion we see above. To Osvaldo valdes's credit, he did go back a couple days later and remove some of the coatracking. Overall, however, I concur with LuK3's assessment: Osvaldo valdes seems to treat this as "his" article (he created the article and is by far the majority author) and he has the article the way he likes it, is resistant to significant changes to the article, and does not seem interested in hearing what other editors have to say about the MOS. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that Keizers (talk · contribs) created the article, but I agree that there are way, way, way too many images, most of them 100% unneeded, especially in lew of the commons link in the article. It should be one image and maybe a second one in the article, not 5,200. And your right about Osvaldo, I suspect a COI given the amount of editing (building tenent, maybe the super or something like that?) since no one generally cares this much about buildings. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

From his user page, Osvaldo is an architect who's provided some useful floorplans and photos of buildings across Havana and clearly knows what he's writing about, but yes, he seems very reluctant to take on board Wikipedia guidelines for how an article should best be structured when they contradict his gut feeling on what's important about a building. It's a problem that he's acting as if his professional background allows him to pull rank on those without it, on all subjects, even the Wikipedia style guide. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:01, 1 September 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)

(Non-administrator comment) I know I said I probably didn't have anything more to add, but I will have another go at clarifying what's happened here with regard to the football article, because something has changed since then:

• Eagles247 nominated the article about you for deletion. On the discussion on the "Articles for Deletion" pages (that's what AfD stands for), Eagles noted that there was previously an article about a football player with the same name at John Pappas, which existed before the article about you was at that location.
• The article about you was deleted as a result of that discussion. The fact that you (and people who claimed to be acting on your behalf) were the primary substantial editors was raised, but a major argument was also to do with the existence of sources about you that are independent of you. (I know you disagree with the argument that sources about plays you wrote are not about you.)
• What's now changed is that someone has since decided that the title John Pappas should redirect to the title John Papas, with one P. It was not Eagles247 who did that, but another editor, as can be seen in the page history—and note that part of the reason Eagles ended up reporting you here was that you've made baseless accusations about them, of which this is another example.
• As it happens, Eagles in fact had already nominated the one-P Papas article for deletion, so this clearly wasn't an attempt by them to replace you by stealth with someone connected with football. In addition, I have now nominated for deletion the redirect from the two-P title to the one-P one, on the grounds that it's confusing and an implausible misspelling.

So the question of whether or not your article should exist has absolutely nothing to do with any articles about any football players or coaches. (As for where to reply to messages, generally on the same page as the message you're replying to: so when you left me a notice on my talk page, I replied there. The exceptions as far as I'm concerned have been where I've moved messages left on pages other than talk pages to where I guessed they should have been, and then replied there. Messages should never go in a page like User:YorkshireLad; if you put things in a sandbox, they're at risk of getting deleted because sandboxes are meant for test edits. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 09:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797)

Vandals at Melanie Fontana

Multiple IPs and accounts repeatedly edit-warring and vandalizing at Melanie Fontana. I would go to AIV and RFPP but this is quicker and all in one place. The users/IPs keep adding clown-related vandalism. Can I request blocks for all and temporary short extended confirmed protection? The page is currently under pending changes. Vandals:

• 49.144.97.71
• 8t5 81ll804rd
• 2800:a4:25ea:ec00:bdd7:912e:703:f53f
• Special:Contribs/112.206.103.163
• Special:Contribs/Oopsiedaisyhaha
• 171.79.82.186 (now blocked)

Diffs: [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157]

It's not chronological because I had to add more diffs but you get the gist.

Hist: [158]

Thanks, Giraffer (munch) 10:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done for 24 hours, and blocked a few. Let's see if they get bored. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User removing Request for Comment templates and Neutrality Dispute templates in ongoing content dispute discussions

User JayBee00 and I have been engaged in a content dispute discussion on Talk:Australian Unemployed Workers' Union regarding the article's neutrality (or lack thereof) over a number of days.

The user removed a neutrality dispute template that I had added to the article in conjunction with my discussion on the talk page, on two occasions (1st instance, 2nd instance). However, after recognising that the back-and-forth discussion was not going anywhere I opened the content dispute to a request for comment using the RfC template. The user has also repeatedly removed this template (1st instance, 2nd instance) on their own terms stating that they themselves believe that the discussion is over, when it clearly isn't and the dispute is ongoing. I was reluctant to post here which is why I sought other avenues first (including discussing the user's conduct on their talk page), however the user has specifically obstructed me from pursuing mediation in deleting my edits.

Their constant editing of old comments which frustrates the utility of the discussion, blanking of my comments, as well as commentary that has effectively tried to shut down discussion completely has essentially broken the discussion I was attempting to hold. Despite all my previous attempts to engage the user in good faith, both on their talk page and the article's talk page, they have sought to prevent any further discussion on the matter made in an effort to improve the quality of the article.

Any advice or assistance in this incident would be much appreciated. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The IP has claimed multiple IPs and multiple users are disputing the neutrality of the article, in fact the only editors present were the IP and myself discussing back and forth in that "Talk" page as has been the case since August 28th, no other registered users, no other IPs. The IP appears to still be claiming I have blanked "multiple" comments of his, this is simply not true. I did erroneously blank one (not more than one as he claims) of his comments during the course of all this and apologised for that within the "Talk" page. As a relatively new Wikipedia user, I have made many posts I've subsequently needed to fix up to improve wording (including this one :( ), I certainly have had no malicious intent in doing so.

The neutrality template placed on the article by the IP was done unilaterally, repeatedly so by him without any other user supporting this as such, no prior explanation by the IP within the "Talk" page about this template being inserted, no attempt to make any further argument about article neutrality for two days prior to his actions in that regard, he made no further response after I replied to his post on that day. Therefore I believe it was not appropriate for him to seek to insert that neutrality template, unilaterally and spontaneously as he did so, so I removed the template as per Wikipedia policy as detailed on the Maintenance template removal page, since there was no clear basis for the template challenging article neutrality and no explanation given. I explained precisely why I removed the template, through a note in edit history on the article and through a post within the ("Talk" page which I posted initially just after he sought to unilaterally insert that template, and have subsequently updated, which the IP has never sought to respond to.

The IP subsequently sought to lodge a RfC about "neutrality of article, edits and potential edit-warring", reliant heavily on claims he has made which were shown to be provably not true, as I detailed very substantively within "Talk". I believe consensus isn't going to be reached, the IP has stated he does not wish to prolong what he describes as being unproductive debate, I also believe further discussion in that regard is not likely to be helpful. Therefore as per Wikipedia policy described on the Request for comment page, and I had been the only active Wikipedia registered user within that "Talk" page for a few days, I removed the {{rfc}} template within the "Talk" page, and made another post within "Talk" explaining what I see as the basis for my actions, where I also directly quoted excerpts from the Request for comment page, again the IP has responded to neither of those posts.

The discussion between he & I appears conclusively ended. It was clear consensus was not reached and would not be. The IP said he did not wish to prolong debate. I believe I demonstrated within "Talk" and in accordance with Wikipedia policy as I referenced there, that the original unilateral insertion of an RfC was not justified to begin with, nor was the unilateral attempt to insert a neutrality template into the article. JayBee00 (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Any external observer will see from the record on both Jaybee00's talk page and the disputed article's talk page that many of their claims are untrue (although it may be difficult to parse through the sheer quantity of edits and reversions made by the user).

1. It is plainly evident that another IP and another user have expressed concerns regarding neutrality on the talk page, not to mention the article being written by someone who acknowledged a COI with them being a member of the organisation which the article describes.
2. You did not 'erroneously' blank my comment. You consciously justified removing it in your edit summary
3. The neutrality template I placed was accompanied by discussion of the issue on the talk page. Another user on the talk page raised similar concerns.
4. Due to the ongoing discussion without establishing consensus I placed the RfC template in an effort to seek mediation on the issue. Your deciding that consensus won't be reached is not reason to remove another editor's request for comment.
5. I stated that I did not want to prolong fruitless or unproductive debate which was why I sought the comment of an external observer. This was clearly never an invitation for you to delete my template and consider for yourself the matter to be closed.
6. Anyone will see that I responded to your posts on your talk page, to state that I did not respond is false. Bludgeoning of the issue on your part forced me to resort to the ANI as you dismissed my discussion and concerns outright.
7. Taking it upon yourself to decide that the discussion has 'conclusively ended' is frivolous considering that we have arrived to this point. Denying that there is an issue does not confirm the absence of one.

With those points addressed I will not comment further until a response from the noticeboard is posted. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The IP has frustratingly sought to gainsay in response to some posts within "Talk", repeating claims he previously made which I have already demonstrated are not true, not correct, without providing further meaningful substantive argument, still ignoring at least some posts made by me in "Talk". He did not post any discussion about the neutrality template he sought to insert prior to inserting it into the article, hence no explanation given, nor any discussion prior to that unilateral action by him, no consensus to support it.

It has been shown multiple times that there was no clear basis for the template challenging article neutrality, and there was no-one else who called for that template to be inserted. The other user on the "Talk" page he refers to who sought to query neutrality, over three days previously, was responsible for previously attempting to insert highly questionable non-NPOV poorly sourced content into the article, Moreover as I stated before, the IP has not sought to make any further argument on that subject in two days prior to his taking that action unilaterally as he did so.

He claims another IP has expressed concerns about neutrality. In fact, I believe that IP showed his clear disagreement with this claim being made about neutrality. The IP here certainly has absolutely no possible remote scintilla of a basis to claim otherwise, that's for sure.

I was wrong to remove the one comment I did remove from the IP (at least it seems like he's no longer seeking to claim more than one comment was blanked). And I apologised for this in "Talk" well before now, though the IP is not acknowledging this :(

And yes, the last two posts I have made in "Talk", the updated one towards the top of the "Talk" page stating why the neutrality template was removed, to which I subsequently further added information as to why the RfC was removed, and also one lower down on the "Talk" page where I went further into why I believe it was justifiable to remove the RfC. The IP has responded to neither. JayBee00 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 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 [159]. 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)

@Mugsalot: H0llande had already been warned by admin Drmies about those personal attacks on your ethnicity hours after they were posted. Has there been any new attacks since? And if you suspect a sock, you should've gone to WP:SPI first. That moves a lot faster than ANI. Jerm (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mugsalot: Yes, please do report at WP:SPI --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jerm: As the user's above edit demonstrates, the user continues to baselessly assert that I'm Assyrian. Alongside the other edits I have pointed to, the user has continued to be disruptive (1 2), and has repeatedly restored poorly sourced/unsourced content. Mugsalot (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Mugsalot You haven't introduced any new evidence that the user continues to mention your ethnicity. The two post linked in your report concerning your ethnicity was already dealt with by admin Drmies via a warning to H0llande. If you are confident that this user is a sock and have evidence, please file a report at SPI. As for sourcing, that needs to be taken to the articles talk page, not their user page. You can also start an WP:RfC if the discussion doesn't go anywhere. Jerm (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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. [160]
2. The comment " Because if I have to defend further I may need to out". [161]
3. The comment "this AfD is still running however and points possibly remain to be addressed" [162]

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 [163], [164], [165], []
• 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 ?" [166]. 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." [167]
• "If Wikipedia is going to allow persons careering around with little purpose but to destroy peoples work then this article needs to be deleted" [168]
• "Ah ... not the last word. well stop mumbling and file a..." [169]
• "Unbelievably incompetent nomination in my opinion." [170]
• "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." [171] 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!"[172][173][174]. They also immediately become combative and hurl out insults.[175] 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 ?" [176]. 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 [177] 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" [178]

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 [179] 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)

  @Djm-leighpark: Why are you concentrating on article creation? I don't think anyone has said the problem occurred at creation. At 23:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC) you added Chacksfield 2003 as an inline citation for a certain piece of information and you said "Starting working in information from Chacksfield and have stumbled across some apparent source discrepences with Murray-McNeill to returning section to under construction". Had you actually read Chacksfield, at least in part, at this time? Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I had written the stub from Murray-McNeill at the point of creation but had ordered the Chacksfield biography at that point which arrived 22/23 July or something like that. Chacksfield 2003 was far more detailed about Coey's education but seemed to contradict some details I'd already use from Murray-McNeil (We are talking educational details maybe a date or location or something, I forget exactly as I write this and I'm working from memory not the sources ... and we are talking about 1860s-1870s). I basically decided I'd go away re-read the things slowly and I made the section Under-construction:n0t-ready as I wasn't 100% confident what I'd written before was correct. ... Okay I've just had a look at the article and I know the problem area because I'e mae a note on it. I think Murray-McNeill claims Coey was at Inchicore Railway Works while Chacksfield claimed he was doing a degree. I think that is actually possible and from memory R.E.L. Maunsell interleaved this a few years later under Aspinall (or Ivatt)). Anyway I ended up ignoring it for a week, seen the bot took of the under construction after 7 days and worked in appropriate content to the best of my ability. The reason for concentrating on this is the shout This is unbelievably arrogant given that you admitted you never read the source when you created the article. which may need some explanation. Is there anything else you'd like me to talk about or elaborate? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Beauty pageant disruption

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

User was blocked 29 September 2019 for disruption at beauty pageant articles. Now they have deleted AfD notice before debate has closed [180]. They received a bot warning for same behavior in 2019 [181]

Frankly, I'm tired of giving this individual warnings and bringing them to this noticeboard. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(only half joking) Can we just get community GS on beauty pageants already? We've got pro wrestling as a precedent... GeneralNotability (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, delete the lot. Seriously. The 1970s are over. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I've given the editor a 72 hour block for disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

RamRaghubn - Gaming the system

• RamRaghubn (talk · contribs)

RamRaghubn is a fairly recent editor who's editing various India related articles and run into some disputes. One of those articles is Ayurveda which has gotten a lot of interest of late, resulting in WP:ECP being put on the article on August 26th. The next day, RamRaghubn goes on a rather impressive welcoming spree, over 200 welcome message by a rough count. They then got blocked for running a bot script and after the block, went back to welcoming people. Amazingly, that put them over the 500 edits to get the extended confirmed user access level. Shortly after, they started editing the Ayurveda article. I left them a note about gaming the system and they responded that everything was in good faith. I'm finding that extremely hard to believe, as when they tried to get unblocked, they were just going through the user create log. I'd like for this to be reviewed and their extended confirmed access level removed until they demonstrate better understanding of Wikipedia policies around sourcing and WP:NPOV. Ravensfire (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

A WP:PBPOL could be another option. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not they were using a script (though at ~5 edits/min, they were either using a script or copy-pasting the welcome message as fast as they could), I entirely agree that the point of this welcoming exercise was to gain extended-confirmed. I had my suspicions that gaining EC was the goal from the start, but this pretty much confirms it (indeed, as far as I can tell this was edit #501, and that's a blue lock on the article). As such, I have revoked their EC perm due to the blatant and bad-faith gaming. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

May I know where can I approach for arbitration, if not here ? To quote from policies "On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level, or not entitled to their point of view." As a volunteer to Wikipedia project, I have equal rights as you are. I really don't get how you judged that I am not aware of the Wikipedia policies ? Second aspect, I have repeated earlier as well that my edits were never using a script or bot and was performing the changes manually after verifying whether the users were actually making any contributions or not. I never knew that welcoming users is illegal. RamRaghubn (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

RamRaghubn, you were obviously gaming the system to gain ECP status, and that behavior is not permitted. Period. End of story. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User creates articles in Spanish

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

---

Not sure if this is the right noticeboard, but Jordi Jiménez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is rapidly creating articles in Spanish. I think the user should be stopped. Eissink (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

There hasn't been a single warning/request for the user to stop. That should've been the first step, not ANI. Jerm (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Eissink (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

Either way, they all duplicated an existing page (whether copied from eswiki or from here and run through a translator, I'm not sure), but I've tagged them all for A10 in the mean time. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eissink: You're also required to notify anyone when you start a discussion about them as indicated in big letters at the top of the page and in the edit notice; I've now done so for you. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have known, will do the next time. Eissink (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

@Deacon Vorbis and Eissink: They legit look like usable articles for eswiki. Malcolm Bivens does not have an article there. They have correctly formed eswiki templates and categories, too. Raymie (t • c) 01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For es:Malcolm Bivens (and the twin Malcolm Bivens (), please read the log https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registro&page=Malcolm_Bivens . it seem the user use en-wiki as a space to store deleted es-wiki article. Matthew hk (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis and Eissink: The user name has been blocked on es.wiki as a sockpuppet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

JMRAMOS0109: long-term lack of sourcing

JMRAMOS0109 has had a long history of adding huge chunks of texts into articles without a single source (or a source or two, which does not back up the bulk of the content), or moving articles without previous discussion (generally forced English translations of names). Likely long-term violation of WP:OR, but to an extent that a good percentage of articles on WP:MILHIST is probably affected with entire unsourced, low-importance sections. That and unattributed copying within Wikipedia.

As an example, just within the second half of August and not all: [182],[183],[184],[185],[186] predominantly on military parades, standards and bands, occasionally units.

The user has been warned regarding every now and then in their talk page since as early as 2011. Within just the last 6 months or so, they have been warned regarding either lack of sourcing or copying by five different users. They really should know better to add sources by now, and yet they still add thousands of bytes of unsourced claims per day.

Either they have to start adding sources, or they should be removed from the project in order to prevent the addition of unverifiable sources in such large amounts. Juxlos (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

DE: Karmapa Controversy / 100 edits in three days / OR, SPS and NPOV

• Pasdecomplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Karmapa controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• ANI thread from June 2020 that mentions Pasdecomplot (some editors had complained that Pasdecomplot was refusing to indent their posts on Talk)

Incorrectly reported ([[187]]) as WP:VANDAL yesterday.

Reporting WP:DE by Pasdecomplot on Karmapa Controversy.

The Karmapa Controversy has been labeled as having "multiple issues" including WP:PSTS and possible WP:OR, and recent attempts to remove WP:OR were recently wiped way by Pasdecomplot, who made upwards of a 100 edits from August 29 to 31. Many of them are seemingly innocuous, but sandwiched in between are WP:OR, WP:SPS and non-WP:NPOV violating edits.

Pasdecomplot comments on the article's talk page have been verbose, confusing (advocating against the use of books as WP:RS--"removal of most internet-based RS in favor of books is quite curious, since no one else can check RS") and times lacking WP:CIV ("sorry to be blunt, but the whole paragraph reeks of Chinese state disinformation;"..."Sophisticated sockpuppet or what? Doesn't know what a 'pink floyd' is either."). The number of changes along with the degree to which WP:NPOV has been affected goes beyond a WP:DR and necessitates that an administrator to step in and additionally a WP:RBK is being requested as well.

Here are the diff links (August 29-31 changes) along with text you can copy/paste to search each diff page.

Links by category

WP:OR: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975870847 ("the majority of lamas and Karma Kagyu Sangha also agree") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975776585 ("He had claimed for years that he was the Karmapa.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975775211 ("for the secret interview of Trinley Thaye Dorje sometime after 1988, and two other lamas that eventually helped Trinley Thaye Dorje to arrive in India for his enthronement in 1994. Sources are unclear as to why the Sharmapa waited to reveal his selection.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975769086 ("lead regent") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975767647 ("Possibly referring to the controversy"; reference doesn't support; later cites WP:SPS) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975767074 ("The date at which the Sharmapa announced his preferred Karmapa is unclear.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975758893 ("his cousin Topga Yugyal, an unnamed person as the Sharmapa's source)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975745071 (The Nyingma school has always been non-political.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975884558 ("loses India's support") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975784756 ("Tai Situ Rinpoche became the lead member of the regents") WP:SPS; website appears legitimate (i.e. org.nz address) but is a repository of self-published articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975966021 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975767647 Additional references used by Enlightened Heart, Notes: #44 WP:NPOV: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975715194 (changing meaning of sentence; "The 10th Sharmapa had been accused of instigating a war with Nepal) according to members of the Karma Kagyu lineage.") https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975891010 (just copying and pasting chunks from an article) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975888700 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975714124 (subtle edit to change wiki link which would benefit reader / Rangjung Rigpe Dorje, 16th Karmapa#Controversy and Recognition as Karmapa) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975769086 (subtlety changing order of individuals listed) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975756066 (subtlety removing that Shamar Rinpoche identified TTD) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975720207 (subtle "Authority" to "Collaboration" change affects section meaning) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975716884 Compare introduction before editing to after (intro has since been reverted): Before: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&oldid=975115850 After: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&oldid=975969026 WP:AOBF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975786453 (subtle edit changing meaning) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975745071 (subtle edit changing meaning) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975716884 (unnecessary removal of wiki link) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=975127649&oldid=975115850 (introducing grammatical error into lead sentence of article and not willing to correct) WP:MTAU: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975782227 (parinirvana instead of death) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=975772301 (parinirvana instead of death) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karmapa_controversy&diff=next&oldid=975239020 (reader will not understand what "Buktham Letter" is; ignored on talk page)

Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot was also sanctioned for WP:DE earlier this year:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pasdecomplot&oldid=965318307#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pasdecomplot&oldid=963877925#Discretionary_sanctions_alert

Anotherpinkfloydinthewall (talk) 12:41, 2 September 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)

You're presenting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint with WP:UNDUE weight, without explaining that it is not accepted by mainstream academia. And editwarring to include it in this unexplained unqualified state with the edit summary "revert arbitrary removal of sourced material". My removal wasn't arbitrary, I explained it in the edit summaries. On top of that you are forum shopping around the 'pedia (here and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology#Cú Chulainn and Ferdiad) begging for help so you don't get blocked for editwarring ("I don't want to get involved in an edit war or break 3RR, so somebody else please stop him.") instead of addressing the policy and sourcing issues brought up. Heiro 14:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassment by User:Sankura

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

Would it be possible for an editor with some kind of authority to speak to User:Sankura in order to stop his unprovoked harassment against me? Looking over his contributions and editorial remarks, this user appears to regularly make offensive remarks and personal attacks against other editors. For my part, I have attempted to reach a compromise with them in good faith, but Sankura refuses to, even to the extent of repeatedly removing my requests for third party arbitration. His abusive language towards me and others is uncalled for and am at a loss as to how it was provoked. However, if my behavior in this dispute also merits some kind of disciplining, then I will respect that and fully abide by any actions decided upon. Thank you. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Their userpage suggests that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Goose^(Talk!) 23:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean they're arrogant and insulting and combative, perhaps to a degree incompatible with being a Wikipedia editor—I don't know, I've only looked at a few dozen edits—but that user page explicitly says "I plan to do what I can to stem the decline [of Wikipedia articles]"... being critical of Wikipedia, even extremely critical, isn't of itself a sign that someone is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 23:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The user's page tracked their work to fix a common grammar error. If that suggests to you that they are not here to build an encyclopaedia, I think that is extremely troubling. Perhaps you looked at the wrong user page. 109.144.19.43 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sankura has only been around a few months, so this type of behavior isn't really surprising since Sankura is a new editor. @Sankura: Please remain WP:CIVIL. Jerm (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:CurryTime7-24 undid my work on improving the lead section of List of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich, replacing some sensible content with "This is a list of compositions by Dmitri Shostakovich".[188] Since then, they have repeatedly lied about my edit, and slandered me and my work on a variety of forums. And here they go again. Looks like they have managed to encourage someone else to start slandering me.

I fixed more than eight hundred instances of incorrect grammar over the last few weeks. As a result of this lying editor and his incessant slandering, I'm not going to waste any more time doing that. Sankura (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User has been given final warning for personal attacks, pointed to WP:NLT, and asked to remove all accusations of slander. User reverted talk page post warning. Meters (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

And blocked as sock by user: NinjaRobotPirate Meters (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It is hardly surprising that someone who displays obsessively dogmatic behavior will sock repeatedly. I feel sorry for people like that but their disruption cannot be tolerated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

User: Nozoz and discretionary sanction notices

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

---

I have 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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" [189] 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)

Ymblanter, you once accused me of joining a mob that existed only to provoke you into a rage, so you could then get dragged to ArbCom. That's not just a deliberate falsehood, but tinfoil hat nutso. Reyk _YO! 07:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You did join the mob, and this is factual. I try to never make statements on motivations of other people, and I do not know what your motivations were. May be you genuinely thought that I have no clue on the Wikipedia policies and my long-term behavior was absolutely inappropriate. I apologize if what I said then sounded like I made some conclusions about your motivations. We also know by now that the mob was directly related to WP:FRAM, which of course does not excuse my overreaction on several occasions. I also hope that I learned from that situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 1 September 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)

  Tough but fair. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 September 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)

  I can think of a few people, actually. EEng 08:02, 1 September 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)

  Sorry, in what way is it mistaken? EEng 08:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, If sharks only attacked people who had received a warning first, then no one would warn people about sharks People wouldn't issue warnings, but sharks would have an interest in warning people that they wanted to attack. Vexations (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Very clever, Vexations, but sharks don't count for the purposes of "no one", because sharks aren't people (though I've known some people who are sharks). EEng 15:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  I am genuinely puzzled and would appreciate an explanation of what you meant. EEng 05:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

  Pretty much. Grandpallama (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I comment because I routinely issue DS alerts. Since it's not standard procedure to all send them at the initial welcome message, it's when editors edit the relevant area that they tend to get noticed and notified. Because those notes are important to be able to followup with WP:AE enforcement, it's not a coincidence that those who made controversial edits are more likely to receive them. But that information is really for everyone, a fact the DS/Alert text attempts to explain. I've recently issued one on my own talk page, since noone did and I became familiar with the related situation (in relation to the Falun Gong topic area, in this case). —PaleoNeonate – 07:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki sockpuppetry by Henry408

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

---

• Henry408 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry425 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry430 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry432 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry540 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry636 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry815 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) etc.

A globally-locked user Henry408 (talk · contribs) has been abusing multiple accounts since 2019, often editing animation-related articles. They sometimes appear in the English Wikipedia. Looking at their cross-wiki contributions, I think Henry815 (talk · contribs) is the current sock of Henry408. I'm not sure if CU works when most of the previous socks are stale. Should I open an SPI? Anyway, I think this case needs some attention by administrators. 153.207.164.49 (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to request a glock at M:SRG. Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Henry130 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry251 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry380 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry721 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry750 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry875 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry864 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry2134 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry3243 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry3545 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Henry4366 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I've found 11 more socks; they were active in March, April, May, and June 2020. 153.207.164.49 (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Block review

Posting here since I think I toed the line of admin discretion and thought that there are some issues that needed community addressing. I blocked Kaleodu for 31 hours after they continuously disruptively tagged articles with notability tags in spite of being asked to stop. They were addressed by me and UW Dawgs who opened up a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Notability in NFL player articles where they refused to communicate. I felt they displayed IDHT behaviour and it was becoming disruptive. If the community decides that I was wrong, I completely accept their admonishing and will unblock.

I am bringing this here because I am also concerned about several of their image uploads. They're asserting PD US but sourcing to unofficial sources. This likely needs a deeper look and perhaps a longer block. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Kaleodu might be overzealous, but some of their recent notability tags seem reasonable to me. Joy Golden,for example, is a stub article on an advertiser. Most of the sources are biographical background, and there is actually only a single mention of her career. Other articles Kaleodu tagged for notability are also stubs.:

• George Mira Jr.'s entire college football career is summarized in a single paragraph
• Pierre Champoux's article contains a single line,
• Bob Fisher (tight end) is two-lines long and mentions a professional career which lasted less than two years. Dimadick (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Dimadick That's fair but they were asked to either add "a more references needed" tag or take it to AfD, which they refused to acknowledge. I blocked because I felt their tagging and IDHT behaviour was becoming disruptive. For example, they tagged James Melka but I easily expanded it 1K bytes and added two in-depth articles. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

    I've been told in the past that rather than take articles to AfD, I should tag them with notability tags. I still have no idea what it is the community expects an editor to do with an article that they think is not notable but that meets the relevant SNG, i.e. the old "meets GNG but not SNG". My current practice is to ignore it. Lev!vich 21:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Soul Crusher's redirects

About a week and a half ago, I came across a number of edits by User:Soul Crusher where a number of redirects were created pointing to Cleopatra Records and yet are not mentioned in the target article. I expressed my concern on their talk page. After finding better targets for many, I nominated the rest of them for deletion at RfD (just ending as delete all). I also nominated the article for the compilation album Sin Factor, in which Soul Crusher created a number of other redirects to there simply because a band or band member without any other reference in Wikipedia had a track or was credited as a songwriter. The album's article as well as all those redirects have also been deleted. Unfortunately, it continues. I repeated my message upon the creation of There Is No Time, another compilation album along a number of new redirects for more non-notable bands pointing just to the album. I voiced my concerns again a few days later, but to no avail. Yesterday, they created three redirects to Pankow (German band) for being listed as songwriters for a track on the compilation Funky Alternatives Seven, although the trio aren't mentioned in the band's article. They have refused to communicate on their talk and have continued the practice (see Lee Popa and Max Edgin).

• I think Soul Crusher needs to refrain from creating these needless redirects for a simple mention as part of a track listing without additional information being available elsewhere.
• Even if a redirect is mentioned in the target article, I think Soul Crusher should stop creating links to each band member over and over when they simply redirect to the band's page (and is already linked itself as the recording artist in the same articles). For example, they created redirects for Gary Dassing and Dwayne Dassing to their band Mentallo and the Fixer, and in articles such as Centuries (EP), their names are linked in every instance despite the link to the band already existing in the intro and infobox already.
• I've also asked them to stop linking to countries under the "Release history" section of these articles per MOS:OVERLINK, but that request has been ignored as well.

There are other concerns as well, including the creation of many potentially non-notable topics and unchecked hyperlinks to disambiguation pages and unrelated articles about something else as tagged by a bot here in the article The Black Bible, which is how I began to notice the depth of these issues. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here - redirects are appropriate.Soul Crusher (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This and this say otherwise, and this one is in progress. And part of the problem is you failed to discuss the issue when I brought it up to you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The track on Funky Alternatives Seven is by Pankow (Italian band), not Pankow (German band), it is not only about notability it's whether they redirect to a relevant article. Peter James (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"I don't see a problem here - redirects are appropriate." In Wikipedia:Redirect, one of the reasons listed for their deletion is "...and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.". Most of your recent redirects link to articles which either briefly mention the subjects, or in the case of Cleopatra Records, make no mention of them at all. This is rather problematic. Do you see these as redirects with possibilities of eventual expansion? Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently ignoring the issues presented here because they don't view it as a problem, Soul Crusher created Markleford Friedman pointing to a band's article in which the name is never mentioned. The reason? Because Friedman is listed as a songwriter for a track by the band that is featured on the barely, if at all, notable compilation The Best of Mind/Body: Electro-Industrial Music From the Internet, that was also just created. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Empty accounts thanking hundreds of times for contributing to controversial pages

User:Check-the-text and User:Check article here are thanking edits by any registered users in certain time frames to controversial articles. I've found blocks of revision histories for Michael Flynn, Christchurch mosque shootings, and various COVID-19 related articles where every editor was thanked. They're probably related to User:Looktheinfo, who was blocked as WP:NOTHERE. None of the accounts have any edits, just hundreds of thank-yous: [190] [191] [192].Citing (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

And add User:LookArticThis to the list [193].Citing (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This type of behavior is usually related to an editor's effort to get extended confirmed protection rights, so they can edit highly controversial articles subject to disruption, pushing some POV. Good faith new editors will make useful NPOV comments on the talk pages, and make useful, productive edits to other articles, even if closely related. But gaming the system by making rapid unproductive edits to get a user status is behavior that is not productive. Let's take a closer look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Just using the thank function without actually editing is unusual behavior but not unknown. It does not count toward ECP, as far as I know, but maybe it is an attempt to "buddy up" to editors in a certain topic area in advance, to soften scrutiny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The articles I'm certain of are Alicia Kozakiewicz (revisions immediately before 921924565 were thanked by User:LookArticThis), Anna Popova (all revisions thanked by User:Check-the-text), Michael Flynn (several chunks probably, e.g. the ~100 edits immediately before 955621374 were thanked by Check-the-text, maybe the others too). There's some overlap between the accounts being created/active and they seem to work in short bursts of a few minutes spread by a few days.Citing (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added those three articles to my watchlist and encourage other editors to do so. Burst of editing is commonplace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil argument involving multiple parties on user talk page

• Editor interaction: [194]
• Grufo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 39.37.150.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(note: I have included 2 partial snippets, please read the entire argument on the talk page for full context).

On a user's talk page currently there is an ongoing argument that started with Vice_regent alleging that Grufo was WP:STALK'ing them:

I notice you have restarted WP:STALK-ing me. Please stop. We've been over this before (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Hounding).[195]

To which Grufo then responded:

Vice regent, if you believe that my any of my edits were not aimed at improving Wikipedia constructively or against destructive edits (removals or POV-pushing, from you or anyone else), but I rather wanted to cause “irritation, annoyance, or distress” to you in particular, please do come forward. sent by Grufo.

Multiple other comments were made[196] which then eventually attracted the involvement of 39.37.150.110 which then further escalated the situation, primarily starting an argument between the anon user and Grufo. This also appears to not be the first dispute between Vice_regent and Grufo that has resulted in ANI, highlighting the necessary for intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cairo2k18 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't looking to bring this to ANI, the above was an attempt by me to resolve this on the user's talk page. The background is that Grufo has a history of following me around (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Hounding) and this week they once again reverted me[197][198] on two articles they'd never edited before. I also pointed out that >90% of Grufo's 520 edits in the month of August were spent in disputes with me (each one of which Grufo followed me to).VR _talk 14:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair, to be fair you didn't really say much other than that, just the anon user and Grufo started being a bit unfriendly. Cairo2k18 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 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)

I saw the username through the filter logs, but I wasn't sure if the username would be considered disruptive. I'm still not sure if different characters are considered disruptive...like 𝕷𝖔𝖗𝖉 𝕺𝖋 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖉𝖔𝖜𝖘 𝖝𝖊𝖓? Jerm (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a homograph problem. Unlike names which are in Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese, Korean, or other non-Latin scripts, which are uncontroversial, this is a misuse of the Unicode standard to achieve decorative effects, at the cost of creating confusion. Depending on your local font set, it may be either difficult or impossible to tell the difference between "𝗺𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲" (using mathematical symbols) and "my mom is proud of me" (using the standard Latin alphabet). Just for one example, an internal search within Wikipedia for "my mom is proud of me", will not bring up any reference to that user, and the page search function of my web browser also fails to find the obfuscated name. And yes, this also applies to 𝕷𝖔𝖗𝖉 𝕺𝖋 𝖘𝖍𝖆𝖉𝖔𝖜𝖘 𝖝𝖊𝖓. -- The Anome (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there policy that forbids alternative fonts? This is the English Wiki, and their usernames are still english. Typing their usernames though is just as difficult as typing a non-latin script username such as Hebrew or Arabic, but such usernames that use non-latin characters are still allowed. Jerm (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Jerm: It's disallowed by Wikipedia:Username_policy#Non-script_usernames, since these are symbols (albeit letterlike ones) — the third bullet point there prohibits "Symbols and characters that are on the block lists at Unicode symbols", and indeed, Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols is present in that list. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 05:20, 3 September 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 [199]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

89MsHm Threatening to make changes if I don't stop participating [200] Maidyouneed (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User Gwen Hope inserts/ maintains nationalistic content on Wikipedia

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

---

User Gwen Hope inserts and maintains content with nationalistic view in Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodecanese.

I have tried to revert the changes multiple times and the user insists. Try to protect the neutrality and credibility of Wikipedia by removing nationalistic content and content that is supported by extremistic referencesFrankfedit (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Frankfedit, like I informed you on my talk page, you can't just go around saying a certain sourced paragraph is WP:BIASED and blank it. You need to have a discussion about it on the talk page or, if you have issues with source credibility, take it to WP:RSN.

Since you've brought it here, I will inform you that I've already reported you for vandalism to WP:AIV for your continued section blanking of Dodecanese, of which you've merely deleted with the edit summary saying it was nationalistic. I heavily recommend you read up on Wikipedia's policies on constructive editing.

(I would also like to inform you that you're required to notify a user about an ANI claim you bring against them on their talk page, which as of currently you haven't done.) Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Also reporting me also to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Gwenhope is nothing but excessive and it's clear you didn't read the criteria for LTA at all. Please stop, honey. I don't want to see you dig a bigger hole for yourself. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Frankfedit: note that I'm not the only established user reverting your unconstructive edits. @Paisarepa and TimothyBlue: are doing so as well because what you're doing is vandalism. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked Frankfedit for revert-warring and disruptive editing (24 hours as a first block); speedied the bogus "long-term abuse" page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise,  Thank you very much! Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Over 3,000 at Speedy Deletion - is this an error?

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

---

Overnight, CAT:SPEEDY has been flooded with over 3,000 deletions, seemingly all related to the the Middle East. I didn't scroll through all of them, but the first few pages of this looks like talk pages are being deleted. Are these errors? If not, is there a quick way to clear these? — Maile (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The common link looks to be the presence of {{WikiProject Lebanon}} on those talk pages, but I cannot see why or how...the pages themselves are not tagged for deletion. GiantSnowman 13:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it was this [201] on Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/To do List2 which is part of the Wikiproject template. I reverted the placement of the speedy deletion request. I assume the speedy deletion template should be noincluded or something but I don't really know. I guess it's probably received enough attention by now that it's no longer needed anyway, if someone feel it's eligible for speedy deletion they can go ahead and make sure they fix the template. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Still in progress - increasing rapidly - it is now 4,264 total. Meanwhile, error or not, we have this glut of thousands that nobody is going to wade through one a time, to find legitimate Speedy Delete nominations. — Maile (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgive any technical ignorance, but surely it is increasing as the server or cache or whatever updates the tags, and then once it's done that it will decrease given the speedy tag has been removed? GiantSnowman 13:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the caches for these pages need to be purged, to receive the new version of the template that doesn't have the CSD notice (which indeed should've been noincluded). Lemme see if I can run through them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Joe's Null Bot still active? Primefac (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I assumed the same thing although I manually purge the Wikiproject template after reading this since I forgot to. (I'm not sure if it's necessary, I also manually purged the todolist but I'm fairly sure editing it is enough.) I also don't know how the backend prioritises purges i.e. does it need to finish updating for the older version of the template before it gets around to the new one? In any case just in case I missed something I also removed 2 more speedies which don't look like they would be included in that template, but out of an abundance of caution. These were on Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/Announcing [202] and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/outreach [203]. Like with the todolist, these removals were an emergency measure just in case they were causing problems rather than an attempt to prevent speedy deletion. Nil Einne (talk)

I requested access to edit Template:WikiProject Lebanon. My request was denied eventhough I curated that template for a while. I have filled the template sandbox as requested and I am waiting for deliberation. The wikiproject template includes a to-do list that has links to deprecated bot-generated lists; the bot itself is defunct. The list is also very hard to maintain and keep up-to-date. The notice that you saw is directly related to the "To-Do list" transclusion. I am sorry for the inconvenience. If you can hasten the Template:WikiProject Lebanon modification it would unlink the template from the to-do list. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 14:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, speedied that page per the author's request, good spot. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW, related changes (under tools) on the left can help finding where the problem may originate if you visit a page and it doesn't seem to have been directly changed. See e.g. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:WikiProject Lebanon for the Wikiproject template or Special:RecentChangesLinked/Talk:24 October Movement for one of the affected/speedy listed pages. Both of these should show the show the to do list although you may need to click the arrow to expand to see the speedy deletion edit summary. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Well, as far as CAT:SPEEDY, this issue has been taken care of. — Maile (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Superbsic

Superbsic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account less than a week ago and has been primarily active within the last 24 hours. Since then has indulged in an almost exclusively disruptive pattern of editing on several articles including a BLP. To me it seems like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Timeline of Diffs is as follows; the exact times are in IST:

• 11:09, 2 September 2020: Adds the unsourced term "Jihadi" to the ideology section of an organisation which already lists "Islamic fundamentalism" while leaving the edit summary of "Fuck Islam".

• 12:41, 2 September 2020: Removes a reliably sourced term "militant" alongside its references from the article of another organisation with the edit summary of "minor spelling and word editings" while marking the edit as minor.

• 12:58, 2 September 2020: Adds the unsourced terms of "Naxalite" and "anti-national" to the lead of a BLP with the edit summary of "minor word changes" and again marking the edit as minor.

• 13:01, 2 September 2020: Repeats the same as above after being reverted and warned.

• 13:42, 2 September 2020, 13:44, 2 September 2020, 13:44, 2 September 2020, 13:47, 2 September 2020, etc: Spamming a number of editors with the same message stating that "they have been on wiki for a long time" and requesting to be nominated for RfA.

• 13:53, 2 September 2020: Repeats the same action as in the second diff, this time leaving the references intact.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Here is a note I just left on their talk: Hi there Superbsic, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I'll be frank and honest, I feel like you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In the short amount of time you've been here 3 admins have already left you notes on your talk. You have been leaving extremely rude edit summaries, constantly removing sourced content, breaking NPOVs, going to multiple sysops' and crats' talks and asking for adminship despite clearly failing all the requirements, and edit warring at Bajrang Dal, breaking sanctions, all of which can be seen in contributions. The only positive contributions you've made have had to be reverted because you improperly used images. It is very likely you'll be blocked and I thought I might as well make this before you ask why. No constructive contributions and mostly disruptive editing. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to block as NOTHERE, but I'm feeling nice this morning, so let's see what they have to say for themselves. Of course, now that I've tried to AGF they're probably going to be CU-blocked within an hour GeneralNotability (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The spamming of RfA suggestions is pinch of salt territory for me. The rest is pretty bad, but as GN said above I'm not against a ban, but it's too borderline for me to want to enforce one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The "Fuck Islam" edit summary combined with the other inappropriate behavior described above leads me to conclude that this editor should be indeffed. I would do so myself, except that I gave the editor some advice at the Teahouse, which they have not yet followed. Though my involvement is minor, I think it would be best for a completely uninvolved administrator to make that decision based on the evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary was offensive, but categorizing Lashkar-e-Taiba as a Jihadist organization seems correct. At least it matches the Jihadist-related categories already added to the article. If not banned, Superbsic should learn to avoid using misleading edit summaries. Dimadick (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive/threatening IP, and possible socking or meatpuppetry

This IP 162.238.56.66 just reverted one of my edits at Amiram Nir without explanation [204], and looking at the IPs contributions, I can see that one of their very few edits includes threatening another editor, User:Hipal, with the edit summary, "WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE" [205].

Furthermore, the IP's revert of my edit [206] at Amiram Nir follows not long after the same revert from a different editor: User:Jaydoggmarco (notified of this discussion here). Just a few days before the IP threatened Hipal, Jaydoggmarco had sent Hipal messages that weren't threatening, but like the IP, claimed that Hipal had a conflict of interest [207].

It's weird that this IP has repeatedly now inserted itself into edit wars to support Jaydoggmarco, considering how few edits the IP has. For instance here [208] and here [209] Jaydoggmarco reverts User:Emir of Wikipedia, is reverted, and in the middle our IP 162.238.56.66 arrives to make the same revert as Jaydoggmarco [210].

Anyway, I apologize Jaydoggmarco if this is coincidence, but this is a little unusual. And at the least the IP's threat is out of line. -Darouet (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging User:RexxS, since you notified [211] Jaydoggmarco that as of July, they are restricted from editing on topics related to American politics post-1932 for a period of six months... but just one month later, in August, they've been reverting [212] text related to possible CIA involvement in the 1984 killing of US DEA agent Kiki Camarena, and is arguing on the talk page there [213] (where you can see I'm also involved). Am I misunderstanding this restriction? -Darouet (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This is slander, The ip isn't me and that edit on Amiram Nir appears to be from weeks ago, Also Hipal has been accused by others of having a conflict of interest. [214] [215] The Kiki article doesn't have the discretionary sanctions alert that the Karlie Kloss one has. I find this grasping at straws to slander me instead debating on the sourcing repulsive. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

People in bad faith and without evidence accuse others of many things. Don't take the bait. It puts you in a very bad light. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The presence, or lack thereof, of the DS alert has nothing to do with your ability to edit the article. You are banned from any article in or relating to the topic area, period. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 13:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've declined to act in this instance, without prejudice to another admin taking action. I have left a serious warning, advising Jaydoggmarco not to test the boundaries of their topic ban. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Swmpshield2

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

---

• Swmpshield2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned about this user. I have encountered them in two contexts: COVID-19 and G. Edward Griffin. At the Griffin article, they are arguing that The Creature From Jekyll Island is a respectable work (e.g. [216], [217], [218] and talk page comments. Griffin is a member of the John Birch Society, a conspiracy theorist, and a long-time promoter of the quack cancer remedy laetrile (see also this edit by Swmpshield2 removing two sources critical of laetrile quackery). In relation to COVID-19, they have been warned of DS ([219]), but all notices and warnings are blanked without comment [220] or with aggressive edit summaries [221]. There's an AP2 DS notices [222] from Doug Weller not blanked at time of writing. The user has been blocked for edit warring on multiple articles, and warned for personal attacks. A focus on Wuhan ([223]), China and organ harvesting ([224]) suggests strong anti-Chinese sentiment but that could be wrong. Regardless, the amount of drama this editor has stoked with their 187 edits to date leads me to speculate that they are here to WP:RGW rather than help. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Addendum: possible Wikitam331 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock? Guy (help! - typo?) 14:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• While their support for G. Edward Griffin's works is reason for concern, that talk page comment you linked is merely questioning the reliability of The Daily Beast as a source for a BLP article. Which seems to be a reasonable concern, when it comes to the Beast's scoop-oriented reporting. Dimadick (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Dimadick, his argumentation on the Talk page is predicated on the false idea that The Creature From Jekyll Island is a legitimate and respected work of scholarship. Spoiler: it's not. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding Jzio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is suspicious. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Very suspicious as they just added to this thread but signed with Guy's name. MarnetteD|Talk 00:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

MarnetteD, Swmpshield2 is now edit-warring against multiple others at G. Edward Griffin. This is not good. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I'm getting notifications! I'm new to Wikipedia, I can see that I'm unable to make changes to an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzio (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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 [[225]] [[226]] [[227]] [[228]]

Article : Jalal-ud-din Khalji [[229]] [[230]] [[231]]

Article:Hindkowans [[232]] [[233]] [[234]] [[235]]

• Warnings against this user:

[[236]] [[237]]

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

[[238]] [[239]]

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 [[240]],here [[241]] and here, [[242]].

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)

User:NavjotSR This user User:W28394 has been blocked for disruptive editing for 24 hrs and just after one day he has started carrying out disruptive edits as seen here [[243]] & [[244]] with two different users. I am not sure how to deal with this person anymore. Kami2018 (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick help needed

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

---

Someone is seriously f@#&ing around with User talk:Primefac. There's an impersonator account involved. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

User:2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:10D3:41F:1083:6A82 and John Joubert (serial killer)

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

---

2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:10D3:41F:1083:6A82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on a rampage with the undo button on John Joubert (serial killer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Please can someone apply restraints? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe the 3RR has been broken as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

All I did was restore huge chunks of information that had been removed from the article months ago and somehow went unnoticed by everyone who edits Wikipedia. - 2600:1702:31B0:9CE0:10D3:41F:1083:6A82 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are violating the following, at least, WP:OVERLINK, WP:NOTUSA, WP:ENGVAR, WP:CATDEFINE, WP:EL, not to mention the edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 18:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked them, not interested in editing collaboratively or in following any of our policies. Lets move along. Canterbury Tail talk 18:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually is there a socking/evasion issue here anyone? They're clearly not a new user. Canterbury Tail talk 18:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocklog for "2600:1702:31B0:9CE0::/64" would seem to indicate this is an IP sock, but I can't figure out who might be master. @Bagumba: do you remember? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/TyrusThomas4lyf.—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent 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)

I had already reduced the indef to 3 years. While it's true that a residential cable ISP might reallocate that /64 to another customer, they will still have a much larger base set to reallocate than in the days of IPv4. The chances in most cases of the new customer getting that /64 also wanting to edit the Wikipedia article on exactly the same topic out of our 6 million articles will be so small as to be negligible, therefore there's much less chance of a problem when a partial block is used. In this case, though, the article affected was geographically local to the IP, so there's perhaps a higher likelihood that the new customer might want to edit it. Nevertheless, I think your reduction to 3 months is just kicking the can down the road. In 3 month's time, if the vandalism starts up again, will you be suggesting that this is a new vandal who just happened to be allocated the same IPv6 and just happened to edit the same article? Thought not. --RexxS (talk) 10:55, 2 September 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)

A new IP in the block is at it again, adding bogus sister city relationships on Cary, North Carolina, Munich, Würzburg, and Klosterneuburg.

• 2606:A000:4508:A00:4941:108:7728:15BE (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

--WildCowboy (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And now Salzburg‎ as well. --WildCowboy (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Also just noticed that seemingly all of the edits from this entire IP block (2606:A000:4508:A00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) are either making vandalism/hoax edits to city/region pages or editing pages for kids shows (which I haven't examined to see if those are legitimate or not). There are over 15 specific IPs involved in the geography-related vandalism dating back about six weeks, mostly involving bogus sister city pairings or changing pages for various European countries/regions to state that they are located in the United States. --WildCowboy (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

(nac) From this DABfixers POV, ambiguous and unsourced sister city listings can be a real pest. I've seen several. Even if you have the will and ability to look at non-English WPs and to do multilingual searching, they can be impossible to confirm or to deny even from the towns' own websites. All one can do in first instance is WP:AGF and add {{disambiguation needed}} and {{citation needed}} tags, even if a link looks completely implausible. Whoever added it may have a source I failed to find. Narky Blert (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This user is clearly trying to cause trouble, however, as all of the IPs on this block appear to be the same person and they're making other edits stating Liechtenstein and Luxembourg are in the southern United States, among other clearly incorrect edits. I've checked the official Sister Cities International directory, I've checked city/town websites, and I've found nothing to support any of their sister city claims. Sister city pairs are also typically of somewhat similar stature, so it makes little sense that a suburban town in North Carolina would be paired with major cities like Munich and Vienna. And the user refuses to engage on talk pages. --WildCowboy (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Now using 98.122.148.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to engage in the same behavior. The IP has already had two blocks in the past six weeks. --WildCowboy (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Back at it again today from the same IP. Can we get an admin to take another look and put some more blocks on this person? The 98.122.148.179 IP has been a continuing problem for weeks, as can be seen from the laundry list of warnings and two blocks. Thanks. --WildCowboy (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Nursultan12 - repeatedly recreating article deleted at AfD

The article Faysal Traoré was created by Nursultan12 on 21 August 2020 and deleted by AfD on 29 August. Nursultan12 has subsequently re-created the article on 30 August, 1 September and 4 September.[245] The recreated articles are essentially the same as the article that was deleted at AfD. --John B123 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Deleted and SALTed, which solves the issue short-term. However, there are deeper issues here that need resolving - in short, Nursultan12 is a problematic editor, has a history of creating non-notable articles, removing AFD tags, re-creating deleted articles etc. etc. I suggest a CIR indef block until they start communicating. GiantSnowman 19:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Also socking as Нурсултан Андакулов (talk · contribs) (identical userpage), with overlapping edits on 2020 Uzbekistan Super League. I'll handle this as an SPI. Cabayi (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nursultan12 - both accounts indeffed. Cabayi (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Good spot/block! GiantSnowman 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

TPA removal

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

---

Hello, Please remove the tpa of YouNeedToCleanYourEars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Seems to be some sort of LTA. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• YNTCYE's one mainspace edit, way back in July 2017 (link), suggests a close connection to User:SoapSoapWhatIsSoap (indeffed May 2017; link), a suspected sock of User:WhenDatHotlineBling. Narky Blert (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

3rd ANI report

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

---

Ser-rod-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2 previous ANI reports, 2 prior blocks, 9 final warnings (I didn't bother adding another) and the unsourced edits continue. On top of that, no effort has been made to communicate with concerned editors on their talk page. It's really starting to look like they're not here to contribute constructively and a longer block may be needed. Robvanvee 17:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I've indef's them for WP:NOTHERE. That's a long list of final warnings, multiple blocks already 2 this year in fact. Enough's enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly! Much appreciated RickinBaltimore. Robvanvee 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Casperti violating topic ban

@El C: Casperti is violating the topic ban from Afghanistan, India and Pakistan,[246] even after being warned earlier about it.[247]

• 4 September[248]: Greets about Afghan Independence Day.
• 27 August[249]: Removes "Northwest Pakistan"
• 25 August[250]: Mentions "Northwest Pakistan"

I would support extending topic ban over a block. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. El_C 23:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

User Arunjithp and AfD's

On this day, Arunjithp has made 24 AfD nominations with no reason for nomination. I have left a complaint on his page earlier, but now find he has made 24 nominations with no reason therefore. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Biographies of few living persons without adequate support for references have been marked for deletion. The specific reason (reply to complaint left on my page) for above query will be given on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 11:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• I've just had a look at these - none of them have rationales for deletion, and the first couple I looked at were clearly notable, including one that was a full international footballer. I'm going to be AFK for half an hour, but when I get back I will close them all as invalid unless anyone objects. Black Kite (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I find it highly disruptive, a good few when I looked are international footballer articles, that's going to be a bit of maintenance to cleanup. Although somewhat thin, the sources do indicate that a lot of these articles can be supported by the sources, so your assumption for deletion seems very floored. Govvy (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Some of the AFDs are valid, some are blatantly wrong. But the mass nomination and the lack of deletion rationale are disruptive. GiantSnowman 11:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have seen 4 or 5 of these, and they are all international footballers for Trinidad, so meet WP:NFOOTY. Either way, AfDs without a rationale given should be speedy kept. And if you're going to try and nominate 24 articles about footballers, maybe start a discussion on WT:FOOTY first. And so far as I can see, most or all of the text in the articles is sourced, and no WP:BEFORE seems to have been done. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite, Govvy, GiantSnowman & Joseph2302, they appear to have been questioned & warned about this by OP & also by Fram here but didn’t respond, I was about to say this was probably a new comer with competency issues but I realized they have been here for 13 years. If this is a new pattern of behavior from that user is it possible their account might be compromised or perhaps their editing device might be faulty? At this rate, yes, it is becoming disruptive. Celestina007 11:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

15 nominations, not 24. But yes, this method of rapid-fire AfDs without any rationale is disruptive, and they should all be speedy closed as keep. If any individual ones have potential merit, they can be re-nominated with an actual good reason (and Arunjithp, simply looking at the sources in the article is not sufficient, you need to do a good -faith search for better sources through e.g. Google (News and Books) or whichever search mechanism you prefer). Fram (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree to speedy keep all of them; some (a minority) appear to be about non-notable individuals. I suggest we speedy keep the ones that are clearly notable (about players who have played at international level) and leave the others open for wider discussion. GiantSnowman 11:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nominating at AfD at a rate of 1-2 nominations every minute is evidence of lack of preparations and study of the articles nominated.--Mvqr (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have closed all of Arunjithp's recent AfDs as "speedy keep" except for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaiah Hudson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Peltier which have been endorsed by other editors. I would recommend that Arunjithp studies the advice Fram has given them carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Will be adhering to advice given by Fram Arunjithp (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Arunjithp, there seem to be other issues with some of your recent edits, for example this edit introduced two factual errors (Danger Man was not a “movie” but a 39 episode TV series, in which the subject of the article appeared in only one, and the second film was based on a novel by a different Tom Gill); this one made the meaning less clear. Please be more careful. Also, there’s no need to tag leads with “citation needed” where the information is sourced in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarise the information in the body. Brunton (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunjithp (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wabulton

Wabulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to not be here to build an encyclopedia.

• [251] on South Yorkshire Police changed motto from "Justice with courage"to "Justice with courage. Except when our incompetent match commander opens the gates."
• [252] Edit warring to re-insert above.
• [253] Added "Surprisingly, despite these prestigious positions, she had absolutely no idea what a 'woman' was" to a BLP, citing opinions pieces in two UK tabloids.
• [254]Anotrher BLP violation: "The current mayor is Ted Wheeler], a catastrophically weak man who has proved incapable of implementing law and order in Portland."
• [255] And another: "The current mayor is Ted Wheeler, who has served since 2017, and was elected in the 2016 Portland, Oregon mayoral election|2016 election with huge support from his wife's boyfriends."
• [256] Added dubious material about Prince Harry sourced to a UK tabloid.
• [257] Edit warring to keep it in.
• [258] More edit warring.

User warnings:[259][260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

66.244.121.212

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

---

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[268] (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 [269][270] who has not edited since, except once to insert one of these GED images.[271] 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)

Note: I just found some really damning evidence that links the OP to the sleeper sock that reported me (viewable at the SPI link I just posted). I do have to wonder why this entire enormous thread was directed at me when the OP's editing was so obviously disruptive. Throughout this whole ordeal, not one person has bothered to investigate my claims, and as a result the OP has been allowed to harass me for a week. But I am not here to live in the past. The OP's disruption is still ongoing, so I would appreciate if an admin would take action fast. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And now that the SPI has been closed with the finding that the accounts were unrelated,[272] it turns out the "week of harassment" has been perpetrated more by Wikiman2718, who has made a number of WP:PAs in prosecuting their case,[273] than by any other editor here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

For anyone who didn't read the thread, the complaint was filed by as seven year old sleeper sock that activated five days ago (right in the middle of my dispute with ATC) who's username was a pun on ATC. ATC's block log contains multiple blocks for socking. Are you telling me that this is all a coincidence? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:HOLES. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

As I have also accused you of harassment (and will make that case when this is over) I would appreciate if you would let others weigh in. It look to me as though ATC has a special status in this community that puts him beyond scrutiny. As a result, he has been allowed to continue in his disruption unchecked. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 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.[274] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Wikiman2718

So I never meant to get involved in this, I am a mostly casual user that didn't really use this account to make a few edits (which were deleted a few years back). I filed the SPI because I saw that he didn't seem to be apologetic about not logging in, just from reading this thread. However, can Wikipedia somehow block personal attacks from User:Wikiman2718 against me? His mockery of me in several posts is creeping me out. He is even going after me on an unrelated thread User_talk:DGG#Significance_of_Media_Coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders

Atdevel (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are a personal attack. @Wikiman2718:, you need to either file an SPI or withdraw that accusation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: He won't stop making that claim, apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=prev&oldid=976397787

He just made it now. It's like that old joke, "George Washington and George Irving must be related" Atdevel (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I've warned Wikiman for these persistent accusations. If it continues, they need to be blocked by an admin. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: He did it again! He is asking me to verify IP addresses that I edited on from a while back, which makes me feel uncomfortable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atdevel&diff=prev&oldid=976422649 Atdevel (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: he is continuing with his attacks after being warned https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAtdevel&type=revision&diff=976431550&oldid=976422649 Atdevel (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just in case anyone missed the big event, ATdevel has retired. But given what just happened here, and this user's relevance to the still-open discussion, I still feel the need to justify my claims that this user was here for the purpose of disruption. I recently happened across some off-wiki evidence that is relevant and I'm not sure what the right procedure is here. Could a friendly admin help me out? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• To an uninvolved admin: There have been some attempts in the past to label me as a person who makes false allegations. This is a problem for me, because it interferes with my ability to get help when I am being harassed. In the past this was less of a problem, but as noted above, the emergence of my autoimmune disease has lowered my tolerance for stress. I would therefore like the opportunity to submit some off-wiki evidence to a friendly admin who has the time. I want it known that I am no longer seeking sanctions: If I have any problems with ATC's edits, I will take them to SandyGeorge and I'm sure she'll work it out. It is very important to me that this claim be substantiated. We all know how common harassment is on this wiki, and if I am not able to get help when it occurs it will interfere with my ability to be a productive user. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Wikiman2718, that's now how it works; administators shouldn't, generally speaking, be trafficking in offwiki evidence. Who the right group to look at it depends on what kind of offwiki evidence there is. If it's about paid editing you can use paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org otherwise you can email a member of the CheckUser team. But you do need to substantiate the claims otherwise you can be blocked. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for the reply. The off-wiki evidence is entirely benign stuff that matches the profile the of account I believe to be a sock with the account I believe to be the master. I'll send off one of that email. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  You've successfully hounded them off Wikipedia with unsubstantiated accusations of sock puppetry. Just stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  1) With all due respect, this is exactly the response I was trying to avoid by substantiating my claim. You have not seen the evidence, and yet you have already dismissed me. I intend to file the report. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikiman2718, I have (at least up to this point) practiced all the restraint I am capable of in the interest of extending to you (and indeed, I hope any editor who expresses they have health issues or neurological differences) the same patience I extended to ATC 13 years ago when they were a child editor, in the interest of fairness. I would ask you at this point to consider the path you are on and whether you want to continue on this path, as my patience is running out.

1. You sort of express above that you will not continue hounding ATC, yet you remain convinced (all evidence to the contrary) that ATdevel is ATC, so in fact, your continued claims are aimed not only at ATdevel-- an editor who has already left because of your hounding-- but indirectly at ATC as well. Checkuser demonstrated you were wrong, but you have continued with the claim across multiple pages, [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] even after a negative CU.
2. You have asked for the right to submit off-wiki evidence that they are the same person (even though Atdevel is now gone), while I have been silent about the numerous demonstrably false statements in your "evidence" claiming to link the two editors, nor have I yet supplied on- and off-Wiki evidence of just how wrong, indeed outlandish, your alleged "behavioral" "evidence" is. Things like conflating ATC with ACT, equating "devel" to "devil", presuming 13-year-old behaviors of a child editor have some relevance to today's behaviors, and assuming you know the gender of the accounts. Are you sure you want to press me to submit this kind of evidence and the rest of the story? If any admin or CU is entertaining evidence from you, then they need to hear from me as well. I don't recommend you take that route.
3. Let's look at the differences between your behavior now and the behavior thirteen years ago of a child editor (ATC) bumbling around on the internet when SarahSV and I were endlessly patient with them, but SV had to block them several times to get them to understand to use talk pages. I am fairly certain you are not a child editor-- at least I've seen no evidence that you are. ATC was a child editor whose edits were almost exclusively confined to her interest in a tic disorder-related boy band. That is, they edited The Tic Code (which, by the way, they subsequently brought to Good Article status), and the articles of the involved family, musician Michael Wolff (musician), his actor wife Polly Draper and their boys, in all of the The Naked Brothers Band-related articles. ATC's editing was nothing more malicious, disruptive or tendentious than a child's editing interests that required a lot of cleanup and explanation. In exchange, Wikipedia got (thirteen years later) a now-adult very patient, knowledgeable, willing to listen, experienced editor. The worst problems were getting a child to understand copyright. It is hard for me to imagine a better outcome than having an experienced adult editor thirteen years later who understands the full value and meaning for why AGF is a core policy.
   You, on the other hand, have rendered several article talk pages so WP:BATTLEGROUND that I prefer not to return to those pages (as discussed on my talk and at Talk:Discrete trial training, while ATC has not once lost their cool or personalized discussions). You have extended personal attacks on multiple pages, introduced POV and UNDUE content across quite a few autism-related articles.

Just as you won't or can't let go of the idea that ATC is ATdevel, you won't let go of the practices you allege from marginal sources from one outlet, and you are spreading UNDUE content to and autism advocacy to several articles. You have also gone after Alexbrn, an experienced medical editor. Yet you are concerned that you have an established reputation; do you see that changing that reputation is within your control and no one else's? That is, while ATC did nothing to damage Wikipedia or other editors (at most, they cost me a lot of time when they were a child editor), can I say the same about your contributions? Is this the path you want to continue on? I repeat the advice I have given you on my talk,[280] and many others have given you on your talk, which seems to be falling on deaf ears: WP:FOC. If you are not able to do that, I am coming to the concern (considering the advocacy editing you are introducing to autism-related articles), that you may need to be encouraged to disengage not only from mentioning ATdevel, Alexbrn, or ATC, but also from editing any autism topic, broadly construed. My years of mentoring ATC resulted in a now-adult productive and knowledgeable and collaborative editor: I'd like to see a similar positive result with you. Please take this to heart and don't disappoint me.

If any off-Wikipedia evidence is being submitted in the ATdevel/ATC matter, I expect to contribute. BradV provided a conclusive negative CU result, and the "behavioral" "evidence" is a series of bad-faith and extremely off allegations, and I too, have off-Wiki evidence that supports the errors in Wikiman2718's thinking, which should simply Cease and Desist, while they should comment on content not the contributor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia: You have repeatedly stated that ATC was a "child editor". I am not asking you to share this information publicly, but do you happen to know the exact age of ATC? Because I did manage to determine the exact age to ATdevel. This could definitively absolve him any wrongdoing if the ages don't match up. If I am proven wrong, I will retract my claim and apologize. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I know enough to know you're wrong, and to know that you have no right to continue to pursue this line of questioning. The way it works is that you retract your claims NOW, not after I show how wrong you are. And yes, I too have seen posts about ATdevel's age. You need to stop this now. CU *already* told you you were wrong; we are having a "beating a dead horse" problem here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia: This produces an easy test that we can use to check the rightness/wrongness of my claim. We will both share this information with a checkuser, who can verify whether or not it matches up. As we all know, the checkuser tool is not perfect, and can be beaten by a technically sophisticated user. I have evidence that ATdevel is such a user based on their declared profession. I also have evidence of other rare demographic data that they share in common, so one way or another the result should be definitive. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Admin attention needed: ENOUGH

Is there an admin in town who can get this to stop? Wikiman2718, I have expended the better part of almost a week (at a time when I was EXTREMELY busy) on this. I do not need to be pinged to a discussion I am following. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I have proposed a test which should definitively tell us who is right here. Why are you so against taking a look at the evidence? All I want is for the truth to come out. A checkuser that I contacted by email has expressed interest in evaluating my off-wiki evidence. I think that we should do that test. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikiman, I've left a note on your talk page. Do not post about this again on Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

TySoltaur, WP:EW, adding unref'd content

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

Adding unref'd content to Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (game show), failing to meet WP:BURDEN. WP:EW behavior repeatedly re-adding unref'd content after reversion. WP:BATTLE attitude based upon edit summary in this revert. Blocked five times for 3RR and edit warring. AldezD (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 2 weeks, in particular, after this gem.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of reasonable material & references on the Falkirk Triangle page by editor Denisarova

I have been trying to get the page for the Falkirk Triangle filled with some basic overview material on the history of the area with UFO's in Scotland. The page has been empty & threadbare for almost 2 years. Within about 30 seconds of me putting in a basic overview to start the page an editor came in and just deleted all of it. When i asked the editor to help me develop the page they just ignored the request. What can i do here? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.184.215 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You should read the warnings and suggestions on your user talk page at User talk:109.249.184.215 which explain the problems with your edit and tell you how to edit appropriately. --Yamla (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks and violation of WP:BRD and WP:AGF by User:The-Pope

This dispute started when User:The-Pope violated WP:DTR by leaving a message meant for new editors on my talk page.diff He then proceeded to make edits to Damian Barrett, completely restructuring the page on the grounds that it did not adhere to WP:UNDUE diff. I disagreed with his changes and reverted him, though I still implemented some of the changes. He proceeded to revert the edit back, a violation of WP:BRD, and in the process also violated the rules around Rollback only being used in cases of vandalism or disruptive editing. diff I reverted him back, on the basis that per BRD he needed to gain consensus for the changes, and left a message on his talk page asking if we could work things out by discussing them.diff He then proceeded to reply by accusing me of vandalism, and failing to converse in any meaningful way, instead throwing around personal attacks and snarkily acting like he was superior to me diff. He then reverted me for a third time. diff. Quite frankly, I find the complete unwillingness to talk and the shocking pace at which he devolved into throwing out personal space to be concerning, given he is trusted with the Rollback tool. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In my outsider opinion, both of you could use a clue adjustment. I tend to agree with The-Pope that your version of the article was not balanced and improperly weighted negative assessments of Barrett's job performance. It was literally a majority of the article and half the lede; that's not the right balance. That being said, The-Pope's tone is way off base. Wikipedia policy explicitly makes it clear that NPOV contraventions are not vandalism. Repeatedly and dismissively reverting good-faith edits guaranteed that this would end up at an admin noticeboard. If both of you could drop the stick and figure something out on a talk page, it would probably save the admins some time here. Devonian Wombat, out of deference to the BLP policy, I recommend sticking with The-Pope's version for now, and if you feel strongly about your version, take it to a proper dispute resolution noticeboard. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comments:
  1. That wasn't a template; No annoying icon, no annoying "September 2020" header, no "Welcome to Wikipedia". It is too brusque, I'll grant, based on calling it a "hitpiece", but DTR doesn't apply just because some of the words were cribbed from {{uw-npov1}}.
  2. That wasn't an abuse of rollback (there was an edit summary). Non-issue.
  3. The "bold" part was when you (User:Devonian Wombat) added material. The "revert" part is when TP reverted it. The "discuss" part wasn't started by either one of you; the talk page is still blank except for Wikiproject templates. Invoking "BRD" doesn't mean you can write whatever you want, and anyone who removes it is being "bold".
  4. You're both edit warring. DW's self-revert after seeing Jprg's comment was a solid step in the right direction.
  5. It's kind of amazing how, after all these many years, people still throw around the term "vandalism" so loosely. User:The-Pope should really stop doing that.
  6. When there's a dispute regarding a BLP, we err on the side of caution. At first glance, DW was focusing pretty hard on the negative; and putting "The Voice of Treason" as an "other name" in the infobox was not good.
  7. It seems likely that if you both can get over your annoyance with each other and discuss it on the talk page, a better article will result than if either of you tried to create it alone. That's kind of the operating assumption around here.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• You can focus on the dispute, or you can focus on the BLP article as I found it, which, if WP:CSD#G10 didn't have an unsourced requirement, that would have been my first response to seeing it listed in NPP. It had a single neutral intro sentence, then nothing but attacks on the BLP subject. Sure, it had lots of references, but most of the criticism was sourced to tabloid style beat up articles. I was appalled. I modified the standard LEVEL 1 warning and left it on the article's creator's user talk page as I started to clean it up. During my clean up, in which I removed the worst of the opinion and borderline defamatory stuff and actually added an actual summary of his actual career including his many awards, not just a laundry list of feuds and criticism, I had a few edit conflicts. Was very surprised when the other editor kept removing the actual neutral article content. So, I make no apologies for improving the article from an absolute hit piece more suited to a forum/facebook post than an article here, which, I still maintain is a sneaky form of vandalism - which did last for almost a month without anyone else noticing. The-Pope (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  I think I dropped the ball here. Aside from The-Pope's inability to understand the word "vandalism", he's right about basically everything else. In retrospect, "hit piece" was not hyperbole. And while initially saying DW's version was too negative, I under-reacted to how appalling that initial version was. @Devonian Wombat:, if that kind of thing continues, you may find yourself subject to a WP:BLP-related discretionary sanction. Once I figure out the byzantine system for leaving DS alerts, I'll post one to DW's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  I see User:Woodroar already left him one on 16 August, after the initial creation of the substandard article, but before all the edit warring. Not sure if sanctions should be considered now, or (I think my preference) if this should be considered a final warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  In case it matters, I left the DS warning because of this edit, where Devonian Wombat moved (but retained) a court document and added a self-published source on a BLP. Woodroar (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, sorry if my initial comments threw you off. I was trying to defuse the situation but may not have gotten the balance right. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  If a deliberate and egregious BLP violation isn't the worst type of vandalism then what is? Cluebot can pick up someone adding "poopypants" to a name or changing their weight to 800 lbs. It can't detect this. I stand by my edits. The-Pope (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If no-one minds, I'd like to withdraw my complaint here and apologise. After having a little while to think it over, I do agree that The-Pope's version is better. I still maintain that the accusation of vandalism was uncalled for, but I can certainly see the WP:BLP problem with a good degree of the old version, and I admit I should not have reverted it, so sorry about that The-Pope. In my defense, the revert thing happened around 11pm and I posted this here around 6am, so I think I just was groggy and wasn't thinking straight. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Improper and Harassing Behavior

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

---

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

I have just joined the community and am very concerned that edits are being made which are political in nature and do not reflect his communities own policies. I have made edits which include truthful content - with supporting citations - to the pages of Governor Gretchen Whitmer and to Michigan Supreme Court Justice Richard Bernstein. The information is neutral insofar as it it 100% accurate and truthful. Yet - on multiple occasions, two editors revised my content. This indicates a pro-Democrat political bias to for these editors and for Wikipedia. If that is the case, then Wikipedia is not fulfilling its mission as advertised in its own policies and terms. The editors were JohnFromPinckney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnFromPinckney and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Muboshgu I need some assistance with restoring my edits and stopping these editors from harassing me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaGuy (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC) MichaGuy

This user has left a legal threat on his own talk page in response to a warning. Esowteric+Talk 11:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

MichaGuy, can you explain how you missed the enormous When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ to do so. I'd also advise you read WP:BOOMERANG quick smart. Glen (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay I see I was too late. Blocked. Glen (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Block aside, it seems to be a content dispute. MichaGuy removing sourced content without explanation. Best discussed at talk pages of the relevant articles. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

MichaGuy seems to have withdrawn their legal threat, but the new block reason by User:ToBeFree is 'Using Wikipedia as a political WP:BATTLEGROUND'. This does appear to be an apt description of MichaGuy's behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the legal threat was just the tip of an iceberg. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

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

IP Making Legal Threat at DRN

This rant at DRN by User:217.138.33.132 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=976634989&oldid=976604525&diffmode=source ends in a legal threat, "Legal action will ensue should no actionable response be received. " Please block the IP. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Warned user about making legal threats. An admin can take care of this beyond this point. Goose^(Talk!) 04:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The topic "Green Grabbing" rephrases a title from a single newspaper article describing "Green Grabbers". The author of the article targets innocent people to justify the page. If you are going to write stories about people, it should be policy that authors use PRIMARY SOURCES that are VERIFIABLE. The current source is unverifiable and a matter of opinion. It is not encyclopedic, it is editorial. Are you trying present factual truth or hearsay? The author is using Wikipedia as a vehicle to present personal views as fact and defames innocent people in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.33.132 (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Unambiguous that a block is in order for the legal threat. Toddst1 (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz making up sourcing rules to delete content they apparently disapprove

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

---

This user has been deleting—for days if not a lot longer—sourced content from BLPs about their romantic lives. In some cases remarking that the sourcing for who they’re dating isn’t current enough.

I’m fairly certain we don’t have any guidelines that sourcing expires such as that. And people can easily date for years on end.

Does anyone else see a problem with this approach? Or the wholesale removal of sourced content with dubious reasons? Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you link the discussion where you've attempted to work this out with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? Also, where did you notify him of this discussion. If you'd bothered to read the very large red print instructions in the edit window for this page, you'd know that, Gleeanon409. I'll notify him for you, but pretty obviously you need to take care of working it out. John from Idegon (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I think you edit conflicted with him leaving the notice? [281] —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I have left notice on their talk page right below where another editor asked about the exact same issue. As they are doing similar edits on a volume of articles, and given poor interactions I’ve had with them, I felt more eyes were called for. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: It would help if you had provided diffs with specific examples. Speaking generally, WP:BLP says to err on the side of caution. It may be better to say "As of X, Y was dating Z" rather than remove "Y is dating Z" outright, but that would depend on the specific circumstances. Further, WP is not a tabloid, and we don't (always) go into minutiae about subjects' private lives.

I don't see where any administrative action is needed here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

over the past few days. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: We are not digging through days of edits. Unless you provide specific diffs, there is no practical way to move forward with this report. —C.Fred (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Here, are, a, few, examples, of, their, deletion, of, sourced, content, claiming, the, sourcing, had, somehow, become, expired.Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I remove badly sourced content from BLPs a lot. That's what BLP policy says to do. Here's a list that's a bit more complete, on this issue alone. [282] It's a important way to improve Wikipedia. You haven't provided one word, one scintilla of evidence that any of the edits you complain about were inappropriate. So it's time to close this, unless somebody elser wants to sanction Gleeanon for frivolous complaint. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

They weren’t badly sourced. And your edit was that the sourcing wasn’t current. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with some of those sources, but two things: I'm not aware of any requirement that we use sources more recent than [two years ago] for someone's personal life. That doesn't seem like it would make sense. But I'm all for erring on the side of removing material from BLPs sourced only to E! Online (but that's not a hard and fast rule, since I see E! is listed as no consensus at WP:RSP). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• The dispute "Gleeanon409" is complaining about here began a whopping two hours ago at Kevin McHale (actor) and now also involves Austin P. McKenzie. "Gleeanon" has come directly to ANI without any prior discussion on the article talk pages or my talk page. The underlying issue is straightforward and well-settled: If a BLP claims that a "relationship" (or dating situation) current exists, the claim must be supported by a current source. I've been addressing this problem while doing BLP cleanup for roughly a decade, if not more, probably involving more than a thousand bios; a vanishingly small number have been in any way controversial, and I don't recall any objections to such removals having been upheld. Here, the "source" is roughly two and a half years old, which is in no way current in this context. I've discussed the issue repeatedly (usually on article talk pages, but see, eg, User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Tea Leoni and Tim Daly, User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#Personal relationships & sourcing.

This frivolous complaint has been brought to harass me, in retaliation for my actions at J. D. Slater, a Munchausen-esque porn industry figure, in a BLP dispute where Gleeanon argues that self-promoting claims by an article subject do not require support from third party sources, no matter how extraordinary.

Can we avoid wasting any more time, close this, and warn Gleeanon about disruption? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Gleeanon409 is defending outdated sources. Also, he/she appears to have enough experience to know to engage in discussion before taking this to ANI. On that note, I agree this complaint appears to be disruptive. As an aside, I think there are more significant issues and events to add to a Wikipedia article than who is dating who. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and it is not a fansite. Using E! for reliable sourcing is akin to very weak sourcing. I recommend using more acceptable wp:rs. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I also recommend not bothering with which celebrity is dating who. And outdated sources are problematic regarding BLPs---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz puts on his pope hat and speaks about WP:BLP issues, he's infallible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this requires administrative intervention - it's a content/sourcing issue, albeit one that has taken place at multiple articles. FWIW, I agree that who someone is dating is usually of little encyclopedic interest (and who someone was dating two and a half years ago even less), and that online gossip magazines aren't great sources for use on BLPs. From the first few diffs provided, it looks like HW has been dragged here for doing what ought to be uncontroversial maintenance of our content. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Concur with Girth Summit. I think OP needs to reread the sourcing requirements for WP:BLP's. We are to avoid "tabloid journalism". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

UTRS unblock requests

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

---

One of my relatives requested an unblock via UTRS after she was ensnared in a range block dated August 2. That unblock request can be viewed at this link. She made a similar unblock request via UTRS after she was blocked from editing her own talk page on August 7. That second unblock request can be viewed at this link. I'm wondering why there's a "Handling administrator" among the listed "Appeal details" here but not here. Is this noticeboard an appropriate place to ask? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. HistoryManUSA (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing a handling administrator is not listed in the second unblock request because it was closed without comment or further action, unlike the first, which was "claimed" by JJMC89 before it was closed. It was closed by Ohnoitsjamie, as one can see in the activity logs. Why do you ask? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Thanks for your response. I'd asked because I was hoping the handling administrator would clarify the reason the unblock request was declined. My understanding is that administrators are able to post comments on UTRS requests that only other administrators can see. Can you confirm that there are no such comments at either this link or this one? HistoryManUSA (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: (?) HistoryManUSA (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether there are or not. If you want more information on the decline, you should ask Ohnoitsjamie, although I see from your talk page you're already in communication with them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Thanks for your response. Administrator Ohnoitsjamie has explicitly refused to respond to me further and falsely suggested I'm a blocked sock who's created this account for the sole purpose of wasting people's time, but I'm planning to try again. HistoryManUSA (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Requests declined by Ohnoitsjamie

@Ohnoitsjamie: Hi again. You appear to be the closing administrator for my UTRS appeal of a talk page block, as well as for a UTRS unblock request made by one of my relatives. Would you mind telling me how many private comments from administrators there are at this link, and this one? HistoryManUSA (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: After at least 80 contributions today, administrator Ohnoitsjamie still appears to be intentionally violating WP:ADMINACCT, and especially the communication principle. Can you direct me to any policy that would clarify my remaining options? HistoryManUSA (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're trying to do. If you're trying to appeal a block on behalf of someone else, you don't have any; blocks have to be appealed by the person who is blocked. If you're "just curious" or something, then that's okay I guess, but you're raising way too much of a fuss about this for that to be the case--accusations of violating ADMINACCT are not to be thrown around lightly just because someone won't satisfy your curiosity. If you yourself are the person who is blocked, then...apparently you're a block-evading sockpuppet, as the HistoryManUSA account itself obviously isn't blocked. So...I don't know what your goal is here, and I don't know that I can help you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Thanks for responding. I'm not a "block-evading sockpuppet", and I'm not "trying to appeal a block on behalf of someone else", and my suggestions that administrator Ohnoitsjamie is violating WP:ADMINACCT aren't being "thrown around lightly". As I've explained above, one of my relatives requested an unblock via UTRS after she was blocked from editing her own talk page on August 7, and I'm raising good-faith concerns about administrative actions relevant to the reason the unblock request was declined. How many private comments from administrators are there at this link? HistoryManUSA (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not going to comment on whether or not there are admin-only comments on that, or any other, UTRS unblock request. If you're not trying to appeal an unblock, then UTRS is not the correct venue, because UTRS is only for unblock requests. This is at least one of the reasons all of your UTRS requests have been correctly declined, since as I said (and quoted from policy), unblock requests have to come from the blocked user. If you're not actually trying to appeal a block, then UTRS requests are pointless; that's all they are for. If you're concerned about actual admin abuse, then you should provide actual diffs of the alleged abuse here so we can discuss it, not continue to futz around with UTRS. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: The unblock request came from the blocked user and says so explicitly. Do you mean to suggest WP:ADMINACCT never applies to a UTRS request, even when an administrator declines it out of revenge or simple spite? HistoryManUSA (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

For someone who insists they're not here to waste our time, you sure do seem to like wasting our time; I don't see how a person could reasonably interpret any of that from what I said. Ohnoitsjamie declined the August 8th UTRS request because it was functionally identical to at least three other unblock requests spread across UTRS and multiple IP address talk pages, all of which had already been declined two days earlier. It looks like Yamla has already explained this to you on your talk page at considerable length; Ohnoitsjamie is not beholden to you to make the exact same explanation. If it makes you feel better, anywhere you want to see a response from Ohnoitsjamie, just mentally insert a "per Yamla". If you have a problem with the original rangeblock, then talk about the original rangeblock. This UTRS nonsense is pointless. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: We obviously don't agree that the UTRS discussion is pointless nonsense. How do you claim to know why Ohnoitsjamie declined the August 8 request? HistoryManUSA (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Because when you make the exact same unblock request as one that has already been declined, with no other change of context, it's standard practice to decline the repeat out of hand. If the situation has not changed, and the unblock request has not changed, why would the outcome be any different? And why would the admin need to explain the exact same thing all over again? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: The stated basis for her August 8 unblock request was that there was no personal attack in my previous ANI complaint and that neither the original range-blocking administrator nor the administrator who responded to her by imposing the talk page range block had identified any other disruptive editing. Administrator Ohnoitsjamie doesn't need to "explain the exact same thing all over again". He or she needs to address the stated basis for the unblock request, which no administrator has so much as acknowledged even now. You ask why the outcome of the August 8 appeal would be different. It obviously wasn't. Is what you call the "standard practice" of declining a repeat unblock request "out of hand" written into Wikipedia policy? HistoryManUSA (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

HistoryManUSA's 2019 discussions at Talk:Billy Mitchell (gamer)

FYI, per this comment and this comment, HistoryManUSA acknowledges they also edited under the IPs behind these relentless Billy Mitchell Talk page discussions. I mention this because it is generally helpful for other editors to know when they're talking to someone they may have encountered before. JoelleJay (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: Do you have any objection to my creation of this new subsection for your comment? HistoryManUSA (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Response from Narky Blert

(nac) From your links, all those blocks were applied to anonymous IP ranges. The best get-around for an honest editor is to register a named account. That doesn't stop all rangeblocks (to which WP:ADMINs are immune), but is likely to get a more sympathetic and speedier response to an {{unblock}} or UTRS request.
I speak from experience. I have only ever edited while logged-in, but have three times been collateral damage in a hard rangeblock, in two of which I was unable to post anywhere in any Wikipedia (though I've heard since that there are obscure bits of Meta which might have been open to me). I didn't even know about UTRS until after my second block (hey, I'd only made 100,000 edits), which needed off-wiki emails and some hours work by at least two admins to get lifted. (YOU try contacting a steward who either (a) doesn't respond to emails or (b) whose email is closed.) I live in a block of 80 apartments, and imagine that the idiot vandal(s) had the same IP as me. Narky Blert (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Thanks for the advice and the sympathetic story. What's "(nac)"? HistoryManUSA (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryManUSA: Non-admin comment; to show that an editor giving advice is not speaking with the authority of one with adminship. Narky Blert (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Got it. Thanks. HistoryManUSA (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

HartaMarta and the Raid on Gaborone

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

---

HartaMarta (talk · contribs) has a bone to pick with the article Raid on Gaborone. Though they do make a couple of good points, the website Rhodesia.nl, for one is not a RS by any stretch of the imagination and the term “terrorists” is unacceptable without adequate sourcing, the way they choose to make those points is unacceptable. This includes assumptions of bad faith ([283], [284]) inappropriate use of templates([285], [286]), removing my comments from my talk-page ([287]) and deliberate misgendering ([288]). Their actions in the article amount to replacing one POV by another and violate WP:NPOV and WP:V, since, to date, they have not cited a single source. I see no way I can constructively continue this without loosing my cool, so I choose to leave this one in your capable hands. Kleuske (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

— I kindly asked Kleuske to refrain from further destructive edits within the article Raid on Gaborone after I made an effort to remove some of the particularly biased sections. He / she repeatedly reverted the article back to it's politically biased, highly demagogic previous state, which referred to South African political refugees, who fled to neighbouring countries to escape persecution by the Apartheid State as "terrorists" and relied on sourcing from racist-extremist niche sites that are engaged in Apartheid-denialist activities, in particular one website which glorifies the previous racist white minority regimes of Southern Africa and their organs of state repression, such as the military and their secret police units.

Kleuske also repeatedly deleted my warning messages, which were posted (to my best available knowledge) at the appropriate places within Wikipedia, in particular on the talk page of (talk)

Kleuske then unfairly accused me of being motivated by a political agenda. The above mentioned article in it's previous state used Wikipedia's infrastructure to vilify women and children murdered by the Apartheid Regime as "terrorists", it downplayed the significance of an act of war against the sovereign nation of Botswana (a gross violation of international law) and also depicted a one-sided narrative of the actual event, which relied in it's most crucial sections on badly sourced material, in particular a transcript from the journnal of the then Apartheid Police and Security Police (the entity of the Apartheid State responsible for illegal abductions, torture and murder of dissidents - illegal often even under the Apartheid legislation itself and certainly according to all internationally accepted conventions of Human and Civil Rights), which was republished on the aforementioned Apartheid-denialist obscurre website.

I think we should all be able to agree that correcting these shortcomings does not warrant or signify any particular questionable or extremist political agenda or outlook. Quite on the contrary: insisting on the inclusion of such sources would quite clearly indicate a pro-Apartheid racist affiliation which is not in line with Wikipedia's editorial standards. Hence I wonder what motivated Kleuske interferences and destructive reverts?

HartaMarta (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

As HartaMarta has continued her assumption of bad faith right here, this doesn't bode well. John from Idegon (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@HartaMarta: I strongly suggest you self-revert your changes to the Raid on Gaborone article. Kleuske raises legitimate concerns about your removal of sources and adding unsourced material. The next step is for both of you to engage in discussion at Talk:Raid on Gaborone. No administrative action is called for at this time, although if there were to be a violation of the three revert rule at the article, that would be grounds for an immediate block. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• And now another PA here. It appears HartaMarta has a difficult time accepting others disagreeing with them. John from Idegon (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@HartaMarta: Thanks for taking this issue to the article talk page. Next step is to engage with other editors there and see if a consensus set of words can be worked out. Likely there's some middle ground that can be reached, based on available sources and how they describe each side? Be aware (as I'm sure you are) that changes to the article need reliable secondary sources.

Two bits of advice though: first, on a quick glance you're at three reverts in the article itself and Kleuske is at two: more edit-warring either way is going to end poorly. Second, there's probably no reason to raise this at individual editor's usertalk pages, especially where one has specifically asked you not to. The article talkpage is the place for the debate, with proposed edits explained in full and backed by sourcing. Then let's see who engages with it there. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Or, for the short version, what @C.Fred: said. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Mikel0754

Mikel0754 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Massive unmotivated changes in numbers in the cards of military conflicts. Каракорум (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just noting here, that he attempted to remove this report.[289] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Каракорум: Typically we'd at least warn the editor. I've done that for you. Also, when you file an ANI case, you MUST notify the other person. You typically do that by slapping {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ on their talk page. This instruction is present in the giant box at the top of the page. I've taken care of this for you as well. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Now blocked indef for vandalism. The user continued his bad edits, even after being notified, by removing some content from a military article. This was after his attempt to remove the complaint here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 13 September 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)

• We need a resolution. EEng 04:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, consdering !voting.—Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I !voted. Lev!vich 16:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Support a very short topic ban, just to get this editor's attention. —valereee (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from George Floyd and police issuse, broadly construed.--Jorm (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose but... Oppose total topic ban, suggest article space tban. It sound like an editor who is acting in good faith but doesn't get it yet. It also sounds like some people are saying their is some good contribution here. What about narrower article only tban. This would leave the editor free to make contributions to the talk pages and suggest/propose changes but they wouldn't be able to actually edit the article itself. It seems like there aren't talk page behavior issues so some sort of balance may help. Stayfree76, I can understand your frustration. For example, prior to Wirecard's crash, there were some smart people on Twitter who were making the case why the company was a fraud. They turned out to be right but RS policies say we don't use Twitter feeds as RSs no matter how smart the author or solid the evidence. Its just how Wikipedia is supposed to work. What should happen is "in the end" Wikipedia should be right but that often means that articles about current events may change significantly once we have some historical perspective. Springee (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, the problem isn't their article edits. It's their talk page edits. They take up an inordinate amount of other editors' time at talk pages for George Floyd. We've tried to be patient, we've tried to explain that they should learn to edit on noncontentious articles, to no avail. —valereee (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  In that case I wouldn't give my oppose too much weight. However, if the editor can't edit the article then the other editors can always just ignore Stayfree76's comments if they aren't adding value. So long as they aren't harming the article space or acting in an uncivil fashion I think we should try to keep the tbans limited in scope with the option to increase if problems continue. Springee (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  Springee, I have to agree with val that it's the talk page edits and not mainspace edits that are the problem. But you are familiar with how it goes with newer editors at controversial articles (both good and bad) so if you care to review any part of the discussions at, e.g. Talk:Killing of George Floyd, Talk:George Floyd, or Talk:Derek Chauvin, your perspective would be welcome. Lev!vich 02:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptive editing by Arglebargle79

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

---

Arglebargle79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor was recently sanctioned for persistent edit-warring. Since then, they made edits to 2021 United States presidential inauguration in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP, which were reverted by another editor. In previous discussions, they have accused me of "deliberate malice" and "vandalism" for supporting the use of this photo of Joe Biden. Today, they added WP:SYNTH to Timeline of protests against Donald Trump which I reverted and warned them about. They responded yet again with personal attacks, accusing me of "stalking" them and intentionally "triggering" them. I also found that they are currently appealing their WP:AE sanction; their appeal contains lies and personal attacks against me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arglebargle79. They have persisted with this disruption for months on end and have shown no sign of stopping or any acknowledgement of their behavior being disruptive. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 23:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find any other explanation. It was @Tartan357's actions which started this whole sad business. I am the victim here, and if anyone should be sanctioned, it should be them.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a.personal thing between me and them. I asked them why they started this, but they immediately went here instead of discussing it in a civil manner...which begs he quesion, can a non-administrator use this symbol in someone's talk page? Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No comments on the validity of this complaint nor its rebuttal, but Arglebargle79, {{Uw-nor4}} is a standard template warning that can be used by anyone, if it's needed. And, {{ANI-notice}} is the required notice for ANI matters. You should have noticed the big, yellow warning in your edit window when you replied here. Notice the word, may. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, the "other explanation" is that there are perennial problems with your editing. Please stop accusing me of misconduct without evidence. What you wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arglebargle79 was particularly frustrating. This has been going on for months, and at this point, it's harassment. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 04:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not examined this at all, so I'm not juding who is right or wrong, but "I cannot find any other explanation" exposes a logic flaw - the Holmesian fallacy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Which is why we are here. They could have explained to me why they did it on my talk page or the DNC page's talk page, but no. They came here to have me blocked.Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The chance someone is willing to explain why they did something tends to go way, way down when the way the person seeking an explanation asks is to accuse the editor of "stalking" and trying to "trigger" them, rather that just politely asking "hey, can you explain why you did X?" If that's your definition of discussing things in civil manner, I think that's a key part of the problem.Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that despite that, I have explained the reasoning behind my reverts every single time. As have all other editors involved. See User talk:Arglebargle79#September 2020 for the most recent example. Arglebargle79 simply refuses to see what's right in front of them, and has gone so far as to deny that they've written things that there is clear evidence of. It's WP:ICANTHEARYOU. This is perhaps best exemplified by their relentless war against the Joe Biden photo. Despite being sanctioned by the community for warring over it, they still, months later, are claiming: There was no consensus about it and the other was far superior. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 16:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't. The first time, an offensive photo, to me, was replaced by a photo that was approved by everyone and is currently used by the campaign and its partners for the campaign. There was no harm no foul. The first thing done was to have me sanctioned. The last time, Tartan357...He KNEW about how I felt about the photo, The chart was created by me and I wasn't under any obligation to use it. But he, KNOWING how I would react, changed it to the offensive photo in question deliberately. The Community didn't sanction me, a single Administrator did after Tartan complained again, nobody else had any problem with the second photo, which was agreed for that page by consensus. It was a compromise. I accepted it and Tartan didn't. People change photos every day of the week here. Also, I asked him why he did AFTER he complained and started sanctions against me because he did so first. The second time, I asked again, and he said that it was the consensus picture, even though it wasn't. The warning about the Inaugural article was fictional and the march article was entirely links to other articles. There was no "original unpublished" research. Like I said above, it seems personal. I think I need an apology. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

How's this as a compromise: Except for the timeline, GE debates, and the general election article, there aren't any left that needs major revision. The people who are doing the GE debates are doing an excellent job, and there's no reason for me to interfere. The GE article itself, won't need any real revisions until Election day. and there's no real reason to go near there since it will be primarily be the tabulations of the popular results and their analysis. As to the inaugural article, I'll leave it alone for the time being, although I think it's a bad idea. If Trump accepts a Biden win (or vice versa) then there won't be any need for any revision at all. Tartan doesn't go after me and I won't complain about them. Live and let live. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Please just stop harassing me with your endless, baseless accusations. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to @Tartan357's kind link, we have the letter of the law" on this particular subject I quote:

"Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place."

A perfect example of this sort of thing is deliberately replacing pictures with ones All knew were objectionable to a certain party (me)

Another quote from the "letter of the law" on the subject:

A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page.

An example of this is very thread, albeit this isn't "numerous" yet. . Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: please provide evidence Tartan has ever given you a questionable warning. AFAICT, they have only given you 2 warnings both of which seem reasonable. One back in June for edit warring. Another a day or 2 ago for no original research. Both of these seem to have been reasonable warnings. Please also provide evidence that Tartan357 is changing images to target you. I don't give a flying flip how much you hate an image nor that Tartan is aware of your hate. What we need is evidence the change is an action targeted at you. Finally, I think you're missing my main point anyway. I wasn't really intending to comment on whether harassment had occurred initially. My point was that you couldn't have it both ways. Either you can accuse the editor of harassment and triggering you, or you can say the editor should have politely and civil discussion the reasons for the changes before coming to ANI. You can't accuse someone of harassment etc then turn it around and say but wait, they shouldn't have come here since they should have just politely discussed their changes despite my accusations. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I probably wouldn't have give you a NOR warning for the small number of edits Tartan357 reverted here [290]. As I articulated on your talk page, your editing was problematic since you provided no references so whether the inclusion of these items is justified is not something we can actually check from any sources since there are none. You cannot ask people to check out other articles. That said, removing the 2020 Republican National Convention protests from that list, even given a lack of direct citations, was a bit weird.

However while the specific example Tartan357 chose was perhaps not the best example to challenge you on NOR, you have had significant problems with OR in the past. This version of the 2021 United States presidential inauguration is an obvious example. Most of that content was introduced by you [291] [292]. Quite a few editors did indeed note the problems Talk:2021 United States presidential inauguration#What this article should be used for in the coming two months or so. (perma link) and [293] and [294]. While OR is not the only problem, it's definitely one of them.

I had an idea of your work there hence why I said that the NOR warning seemed justified. I don't think your going to get much sympathy for that singular warning, given the clear problems with your editing as well illustrated by the inauguration article, even if the timeline article perhaps wasn't the best example to concentrate on.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Please note that this whole sad mess is about ONE SINGLE PICTURE and that alone.

• The facts;
  • In June, I found the original consensus picture of Joe Biden changed to another one that I objected to. I found that the person had changed it to the objectionable picture pretty much throughout the series and that there was NO consensus, nor any discussion on the Same, so I changed it.
  • @Tartan357 (or someone else) changed it back. S/he insisted that it was consensus, and sent a formal complaint about me.
  • I contested the complaint and was given sanctions.
  • I tried and got a consensus on the use of a different photo in the Democratic convention page.
  • I posted a chart on that page using the consensus picture of Biden. I was under no obligation to use the objectionable picture. No one objected.
  • A week or so later, @Tartan357 changed the picture on the chart to the objectionable one. (see the above quote on harassment)
  • I changed it BACK.
  • @Tartan357 complained and succeeded in making further sanctions against me.

There was no reason for @Tartan357 to change the consensus (for that page) picture in the Chart. NONE. If s/he had decided to change it to another picture I almost certainly wouldn't have been triggered. I have asked Him/Her why s/he decided to use that particular picture and this thread is the result.

S/he also my saying that I found the picture to be personally very objectionable to attack me.

These are the facts as I see them. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, this really is not about the content dispute anymore; it's about your conduct. However, I will direct you yet again to my comments on the merits of the photo as you're insisting I've never provided any: Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Biden's photo. I and all other editors involved have explained ourselves well ad nauseam. Your statement that no one objected to your edit-warring is patently false: User talk:Arglebargle79#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion (2). In that discussion, you were also reminded by SecretName101 that you do not WP:OWN the content you create on Wikipedia. You created the table, but that does not mean you alone can edit it. Stop making things up. Nobody has wronged you; in fact, we've been very patient. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Patient? You immediately had me sanctioned!...The link was before your chamge.Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Stop. That is a lie. I first warned you over your edit-warring on June 12. Your sanction was applied on August 18. Two months is not "immediate". — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 19:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sanctions were first imposed in June. then you did what you did, then more sanctions were imposed. then you sent us here. I am just as sick of this as you are, if not moreso. AS to disruptive editing, there were over two thousand (I think, don't hold me to that number) edits on the DNC page in a period of two weeks. It was in a state of chaos. It is clear that we remember things differently. It's about the picture, everything devolved from that. I don't want to fight with you and As I said before, the major issues with the series have pretty much been settled. I'm trying to defend myelf from what I consider to be false charges with what I firmly beleive to be the truth. that's all. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: I see no evidence sanctions were imposed in June. You escaped sanctions with a final warning based on your commitment to wait for a consensus before changing the picture again. Although you apparently quickly broke this commitment in June, you still escape sanction until August. It's probably fair to say that Tartan357 did try to have you sanctioned in June but this was understandable given your edit warring and the going against your commitment to stop.

Since sanctions were never actually imposed, it's incorrect to say "immediately had me sanctioned". A sanction imposed in August for something which started in June is not immediate by any reasonable definition. Precision and accurate summaries of what happened matters which is unfortunately a problem you seem to keep having.

Also I see no evidence presented above that Tartan357 is trying to "trigger" you. As I said, your personal dislike of the image is at this stage largely irrelevant both because you have failed to really articulate your reasons for dislike of the image and also because of your ridiculous behaviour e.g. persistent edit warring even after promises to stop and continued false accusations of vandalism and other false or misleading claims. If you want editor's to care about your personal aesthetics concerns, stop treating your fellow editors so poorly.

I don't entirely understand why Tartan357 is trying to change to that particular image, but at the same time your summaries have been so poor I see no reason to investigate further and perhaps there is merit in using the same image of Biden in most articles relating to his presidential bid.

To give another example of why you claims are unconvicing. You stated above "I tried and got a consensus on the use of a different photo", but AFAICT, there is no such consensus. As other editors have already told you, this discussion which you keep linking to Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1#Biden's image, in the top infobox, died out with nothing even close to a consensus.

This discussion Talk:2020 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1#Biden's photo (which for some reason you never seem to link to) is a little better since the only people involved seem to accept your suggestion, however it's nothing close to any real consensus. Especially since there were concurrent discussions elsewhere Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Biden's photo. At most, it could be taken as a reason to keep that specific image in that one location until there is agreement to change.

And of course it still wouldn't justify edit warring and especially not in other pages. Indeed you were subjected to the 1RR restriction/sanction in part because you claimed there was a consensus when non seems to exist.

P.S. I don't think you want to encourage people to look through your edit history e.g. [295]

P.P.S. To be clear, when I say location I mean the infobox which is what that discussion seemed to be about. It's insufficient justification to require that the image must be used elsewhere in the page. To be fair, there doesn't seem to be consensus to use any other image either, so it's bit of a crap shoot and first contributor's choice may be as good as anything. Frankly I think the reason those discussions are so poorly attended is because no one cares as all the images seem fine. And important point here. If instead of edit warring on the DNC page, you had opened a new talk page discussion, pointed to that previous discussion with the very weak agreement to use your preferred image, and I mean the right one, the Biden's photo one not the earlier discussion; and importantly not accused anyone of vandalism or trying to trigger you, the photos may have been returned to your preferred image. Because you handled this so poorly, the result isn't surprising.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Not that it matters, but I was not the one who chose the photo in question. That appears to be a figment of Arglebargle79's imagination, and I strongly suspect they have chosen to take out their frustrations on me because I'm the one who reported them to WP:ANEW. There were several others who were much more involved than me in the use of that photo. It had long been in use at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, and still is, representing an implied consensus. It was aesthetically consistent with the other photos in that infobox, and with some general standards that had been discussed. I just reverted Arglebargle79's change and eventually took them to WP:ANEW. We're using that photo consistently across pages related to the primaries, but a consensus did develop to use a photo that Arglebargle79 likes in the infobox at 2020 Democratic National Convention. That is still up, and I did not try to change it. I changed the photo in the balloting table on that page to match the primary series, and other editors, including SecretName101, thought it was reasonable. It's still there. Arglebargle79 started warring over the photo in that table, claiming ownership over the table for having started it. That's what led to the second ANEW case and the August sanction against Arglebargle79. We're using Biden's official VP portrait at 2020 United States presidential election because it matches well with Trump's. Arglebargle79 likes that one, too. They only hate the one used at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and related pages. Throughout this dispute, they have made absurdly false claims in just about every comment. For example, they tried to argue that they hadn't changed the photo when they had, and even left an edit summary saying "it wasn't me". They've also repeatedly falsely claimed that they got a "clear consensus" for their preferred photo, and have falsely claimed that "no one objected" to their change, which they repeated above. Early on, they left this hate-filled message on my talk page: [296]. After the first ANEW case concluded, they created this talk page just to complain about the photo: [297]. During the August incident, they left this threatening message on my talk page: [298]. I could go on and on. Arglebargle79 seems determined to continue edit-warring and harassing me over this photo regardless of the consequences. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit in question was made by a certain DannyG15. [299], which interestingly, was the only contribution they made months. He had the right to put the picture there, although there was a discussion about it and there was a consensus to get rid of it (I wasn't the only person to find it objectionable). Thus it wasn't the consensus picture, and my getting rid of it in the other articles, in which I believe there were only three)

but wait! The Plot thickens!! on March 20 [300] our good friend Tartan357 changed the picture from the "consensus" one used for the previous few months to the offending one.

The original change was done on March 8 [301] by one User:Nick.mon, who changed it on the main infobox [302] and the template [303]

Was Nick's making a massive change in the middle of one of those anarchic middle-of-an event moments 'illegal'? I don't think anyone really noticed. All but the Biden picture were pretty much innocuous. there had been heated discussions on pictures before about all the other candidates. But not here.

I was busy with the withdrawn/minor candidates "results section" at the time (as well as the GOP), and then there was the plague (did you know you can get the ′flu in April?) Tartan mistakenly thought that the photo was the official consensus one and he reverted my legal reversions in good faith, inadvertently starting the abovementioned edit war. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I had a spat with the editor-in-question two or so weeks ago at 2020 Democratic National Convention, concerning (IMHO) his overwhelming 'un-discussed' changes to that article. Arglebargle79 is without doubt 'highly' energetic, but I wonder if within that mix, there might be some WP:CIR issues. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

most of which are to some extent, still there. If someone improves my stuff, I don't object.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Please learn to indent properly. Begin your posts with a capital letter & don't use misleading section links in your edit summery. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

At this point, I second GoodDay's suggestion of a possible WP:CIR issue. Several of the links Arglebargle79 has provided above are not actually links to the things Arglebargle79 says they are links to. For example, I am not David O. Johnson. That is a different editor. Arglebargle79 has consistently shown that they are either unwilling or incapable of working with the Wikipedia community. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That's true. You are not. When I f up, I f up. I f'd up when it came to links. When the adminstrators get here, they will get to where they are going. That was my one and only genuine WP:CIR action in many, many months, if not years. I apologize to all.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, that is not the only issue here. You really should not be editing your comments to change their meaning after others have replied to them. You've persisted in edit-warring over the photo, breaking your commitment not to do so on numerous occasions. You've also edit warred in other areas, tend to lie in your comments (e.g. your insistence that your edits are supported by a "clear consensus"), and have made relentless personal attacks against me over the past two months. Your behavior is unacceptable and has continued throughout this ANI thread. As this is now the third AN case addressing this issue, I see no reason to believe you have any intention of stopping your disruptive behavior. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 22:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You dumped on me for no real reason and that.was unacceptable. Everything derived from that. You put us though this, not me.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: No, I didn't. Nobody made you edit war. Nobody made you break your commitment to abstain from edit warring repeatedly after the first AN3 case. Nobody made you make repeated false statements. Nobody made you write aggressive and fanatical messages in all caps. If you still, after all this discussion and after having been sanctioned for edit warring, are going to stubbornly insist that there's nothing wrong with your editing when there very obviously is, then you have shown that you are unwilling or incapable of engaging in the consensus-building discussion process necessary for participation in Wikipedia. Instead of acknowledging the problems with your editing, you have persisted in your disruption and deflected criticism by peddling this conspiracy theory that other editors, especially me, are working together to undermine your perfect edits and are deliberately harassing and triggering you. At this point, a block is needed to stop your disruption. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 02:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357:No. I never said there was a conspiracy. There was no conspiracy. It was just YOU. All the ANI cases were started by YOU, and the offensive edit in the Convention article was done by you. No one else. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Admin closure needed

Regardless of the outcome, this discussion has run its course and is in need of closure. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 10:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

We agree on something. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I withdraw my complaint. This is going nowhere fast. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 12:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Appears to be an unapproved bot

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

---

Looks like someone is operating an unapproved (?) welcome bot under the name Botpy. Conifer (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Conifer,  blocked by CaptainEek (talk · contribs · count). ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 04:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Should it begin with 22 or Twenty-two?

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

---

Hello, I've got a complaint. This one user named TomCat4680 has been constantly reverting my edit on Portal:Current events/2020 September 7. Which begs the question: Should numeral versions of numbers begin a sentence? Call me when you get the chance 05:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:NUMNOTES: "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure" (with several examples).

This is not an issue which requires admin intervention. WP:TEAHOUSE would have been a better place to ask. Narky Blert (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Akhiljaxxn

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

---

@Mandruss, UncleBubba, Mutt Lunker, GeneralizationsAreBad, Praxidicae, and GeneralNotability:

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

I suspect that Akhiljaxxn has started their socking the second time. The first time when they did sockpuppetry they were blocked for a short time by admin GeneralizationsAreBad under the condition that they won't sock again.

Incidence: I was going through New Pages created today and I found the article Kalpana Devi (politician) which was started by an unregistered IP address. It was immediately approved by Padavalamkuttanpilla and then re-edited by Bharat Ka Wikipedian (who admitted that he was socking on my Talk page), and then the page was curated by Akhiljaxxn. This led to a feeling of suspicion for Padavalamkuttanpilla and Akhiljaxxn. I looked at their editing activities and found so many similarities. I already filed an SPI against Akhiljaxxn(which is currently open) and the one which I opened against Bharat Ka Wikipedian is closed and the user is blocked. Any advice or input into this from other Wikipedians and admins would help establish if the claim is legit or not. Here are some of the links that can be helpful for the investigation: [[304]] [[305]] [[306]] There is clearly something going on here, they are tactically using the accounts by editing the pages consecutively on various pages if you look at their editing history. Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 18:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Angus1986 I haven't got a clue what you're referring to but a CU has already been run and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Akhiljaxxn is almost certainly not Swarup....Praxidicae (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@PraxidicaeI am suspecting Akhiljaxxn and Padavalamkuttanpilla not Swarup.. Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 18:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

So file an SPI and wait. Why does this rise to the need for ANI? Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Responding to ping. I've been around for over six years and I made a false-positive socking accusation just the other day. Angus, at one year and 1,300 edits, I'm going to suggest that you leave sock hunting to more experienced editors for the time being. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but I just got two positives for Emotioness Expression and Bharat Ka Wikipedian on SPI. I strongly suspect for the link between Akhiljaxxn and Padavalamkuttanpilla for SP.

Replying to @Praxidicae what should I do? Close this case?(If so, how do I close this case) I thought it would be better since I noticed a previously SPI were reported here like in the case of Zackomode. I am new to this area of Wikipedia, guidance would be appreciated. :) Thank you! Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 18:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm closing as withdrawn. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Continued harassment by HAL333

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

---

• HAL333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

HAL333 was warned to stop pinging me at an RfC I disassociated myself from a couple of weeks ago. Today, at an AE case, linked to the RfC, they pinged me for a nonsensical reason. I told them, on their talk page, to stop harassing me. Despite this, HAL333 then "thanked" me for adjusting a spelling mistake in the comment they took umbrage at, ten minutes after I'd told them to stop harassing me. Not only that, this user then left me a barnstar, which I found to be both mocking and passive aggressive. Not only is this a clear breach of WP:HARASSMENT, it also weaponises the well-meaning barnstar and "thank" feature. Can somebody do something. There is an extensive history of this user harassing and stalking both myself and SchroCat, who because of such people, is no longer part of the project. Cassianto^Talk 17:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang Cassianto failed to mention that today's ping was prompted by this taunting statement in which he mocked several of us after an editor we had supported was CU-blocked. Because HAL used a ping while objecting to this, Cassianto ran to HAL's talk page to accuse him of harassment. The problem here is Cassianto, not HAL, and he is displaying a stunning lack of self-awareness by opening this thread. Moreover, it's ludicrous to suggest that HAL was harassing Cassianto by thanking him for making a change that HAL had requested. The barnstar may have been a poor decision (or it may have been a sincere attempt at an olive branch), but both myself and HAL have been repeatedly subjected to Cassianto's incivility without any effective measures being taken to bring him in line with WP:NPA. Also, because of such people is a personal attack. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, can you tell me how a comment that includes the Cambridge Dictionary recognised word for the pluralisation of a group of males is "a "personal attack"? Secondly, how is it justified, in any situation, for someone to then harass another after they've been specifically told to stop harassing the other person? I had no idea harassment had its boundaries. Thirdly, I didn't "run" anywhere. I'm sat on my settee, with a stunning bottle of red, in awe at such a desperate comment by yourself, simply said so you can to have your say. Desperate. Cassianto^Talk 18:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Earlier today, Cassianto referred to me, LEPRICAVARK, and two administrators as "messers". I was not familiar with this term: Cassianto often uses British slang. According to Urban Dict, it is "Irish slang for a sloppy or messy person; someone who fails to take things seriously; a hopeless amateur, a gobdaw." Wiktionary defines it as "someone who messes". Accordingly, I respectfully asked Cassianto to strike through this personal attack. Cassianto was annoyed by my pinging him (which plenty of other people were doing at arbcom) and left a message claiming that I was harassing him. I responded courteously, without a ping. Cassianto then corrects the personal attack to "messrs", which, according to Google, is "used as a title to refer formally to more than one man simultaneously, or in names of companies." I found this a clever solution and it actually made me laugh. The barnstar of good humor was an expression of good faith. I was being genuine and met no ill will. I figured it would ease up tensions, but here we are.... ~ HAL333 18:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

If Cassianto doesn't want you to ping him, he shouldn't talk about you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Admirably done, Cassianto – admirably done! EEng 21:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@HAL333: Ignoring everything else, it is clear to me that Cass didn't want your name showing up in his notifications. A "thank" or a Barnstar both would do that. Therefore, these two acts were in poor judgement on your part (even if well-intended). It might sound unfair, but you should at least apologize for not respecting his wishes regardless of the circumstances (and please do so without a ping to Cassianto obviously). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I already apoligized to Cass for the ping, and I am entirely ready to do so again. No hard feelings Cass - I'm sorry if I bothered you. (General question: Is a ping just when you use the ping template, or are all kinds of notifications pings. If so, I didn't realize that talk page comments are considered pings. I figured that if Cass was willing to comment on my talk page, he wouldn't care if I did the same.) ~ HAL333 21:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the meaning of that specific word, your overall comment was a blatant, name-and-shame cheap shot in which you taunted several editors that you dislike because I-82-I had been CU-blocked. I believe that's called gravedancing. And if you're going to talk trash about us, you lose the right to complain when one of us pings you in response. A full examination of the evidence makes it clear that the harassment is coming from you, not the other way around. I can't imagine why you thought filing this report would be a good idea. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, strawman. I named those editors as they were, as you say, supporters of a CU blocked editor. If you find it troublesome having names - yours being one of them - connected to someone who edited articles while logged out, would it not be easier for you to say acknowledge and distance yourself from, rather than trying to divert the dirt? Cassianto^Talk 18:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no diverting going on here. You engaged in bullying behavior and then doubled-down when one of your targets objected. And now you've doubled-down even further by trying to turn reality on its head and blame your target for the whole thing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Diffs please. Cassianto^Talk 19:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Already provided above, mostly by you. You took a cheap shot at myself, HAL, and a few others over the CU block. HAL took exception and pinged you in his response. You then threatened to report him. When he tried to extend an olive branch, you assumed bad faith and made good on your threat. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat, a name which Cassianto is deeply associated with, has also made IP edits after reportedly retiring; however, Lep and I haven't even brought that up over there. Let's de-escalate here. Please? ~ HAL333 18:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

HAL333, diffs of SPI case, please. Cassianto^Talk 19:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can do that here due to privacy reasons. However, I can email an admin if needed. ~ HAL333 19:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

No diffs, no evidence. Cassianto^Talk 19:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Note I have previously given Cassianto a barnstar after a disagreement, and it seemed to have improved our relations. I was trying to do the same thing again and assumed he would respond similarly to last time. ~ HAL333 18:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• @HAL333 and Cassianto: would both of you agree to a voluntary interaction ban say for 6 months (the length is negociable)?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

If Cassianto wants one, sure. How would it work? ~ HAL333 18:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, why don't you deal with the harassment? Cassianto^Talk 18:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, apparently you are not interested. Fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Who said I wasn't interested? Your remedy may deal with future conduct, but it doesn't address what has gone on? Cassianto^Talk 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  You can't possibly have looked at the evidence and concluded that both editors are equally at fault. The evidence makes it obvious that Cassianto voluntarily attacked HAL and then manufactured a frivolous reason to drag HAL here. There is simply no evidence of wrongdoing on HAL's part and thus no reason to sanction him. Sure, a one-size-fits-all iban might seem like a quick and easy way of resolving this specific dispute, but it won't do anything to address Cassianto's chronic incivility. He'll just move on to a new target and end up back here in a few months. Wikipedia's processes for dealing with bullying and incivility are terribly broken. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, I didn't drag anyone, anywhere. I posted the notification on their talk, as is customary, and it was then up to them to either come here or not. You really must learn to use less emotive language. Cassianto^Talk 18:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it was completely optional as to whether HAL would defend himself against this report or run the risk of being sanctioned by letting you control the narrative. Now, why do you think it is appropriate for you to name-and-shame HAL while simultaneously prohibiting him from pinging you? Why is it that he is not allowed to talk to you even as you continue to talk about him? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, so "drag" was wrong to use in this context then, was it? Cassianto^Talk 19:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not here to debate semantics. I want to know how you arrived at the backwards conclusion that you should file a report against the editor that you were bullying. And if HAL isn't supposed to ping you, why do you keep talking about him? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  No, I'm not entirely sure why you're here, if I'm honest. Lepricavark, so let me get the straight: HAL, someone who supported an editor at AE who was then later found out to be editing whilst logged out, having previously declared "retirement", all over AE, supported the blocked editor by calling them " a constructive editor". What, I'm a wrong to point that out? Cassianto^Talk 19:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Make like a fig, and leave.

Drop the olive branch and back slowly away from the martinis.

• I know taunting when I see it. Anyway, I seem to recall that a friend of yours was blocked for abusing multiple accounts last year. I won't mention names because you know exactly who I am talking about, and you and I both know that you have hit the roof if someone had taunted you about that. Yet you taunted us and then threatened HAL for objecting. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, another straw man. You seem to like straw. Most of which, judging by your comments, you're clutching at.Cassianto^Talk 19:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Clutching at strawmen sounds like unwanted touching so people better cut it out. EEng 21:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• I stand by my comments, which I never expected nor intended to be a means of changing your mind. And stop pinging me. I'm clearly following the discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  I'll do better than stop pinging you, I'll stop replying to you as I'm finding you incredibly tedious. Good night. Cassianto^Talk 19:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• TLDR: Someone extended Cassianto an olive branch and Cassianto's response was to complain to ANI about being threatened with a stick. Lev!vich 20:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, The fact I had to warn them that I found their constant attempts to engage with me to be harassing, should've been enough to suggest that any offer of an olive branch was not wanted. Cassianto^Talk 21:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe we need an essay WP:Drop the olive branch and back slowly away from the _____________ (someone fill in the blank – how about dove?). EEng 21:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  I was about to give you a barnstar of good humor for a second. ~ HAL333 22:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  But you came to your senses in the nick of time, thank God. EEng 22:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but if you had used a real dictionary, you'd have clearly seen that "messers" is a (somewhat archaic) plural of "Mr." There's no case here, on either side. John from Idegon (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The "messers" part isn't really the issue. Cassianto has basically told HAL not to talk to him anymore, yet Cassianto is still talking about HAL. That's extremely passive aggressive and one might even call it baiting. When HAL responds to the bait, Cassianto swiftly labels it harassment and tries to get HAL punished. That is textbook bullying and an editor who wasn't quite so well-connected would have been rightfully blocked by now. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Very strong emotions from both sides, to be sure. Voluntary avoidance between individuals, may be the solution. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have Cassianto’s page watchlisted because I previously dealt with an LTA that targeted him. I have not followed the specifics of the dispute between them and HAL333, but I will say I’m rather unimpressed by the barnstar here: Cassianto has made his feelings that HAL is harassing him known on many boards. When someone thinks you are harassing them the correct thing to do is not talk to them. Not give a barnstar using the contrived excuse that you were originally offended because of a typo that made something relatively obscure Irish slang and appreciate them fixing a typo as a “solution”. So yeah, I agree with Cassianto that the barnstar was a passive aggressive jibe. The olive branch theory just doesn’t make sense. I think an IBAN is the best option. If you keep interacting with someone after they tell you to stop that’s inappropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  If you keep interacting with someone after they tell you to stop that’s inappropriate. You are aware that Cassianto kicked off this specific incident by taunting HAL, right? If Cassianto doesn't want to interact with HAL, he should not bait HAL or even talk about HAL. Cassianto has no authority to impose a one-way iban between himself and HAL. The simple fact is that he did bait HAL, and now you appear poised to reward him for it. Based on what you are saying here, if I think someone is harassing me, I can say whatever I like about them and then report them for harassment when they respond. Utterly unreal. Why is Cassianto allowed to get away with this? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  I wouldn’t call that taunting, though I also wouldn’t have made the comment myself. I agree Cassianto can be prickly (I think he’d say the same) but this looks to me like a contrived attempt by HAL333 to get Cassianto sanctioned for something that clearly wasn’t a personal attack and then when that wasn’t going to work, do the civil prodding of people you don’t like in a way you know will annoy them thing that a lot of people on Wikipedia do. Not talking to people who don’t want you to talk to them is a pretty basic norm of behaviour online, and it’s one we’ve usually asked people to follow here as well. I’m not going to say Cassianto was on his best behaviour in that thread, but HAL333 looks to be the one at fault in this specific case. Cassianto shouldn’t have to smile and put up with someone trying to goad him just because he’s a controversial editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  I don't want anyone sanctioned (Fact This is the third time Cassianto has brought me here. For comparison, I have not brought Cass or anyone else here. ever.) and I wasn't trying to "goad" anyone. Did I bring Cassianto to ANI? No. As I have already noted, I previously gave Cass a barnstar and I received a warm response. ~ HAL333 00:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  And if you are going to assume bad faith in my barnstar and interpret whatever Cass typed as a typo. Then why not apply the same standards to Cass's comment. Referring to people with the title "Messrs" while also criticizing them in the same sentence could very easily be taken as a passive agressive move. ~ HAL333 00:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  HAL333, "messrs" is a perfectly acceptable, old English word meaning "a group of men or a group of misters". The only way this could've been considered a "personal attack" is if I deliberately used the word to include someone whom I knew to be of a different gender. Now, because of past interactions (sadly), I considered these people to be men. Yours and Lepreverk's attempt to turn my use of this word into a PA is mind-numbingly desperate beyond the extreme. Cassianto^Talk 06:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  I thought I had made it clear that my problem was with the overall tone of your comment and not with your misspelled using of "messrs". I have no difficulty believing that was a typo. After all, you keep spelling my name wrong even though it has appeared on this page at least twenty times. Also, why are you pinging HAL? I thought you didn't want to interact with him. You keep trying to have it both ways. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Are you still here? You've ignored my advice to take up a soothing hobby then? Might I suggest model aeroplanes. Start off small, matchsticks will do, then bolster wood, then once that's mastered, you'll be onto the proper kits. Or what about kite flying? There's nothing better: you, a field, some wind and the kite. Bliss. Cassianto^Talk 20:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm still here and I'll continue to be here for as long as you continue to talk about me. I would be more than happy to disengage and let others sort this out, but I feel compelled to set the record straight when you misconstrue my motives as you did above. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  Don't worry about straightening it because to me the record appears broken...Ah! There we go, collecting records! There's a great hobby for you to take up in absence of your Cassianto obsession. I have many happy memories of walking around dusty old vinyl shops with a hot dog and cup of tea, on a Sunday afternoon, in desperate search for a 1960s classic. Start off small, don't go big, and be sure to look out for immaculate sleeves and unblemished art work as they make all the difference. What a great idea! Happy hunting! Cassianto^Talk 22:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  HAL333, I think relationships can become frayed to the point where the only viable option is to disengage with each other. Where good faith efforts to mend it will be seen as bad faith not only by the other party, but, as seen here, by uninvolved administrators. When Cassianto started saying to multiple people that he felt you were harassing him that should have been your sign to rethink your approach. That it simply wasn't a time to mend fences. That's the lesson you should take away from this.

  TonyBallioni, editors don't, according to policy, guidelines, explanatory supplements, and respected essays, get special treatment because they have a reputation for being prickly. Your insinuation that editors need to respond to that prickliness by shrugging it off seems out of line with the Tony I know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  You're right. From now on I'll have an isolationist policy towards Cass: no pinging, no wikilove, and I'll stay away from late 19th century English articles. ~ HAL333 02:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, apologies if it sounded that way. I wasn’t saying Cassianto should get special treatment. I was saying that people shouldn’t take his claims any less seriously here because of it. Like I mentioned below, a lot of the previous criticism of Cassianto in the past has been him acting uncivil in response to people trying to provoke a response. Here he’s reporting what at first glance looks to be a reasonable concern based on what you said in your response to HAL. I’m hard pressed to take someone who is trying to use the dispute resolution system here less seriously because in the past they’ve not used it and gotten into trouble. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Not talking to people who don’t want you to talk to them is a pretty basic norm of behaviour online. So HAL is supposed to just shut up and let Cassianto talk about him? Cassianto would not have to "put up" with anything if he hadn't brought up HAL's name in a demeaning way. Haven't you noticed that it was Cassianto who filed this report, not HAL? I'd take that as a pretty clear sign that it is Cassianto, not HAL, who is seeking sanctions. HAL merely asked Cassianto to strike an offending remark. He didn't report him or even threaten to report him. Please stop trying to be a mind-reader because it's a severe violation of AGF and a kick in the teeth to HAL after he has already been subjected to repeated bullying. This bullying is enabled by the inaction of noticeboards such at this one, where Cassianto's incivility has been repeatedly overlooked and ignored. If Cassianto does not want HAL to talk to him, he needs to stop talking about HAL. Stunning really that you won't even acknowledge that. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  HAL’s contrived offense was in the middle of an AE where sanctions were being considered. It’s hard to take the claim seriously that he wasn’t attempting to influence the outcome. I also don’t think it’s unreasonable for Cassianto to have made this report. If I were him I’d have interpreted the actions the exact same way. Yes, I’m aware that Cassianto has gotten into disputes and at times acted in ways I wouldn’t say are civil; but there’s also a lot of people who try to bait him. If he responds to the baiting, which I feel is what’s happening here, by taking someone to a noticeboard, that’s a lot better than taking the bait. People have criticized him for acting out in the past. He’s making a report now rather than take the bait. We should take his claims seriously if they have merit, and in this case it looks like they do. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  The problem is Tony that seems to be the only claims you're taking seriously. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  This case is pretty complex and I don’t think many came out of that AE with better feelings than before. I also think it left a lot unresolved, so you’re right that there are probably other things to consider as a whole. My analysis here is mainly in relation to the barnstar and offense at the typo comment, which to me doesn’t really seem that plausible. Regardless, even assuming good faith here, we have a situation where I think Wikipedia would probably be better off if they didn’t interact. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Tony, thank you for your clarification here and above. I think if both HAL and Cassianto would agree to an IBAN that could be beneficial for both them and the encyclopedia. However, I respect that Cassianto doesn't want one and would need to give further thought about whether this is a case where it would be appropriate to apply one anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, that's now you and Ymblanter who've now said I don't want a two-way IBAN. Can you show me a diff where I've dismissed this? If you had've bothered to look, you would've seen that I thought this was a good, long term solution. But what of the harassment conducted by HAL which brought us here in the first place? Is it okay for someone who's been told specifically to stop interacting with someone to then "award" them with a "good humour" barnstar and deliberately "thank" them for fixing a typo, knowing that only the person they're harassing will see it? My only problem with an IBAN to address this incident is that it feels like I get dealt with in the same way as HAL, by being told not to engage with them. Don't get me wrong I'd rather stick hot pins in my eyes than ever have to talk to them again, but it's not right that the harassed gets the same sanction as the harasser, and that the clear harassment that's led to it gets overlooked. I shouldn't have to ignore this type of behaviour and then get criticised for doing what I think is right, to come here to seek administrative intervention. Kudos to TonyBallioni for his responses here, but is it any wonder why I choose to take things into my own hands when I get this type of response at a board I'm supposed to come to when things like this happen? As on other occasions, it seems to be Wikipedia's firm view that "it's okay to harass Cassianto, that's fine, and if he bites then he'll get dealt with quite robustly. But if he tries to report it the way he's supposed to, via ANI, then we'll just ignore it and sanction him the same way as the person who's harassed him." Cassianto^Talk 06:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto, when ymblanter asked about an iban your response to was to ask what was being done to deal with the harassment [307]. As an iban is a way of dealing with the harassment I took that to mean you were against it. Can you provide the diff where you wrote that it was a good long term solution? I don't see it here, at AE, or my talk page which are the places I've been reading carefully but if I missed it in one of those places I apologize. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, no it's not, it's a shit sandwich. I would be as much under sanction as he would be. This "two-way IBAN should be a one-way IBAN. He is not allowed to contact me. That would deal with this and any future incidents. Cassianto^Talk 09:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  [308] Cassianto^Talk 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  Cassianto - I had hoped that diff was going to be where you had expressed an openness to this idea (I feel bad for having missed it). I'm not going to apologize for not responding yesterday - I was busy offwiki and what time I had was spent on a conflict that erupted on my user talk and as a volunteer like you that's what it was. I understand your reluctance to be under an iban. I hope you can understand my general reluctance to support one-way iban. In keeping with other things taking priority I will admit I haven't given thought as to whether imposing this involuntarily would be appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  I don't understand. Cassianto, who says he doesn't want to interact with HAL, made an ungracious comment directed at HAL (as one of the other targets of that comment, I maintain my belief that I was being taunted, but you don't seem to be concerned about how that comment was received). HAL then responded to Cassianto, which is perfectly reasonable since Cassianto was talking about him. Cassianto misconstrued this as harassment, which makes absolutely no sense given that Cassianto initiated the exchange by talking about HAL in an unfavorable manner. As HAL has repeatedly said above, he previously had good results by using a barnstar as an olive branch. You are assuming severe bad faith on HAL's part while essentially giving Cassianto a free pass by dismissing his chronic incivility as nothing more than an understandable response to baiting. As one of his recent targets, I find your comments to be incredibly disheartening. I have disagreed with Cassianto, but I have not baited him. Am I to understand that Cassianto has some kind of special immunity that prohibits other editors from questioning or challenging his viewpoints? It seems like the options for a bullied editor are either to ignore it and perhaps be driven away or to fight back and be given an equal punishment. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  See this as evidence that HAL had reason to believe the olive branch would work. I hope you'll reconsider your extremely harsh, ABF interpretation of HAL's motives. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m not saying Cassianto should get special treatment. I’m saying his concerns shouldn’t simply be dismissed because he is Cassianto. We aren’t discussing long-term issues here, we’re discussing one incident. My reading of that situation of the one incident here is that regardless of what the past issues were, Cassianto’s concerns have merit. AGF doesn’t expect us to take a reading of events that doesn’t appear credible at face value. HAL’s explanation doesn’t add up for me, which is what I’ve expressed. I don’t want this to be used as an example in the future of Cassianto being a problem, because his concerns here aren’t meritless.

All that being said, I’m willing to go with an AGF reading of them for the sake of this discussion. Even if the motives were good, they weren’t helpful actions and Cassianto feeling targeted was a predictable outcome given that he’s expressed feeling harassed multiple times. It’s just not a good idea to post on the talk page of someone who feels like you’re harassing them. That’s not a Cassianto specific norm we have.

Both of them above have indicated to some degree a willingness to have an IBAN. I really think having it voluntary is the best outcome here. People who don’t appear to like one another should generally try to avoid interacting if it leads to disputes. That’s good practice in real life and on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• You are absolutely giving Cassianto special treatment. My concerns that I was being taunted... nah, that's just Cassianto being prickly. But Cassianto's concern that HAL was harassing him by responding to a comment that Cassianto made about HAL... you've fully accepted Cassianto's side of the story and paid no attention to the fact that Cassianto initiated the exchange despite supposedly not wanting to interact with HAL. You have repeatedly extended AGF to Cassianto and ABF to HAL. Your commentary here is extremely one-sided. By insisting that we treat this as an isolated incident and completely ignore the long-term issues, you are simply paving the way for those issues to continue. Besides, when you first weighed in you were basing your input on prior allegations of harassment by HAL. So which is it: are we only going to talk about this incident or are we going to consider the bigger picture? Because right now, you are dismissing all prior issues with Cassianto while refusing the same privilege to HAL. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Valid criticism of another’s actions is not an assumption of bad faith and keeping repeating that does not mean we should accept implausible explanations at face value. I’m not calling for a block or even a one-way IBAN. I also said I would not have made the remark’s Cassianto made there. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for HAL to respond. I do think tit-for-tat that takes a far-fetched reading of a typo and then leads to what reads to me as a passive aggressive barnstar on a talk page isn’t the correct way to respond, though. That’s not assuming bad faith, that’s looking at the situation and saying it’s reasonable to assume HAL knew it wouldn’t be appreciated.
    Again, I’m more than willing to disregard my first impression here and assume good faith. Even then I think them not interacting with one another is best. Even if HAL meant it well, it wasn’t smart to do and this was the predictable outcome because he knew Cassianto considered his behaviour harassing. I’m not assuming Cassianto was right in every circumstance at all. Just that it’s reasonable to not post on his talk page after he’s made it clear he thinks he’s being harassed. That’s not special treatment in the slightest, and recommending a two-way IBAN in order to try to prevent these flare ups in the future isn’t trying to give one side an advantage over the other. They both seemed somewhat open to it above before the thread got heated. We should try to let it work. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

    I don't think I agree with any of that, but further conversation seems futile. I just hope HAL doesn't leave after the way he's been shamefully dragged through the mud here. I know I would. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I also find it difficult to understand Tonyballioni's position. Unless there is actual harassment and following someone around (which I don't see evidence of here), the reasonable conclusion to me would be that Hal was trying to mend relations with Cassianto by trying to be nice. I would also like to be friends with everyone on Wikipedia, including Cassianto, but now I honestly don't know how I would go about that - the very first thing I would think to try would be to "thank" them for contributions we agree on or to leave something nice on their talk page, but now it seems like even that may not be welcome. I think it's unfortunate that Cassianto took this negatively, but I don't understand how it could be interpreted as anything other than an olive branch (especially as Cassianto continues to ping Hal, even here - this feels somewhat like "tag - no tag-backs!").

Aside from that, I REALLY don't understand how anybody could think that Hal is the one trying to get Cassianto in trouble when Cassianto has now twice in this discussion said they are okay with an interaction ban in the future but that it wasn't enough against Hal (i.e. pushing for further remedies). I haven't seen Hal ask for anything against Cassianto. The idea that Hal is trying to get Cassianto in trouble by getting Cassianto to come make a complaint about Hal is just too far-fetched for me. Ultimately, I think we're all making mountains out of molehills; nobody can force a friendship, and if it isn't going to happen, then it seems like Hal and Cassianto may be willing to avoid interacting with each other. Maybe that is enough to try for now? Ikjbagl (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ikjbagl, the thank button can be abused. Not all "thanks" are in recognition of someone doing something good. Take a look at F. Scott Fitzgerald, an article I was keen to help HAL out with, and did so until he was rude and threw my help back in my face. I left him to get on with it and the article remains shit. I told him to leave me alone after he pinged me, which should've been enough. What did he do? He awards me a bloody barnstar! The problems re stalking have gone from Jean Sibelius, to Frank Sinatra, to Stanley Kubrick. Cassianto^Talk 09:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: You've gotten the timeline wrong. Kubrick was in March 2020 (first), Sinatra on 23 July 2020, Sibelius on 31 July 2020, and Sinatra in August 2020 (last).
While Kubrick and Sinatra are high profile battleground articles for the infobox debate, Sibelius is not. Therefore, it is the only clear example of following in that timeline is with Hal showing up on Talk:Jean Sibelius soon after you rejected their proposal for the Frank Sinatra lead image.
If you could respond to my request below, then this might get sorted out cleanly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

MJL, I have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say to you, so I think you should move on. Have a great day! Cassianto^Talk 20:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that is needlessly unhelpful. I can't see a good faith purpose to this report if you aren't prepared to answer the most basic questions about it.
Comment. For Cassianto's own benefit, this report should be closed. Clearly he was not ready to open this dispute to public scrutiny. No action should be taken at this time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto, it is not appropriate to say that an article "remains shit". If you think the article is poorly written, you could say that in a polite manner (but since it's a "good article", I doubt it is, in fact, shit; it looks like a fine article to me). Disparaging others' work is not helpful in building an encyclopedia, particularly when it seems to be an insult against the person. Ikjbagl (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ikjbagl, don't be so woke. There are plenty of good articles that are shit - in fact, GA hasn't been relevant for years because of abuse. You can tell the shit GAs a mile off; people quick pass them, generally once a year, to gain points for a fictional piece of computer graphic called "The Wikicup". It's all really rather turgid and sad, if I'm honest. Anyway, it may look like a "fine article" to you, and that's great. But for someone who has written 24 Featured Articles and reviewed over 50 more, it is shit. So as much as you're entitled to say it's "fine" I'm also entitled to my opinion, and my opinion is that it is "shit". Have a wonderfully productive day! Cassianto^Talk 06:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

And while we're in the subject, where have I disparaged HAL's edits on Fitzgerald? And why the hell can't I critique another editor's work in the interests of improving it? How do you think this encyclopedia has got to where it is today? Certainly not through constant niceties and fluffy encounters, that's for sure. That is a backward step. It has got here through honest debate, the ability to be able to say to someone "I don't think your edits are very good" and many, many arguments about content. Not allowing someone to speak freely about someone else's edits smacks of OWNership, something the pro-infobox crowd are happy to rely upon in arguments about info boxes. If you'd bother to look at the Fitzgerald GA, I offered to help HAL, but it was thrown back at me in a series of "disparaging" outbursts (not to mention some casual "You Brits and your pompous semantics" racism). That, like this, was ignored at these hallowed boards. I commend HAL for having a go with Fitzgerald - I wish more would do this type of editing rather hawk themselves around cesspits like ANI. Please take all that onboard and until next time...happy editing! Cassianto^Talk 09:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop whining. I've got 24 FAs.

-EEng

There it is in a nutshell: Cassianto thinks it's OK to call other editors' work "shit" because he's written 24 FAs. (Just don't call him a "boomer".) Put me down in the camp that would gladly see all 24 FAs deleted if that's the price of removing an editor who is continuously and unapologetically uncivil to his colleagues. Others would gladly put up with an editor calling other editors' work "shit" if it meant we'd get 24 FAs. This is the entire Wikipedia civility debate in a nutshell. I for one am glad the UCoC won't have exceptions for number-of-FAs-written. (Or reviewed.) Lev!vich 14:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No I don't, I think it's ok to call *an article* shit...because it's shit. Oh, and feel free to delete the 24 FAs I've written, they exist in a much better place than this (good luck with those AfDs, btw). If you start going around and deleting articles from an encyclopedia because you disagree with the article's author, you're left with what Wikipedia is not. But like I say...HAPPY EDITING! Cassianto^Talk 16:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Since Cass brought up wikihounding:

Schrocat

• [309] I make over a dozen edits to Barry Lyndon. Within 7 hours, Schrocat reverts some of my edits. They had never previously edited that page.
• [310] After I edit Disney World, SchroCat shows up for the first time.
• [311] SchroCat edits a page they had never edited before just 35 minutes after my most recent edit.
• [312] SchroCat revert me within two minutes. They had never edited this page before.

Cassianto

• [313] Cassianto reverts my edit on a page they have never edited
• [314] Cassianto shows up at F. Scott Fitzgerald, which they have never edited, devolves to ANI
• [315] reverts my edit on a page which they have never edited
• [316] reverts my edit on a page which they have never edited

Can we just move on? ~ HAL333 18:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• There is an extensive history of this user harassing and stalking both myself and SchroCat, who because of such people, is no longer part of the project. - This was stated without relevant diffs. I'd like to see some because that is an extraordinary claim.
  Follow up question because I haven't been following this: Did SchroCat say as much publically for being the reason they left? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

How the hell has Cassianto not been indeffed yet? Everywhere I see the guy, he’s either making personal attacks or acting extremely uncivilly.He literally told me to clip my ear after I complained to Teahouse from before I made this account, which was then brought over to ANI, just because I was complaining about another long-term editor disruptively editing. I don’t care if Cassianto has made good, sourced edits to pages, his behavior is completely unacceptable, I can tell now that many of us feel extremely uncomfortable with his bad attitude, and there is no good reason to keep him around. Anybody can add whatever edits he adds, but Cassianto had gotten away with breaking WP:NPA, WP:RUDE, and WP:CIVIL for way too long now. Unnamed anon (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

...great, and now, back to Mike in the studio, Mike. Cassianto^Talk 20:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:Cleanstart time? --Moxy 🍁 21:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that is particularly helpful here. I see no reason Cassianto would need a clean start and suggesting such is rarely appropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually a great suggestion and has worked many times in the past with editors of this nature ...they should try a new start before it's too late to do so.--Moxy 🍁 21:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, thanks. Moxy, of whom do you speak? Only your threading seems to suggest HAL? My oh my, we're all out tonight, aren't we! Happy editing! Cassianto^Talk 21:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I should start up again. ~ HAL333 21:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Things have come to a stalemate, IMHO. It doesn't appear as though any action will be taken concerning this report, which has arrows being fired in many directions from different individuals. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Note Since this should be viewed within the context of the British vernacular, let us rely on Oxford's #1 definition: "A person who makes a mess, or who messes about; a muddler, a bungler." How is that NOT a personal attack?~ HAL333 22:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

... Messrs Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs ... Mr rnddude (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

HAL333 It was not a personal attack. It is obvious from the context that Messrs is what was meant. That you described Cassianto's correction of the typo as a "clever solution" implies that you thought he really did mean to write "messers" and was covering up a personal attack. That is not credible. That you have apparently never heard of the plural form of "Mr" does not mean it is some obscure term and using that as a basis for leaving a barnstar for an editor who has told you to leave him alone was very ill-advised. P-K3 (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Parting comment -- I think after this it's time to leave this troll infested board. Utterly hilarious that someone complains about my incivility towards someone's writing, in a post uncivilly wishing to delete my contributions and wishing rid of me from the project. Oh the irony! Endorsed by many an admin, no doubt, who'll look at this and say "awww, that's just Levivich being Levivich", whilst hovering over the block button when it's my turn to respond. Well, this has been fun...no it's been all rather ugly actually, and this certainly looks like it'll be taken no more seriously than all the other concerns I've posted here over the years. But thanks for the diffs, guys! So I'm out of here. I'd like to say thanks to Levivich for their stunning contributions here - ANI just wouldn't be the same without you (good luck with those AfDs you intend for my featured articles); to EEng for their sparkling, genius wit, charismatic one-liners, and the oh-so hilarious picture you've posted here of me today, oh how we laughed! Not in the least bit uncivil, EEng, to show a "violent" (now where have we heard that word before!) tussle between two men - you keep delisting those FAs, (there's a thought, Levivich, why bother with AfD, why not just get EEng to do one of their fantastic copy edits to them, à la Moors Murders, they'll be delisted in no time); good luck to...now let me get this right... Lepricavark?...(no incivility intended if, heaven forbid, I've spelt it wrong again, but then again, you'll no doubt see incivility in it) in whatever your new intended hobby shall be, whether it's 14th century battle re-enactments, spotting Eddie Stobart trucks on the M25, collecting jig-saw puzzles that depict the changing seasons, or whatever you pick, hopefully it'll be far more entertaining than watching my every move; to HAL333, a good writer, and I genuinely mean that, who sadly picks too many fights (and even worse company) - I'm by no means a vindictive person, and would be happy to start afresh (again) and help at articles you are interested in, but not at the moment, okay? And with a tear in my eye, and a quiver in my emotionally uncontrollable lip, who can think of a more fitting closing theme to this rather unfortunate episode: [317]. Good night all, I'm off to try to improve what's left of the encyclopedia. Happy editing! Cassianto^Talk 17:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I request that we leave Cassianto's post as the final word on this report & close. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose:

• Two-way IBAN between Cassianto and Hal333.

Serisouly, this has to stop. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm confident that both individuals will heal any wounds & become Wiki-friends. If this isn't gonna be the case, they're quite capable of avoiding each other. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose HAL has done nothing wrong. Cassianto, on the other hand, continues to take swipes at me (in addition to numerous other editors) even after I made it plain that I was not interested in further interaction. They aren't remotely close to being equal, so don't give them equal sanctions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. JzG, is this your idea of de-escalation? When I told you two days ago that there were problems here not caused by I-82-I, you didn't seem to believe me...be that as it may; I think this is the minimum necessary here. We also need to remove these editors and others from the locus of conflict. But HAL333 and Cassianto have been rubbing each other the wrong way for months. The blame may not be equally shared, but it's sure as hell not completely one-sided, and that's enough for me to support an IBAN. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• As I noted above I am still thinking about whether we should do a 2 way iban when one of the users is opposed to it. That said let me preemptively oppose any sort of 1 way iban. 1 way ibans have many flaws and I am skeptical of them in general and do not see a reason to make an exception this instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Cassianto’s parting comment implies an intent to mend his problems with Hal. Unless they get in a fight again, and because of Cassianto’s opposition to a two/way iban, this seems to have sorted itself out naturally. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's over. Interaction between us only continues thanks to these noticeboards. We will voluntarily mind to ourselves. ~ HAL333 23:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

John Pappas (again)

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

---

Last week Eagles247 reported John Pappas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) here as an WP:SPA; it was archived without action (thread here). The user has now somehow again re-created WP:Articles for deletion/Totally TV (2nd nomination) [318], an AfD for an article that doesn't exist and has nothing to do with John Pappas, to complain about the article about him being deleted, and to make unfounded accusations against Eagles (specifically, that Eagles wanted Pappas's article deleted to replace it with one about a previous football player). Several users, including me, have tried to explain the situation, to no avail (evidence in previous ANI thread). Pappas probably needs either a WP:NOTHERE or a WP:CIR block at this point. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 12:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

AFD was deleted and John Pappas blocked for NOTHERE. Also if his sole purpose was his account and his account only, that's more of a reason for the NOTHERE block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

• I"m still having trouble wrapping my head around the concept of a self-described playwright who writes stuff like a contributor who has a enthusiastic pension for football, even calls himself Eagles 24/7 and keeps tabs of college football [319]. EEng 11:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Being called a weirdo

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

---

User 81.108.136.100 called me a 'weirdo' see [320]. I was telling him not to revert with a strong reason regarding 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade where he reverted my removal [321]. That sentence 'This is though, somewhat not accessible in some regions.' is 1) unsourced 2) Does not add any strong information to the article - simply says user cannot access the external link 3) Is strongly reasonable to revert see [322] who called it an 'unclear blurb'. Please lecture this unregistered account , telling him or her off not to call me a 'weirdo' and apologise.

BlueD954 (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin) Actually, it says "werdo", which isn't an English word at all. Choose to assume good faith, and allow that it might have been something besides the meaning you choose to put to it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

• "What does the NEW WERDO look like?!" EEng 06:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Repeated violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks by User:Jarfow

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

---

New editor Jarfow has made a series of personal attacks:

• One
• Two
• Three

In fact, as shown by the full list of his contributions, Jarfow has done nothing but make personal attacks and then defend them after they have been reverted.

It is clear that Jarfow is a disruptive editor who is not here to help us build an encyclopedia. I request that he be blocked. NedFausa (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is more of the same SSR-linked user-conduct-related stuff as above. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 04:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

i wanted to say that they are not letting me fix the article. i don't have edit button. i wanted to report that they are fascist because they are adding anything but not allowing other persons to fix anything. i wanted to tell everyone that they are doing partiality so they can be banned. how will they fix their bad behavior if anyone else don't tell them to stop... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarfow (talk • contribs) 04:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The only thing Cyphoidbomb, NedFausa, myself, and the others who are engaging on the talk page are doing is ensuring the articles remain compliant with our strict biographical standards and trying to keep out all the conspiracy theory bunk. That does not make us fascists, that makes us responsible editors. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 04:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, so blocked indefinitely. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

legal threats from Ubaid Qundeel?

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

---

• Ubaid Qundeel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Maybe I'm just geting old and cranky, but THIS, THIS, and THIS look like they are passing on a legal threat with intent to intimidate another user. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if that's a true legal threat, but I can read from their edits they are definitely WP:NOTHERE. Indef'd for that (and very likely a sock as well of Justice007). RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thou art kind. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• There are few things more pathetic than threatening to sue WP because the article about you was deleted for non-notability. Oscar Wilde comes to mind. EEng 07:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Private UTRS comments from administrators

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

---

In a now-closed discussion on this noticeboard, an administrator seems to say it's standard practice to decline a repeat unblock request "out of hand" regardless of whether any administrator has addressed the stated basis for the request, and I'm wondering whether that "standard practice" is written into Wikipedia policy. I'd prefer that editors who aren't willing to help me wouldn't disrupt the discussion and waste people's time by closing it or adding off-topic comments, and I'm willing to open a new discussion on my own talk page if that's the preferred venue. Is there an administrator watching this page who's willing to help me? HistoryManUSA (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• If you want anyone to engage with this, I suggest you provide a link to the "now-closed discussion". It would be necessary to see it to be sure what it says, and you can't expect people to just search everything and hope to stumble upon it. Also, identifying the actual blocks to which you refer would help. And, the description doesn't make it clear what this has got to do with "private UTRS comments", so I suggest an explanation of the connection would help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Thanks for your response. One of my relatives requested an unblock via UTRS after she was blocked from editing her own talk page on August 7. I have concerns about administrative actions relevant to the reason the unblock request was declined, and I'm wondering how many private comments from administrators there are at this link. The ANI discussion closure is at this diff. HistoryManUSA (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• The thread is this one. Mildly, it seems very much like all the points you've raised were addressed in that thread. From a first read-through it seems you:

• asked on behalf of a third party why their second unblock request had been declined without further comment, and were advised it was because it was identical to their previous unsuccessful request;
• speculated that there might be some sort of private administrator commentary on UTRS and asked for a copy. You were advised that even if such a thing existed it would not be sent to you.
• suggested it was a breach of ADMINACCT for an admin to eventually decline to keep engaging with you on these subjects, and were advised that it wasn't.

Appreciate that these answers weren't the ones you were hoping for. However opening another thread on exactly the same issues is unlikely to generate any different response.

Per your suggestion above, please do feel free to open a discussion on your talkpage but it doesn't seem like there's anything here for ANI. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

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

PeacePeace

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

---

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

Looking at roughly their past 500 edits (about a year for them), we have a variety of problematic edits from PeacePeace:

• Suggesting that we should say "QAnon postulates a conspiracy" instead of pointing out that QAnon is a collection of (moonbatshit insane) conspiracy theories
• Whitewashing the OANN article to say that the conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich are not conspiracy theories and to cover up the allegations about Roy Moore
• Whitewashing the OANN article again to pretend that it nobody says it spreads conspiracy theories
• Pretending the Nazis murdering gay men wasn't relevant to an article about gay Neo-Nazis ("but it was unsourced!" -- it was part of the plot summary)
• "the MSM is not a reliable source"
• willfully false information apparently isn't lying, dismissing someone as living "in that hut in Kenya" is somehow not racist
• assuming anti-Trump sources aren't trustworthy and need attribution
• allegedly alleging that alleged allegations were only alleged in defense of the known phenomena of police brutality
• So it's OK to take at face value right-wing claims from OANN, but those on the left can only allegedly claim to want justice?
• Wanting us to remove the well documented (and adequately sourced) point that Ghislaine Maxwell hung out a lot with Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Alan Dershowitz. (sarcasm)I'm sure it's Clinton's reputation he's concerned about(/sarcasm)
• defending the reputation of Zero Hedge
• allegedly alleging that alleged indictments are only alleged allegations regarding Steve Bannon's co-conspirator in the Wall fraud scheme
• "SPLC is not a reliable source, but an opponent in the cultural war"
• all kinds of whitewashing at the Sean Hannity article: pretending that Birtherism, the idea the DNC may have murdered Seth Rich, and that Hillary Clinton is secretly an alcoholic epileptic aren't all conspiracy theories
• Granted in an edit summary, but putting mass shootings in scare quotes is rather poor form.
• Trying to justify the murder of a child with the argument that the child was wielding a sidewalk as a weapon (I guess the man who approached him with a gun was just defending himself).
• A single article from the Washington Times (which is somehow multiple sources) trumps multiple sources from the Daily Beast, WaPo, and the Hill that address the denial claim make the Times piece is used to push for
• And then there's this bit of dame-smacking chauvinism.

Some edits to religion articles have largely not yet been fixed due to lack of attention, but are problematic nonetheless:

• treating rather specifically Anabaptist views as almost the entirety of "non-RCC" views, arguably dismissing Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans (who disagree with those views as merely "professed Christians"
• asserting that one denomination holds to the fundamentals of the Christian faith while another does not
• Citing a blog for their issue with Campus Crusade for Christ not including "Christ" in their shortened name "Cru"
• Apparently all Christians believe in the Rapture, which would suggest that those who do not maybe aren't
• See? Rapture theory dates back to the Church Fathers and that's not just a retroactive reading to justify that interpretation. Cites this mess to support this claim
• Apparently Catholics don't believe that Joseph's other kids were from a previous marriage (or is it that Papist views aren't worth mentioning?), Anglicans and Lutherans don't have saints (or are Anglicans and Lutherans Catholics now?), and fundamentalist blogs are reliable sources
• A single article from Journal of Evangelical Theological Society is completely equal to sources from Oxford and Blackwell
• Catholics are Mariolatrists
• Baptists aren't Protestants? See Baptist successionism for where this WP:FRINGE claim originates
• Trying to justify corporal punishment of children by dismissing researchers as mere "objectors"

They have some edits outside the topics of religion and politics that I'm not immediately spotting issue with, which is why I didn't just indef them. However, in the areas of politics and religion, we have a user who is not here to summarize mainstream sources but wage a culture war. By their own admission they don't accept the reliability of mainstream sources and their actions show they will choose to oppose such sources because of that user's own ideology. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I ran over to their earliest contribs. It would appear this behavior is not a recent trend. Climate change (and other known science that some politicians try to dismiss as political inconveniences) may be another problematic area. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I support a site ban on the basis of this compelling evidence of WP:NOTHERE. Thank you for marshaling the evidence. Neutrality^talk 04:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, site ban for this disruptive person. I was trying to figure out what MSM meant, relative to racist politician Steve King, and I finally realized it meand MainStream Media. So this person does not think mainstream media is a reliable source. WP:NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The edits I have checked definitely do not look good. Site ban is an option, however, they have been here for several years and never got a single warning (in fact, they even got one personal invitation to comment in a discussion). Whereas it is quite possible that they perfectly know what they are doing, there is also a chance they do not understand out policies just because nobody cared to tell them that what they do is not in line with the policies. We can as well try topic ban on politics and religion, broadly construed, and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Here were some (newest first): Special:Diff/969200996 Special:Diff/956743440 Special:Diff/913686794 Special:Diff/913653296 Special:Diff/913598248 Special:Diff/894173638 Special:Diff/865793161 Special:Diff/846608661 Special:Diff/776608157 Special:Diff/736596854 —PaleoNeonate – 07:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I see, I was stupid enough not to check the talk page history. Well, we could still try a broad topic ban, but the fact that they have not listened to warnings makes me less motivated to oppose a site ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support siteban and/or topic ban from politics and religion, broadly construed. Honestly, there's significant enough WP:NOTHERE that I would not have too much concern of losing even a minimally productive longterm editor--insofar as they appear to have extremely low ratio of productive benefit relative to disruption, and I'm dubious they will move without complaint into other areas where they will be a more sedate and practical editor respecting our policies and neutral approach. All of that said, Ymblanter has a point about there being some benefit in general in attempting the most minimally effective sanction first. The caveat there is that it would be nice if the close made it clear that any admin enforcing the topic ban should feel encouraged to start answering violations of the ban with long-ish blocks (if not an indef from the first violation), so that we are not just kicking the can down the road if this user chooses not to respect the restrictions the community puts on them but instead ignores them, waiting out blocks in a serial fashion. Given what I am seeing above, I think there's better than even odds of that being the general response of this editor to a topic ban. But that skepticism not withstanding, I agree with another point of Ymblanter's observations above: our response should possibly be tempered by the fact that we have not, as a community, yet engaged with this editor about the shortcomings in their approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The user page is also interesting. —PaleoNeonate – 07:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban after checking a few of these, I conclude that the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an accurate and NPOV encyclopedia. I do not support a topic ban because it would be difficult to enforce; edits (even problematic ones) to low-watchers religion articles are likely to go unnoticed, which makes them significantly more disruptive. (t · c) buidhe 09:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I'm a little uncomfortable over the lack of any warnings. But I've looked through most of the examples given above, and I'm seeing chronic perversion of Wikipedia to push a personal political and religious agenda. The political issues are possibly less of a problem, as they are more obvious and are easily reverted. But the religious changes are often avoiding detection and remaining for lengthy periods (I've reverted 2 or 3). Given the history and agenda, coupled with PeacePeace's apparent belief that they're an expert in deductive logic (see their user page for their approach to knowledge) and that "The God of the Bible exists; 2) The Bible is the Word of God" are "two self-evident axioms which open the door to knowledge"*, I think this is someone incapable of putting aside their own views when contributing. It's very rare that I'll support a site ban, especially as a first approach solution, but I can't see an effective lesser solution here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  *Clarification: It's not the belief that the Bible is the word of God that's the problem, the problem is the conviction that it's axiomatic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  No, scrap that, it doesn't really get over what I mean. It's the entire approach to knowledge as espoused on the user page that's the problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support site ban I have long felt that PeacePeace is unable and unwilling to edit this site appropriately. Thanks for assembling the diffs. I favor a site ban. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Noting an issue with the complaint. The ANI complaint describes[323] the Killing of Trayvon Martin as a "murder". That's not the way the jury saw it, and it's not the way we describe it in our article, either. Additionally, the complaint says that Zimmerman "approached Martin with a gun". Again, that's debatable. Zimmerman's defense was that he did search for Martin but did not find him and instead started heading back to his truck, when Martin initiated the confrontation. Not taking a position on the truth of this (and neither did the jury's verdict), but neither is it appropriate to siteban someone based on a complaint which takes debatable assertions as fact. Pinging Ian.thomson. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Point taken, and - oh, look - a squirrel! Narky Blert (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

There are 28 diffs in the initial complaint demonstrating NOTHERE editing by PeacePeace. This editor consistently discounts reliable sources in favor of their beliefs. There are also a number of diffs linking to talk page admonishments. I don't understand what will be accomplished by challenging some sort of position on only the Trayvon Martin killing. There is plenty of evidence here for initiating a site ban or a very broad topic ban supported by the community, without discussing this issue. I don't get why you are asking an editor to defend their position about only this one thing? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Call me a perfectionist. I'm actually not asking for a defense but a correction. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

And here is another one. This diff [324] is in considerable part complaining about the phrase "all of whom have been accused of sexual assault". That portion is no longer in the article, which has got to be a good change. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it true that Administrator Ian.Thomson is opposed to NPOV, so much so that he cannot tolerate even questions on a Talk Page about the propriety of content in articles? Is it proper for him to object, for example, to posting the true observation that many baptists do not approve of others called them "Protestants"? Then is it proper for him to claim that the source of this is a "mess"? V Raymond Edmond, Wheaton College president, presented research on this topic which is hardly a mess; Light in Dark Ages. https://www.amazon.com/light-dark-ages-centuries-commission/dp/B0007ENLSM/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=light+in+dark+ages+edman&qid=1599337665&sr=8-1 Are some persons on Wikipedia so committed to their political agenda that they may not tolerate the asking on a Talk Page to consider other POV? Is it a sign of bigotry when an editor wants to Edit War over a Talk Page post, or some adminstrator wants to squash it by removing mere discussion from a Talk Page? Should this be regarded as bullying by someone determined that only his opinion and agenda be allowed on WP without even serious discussion of alternatives? Does anybody have a license to use this language in scoffing at somebody's theories? "(moonbatshit insane) conspiracy theories". Does anybody agree with me that using "conspiracy theory" to win an argument is using a slur word as an easy alternative to presenting evidence like, "This explanation of an event involves a conspiracy, and here are the names of the persons whom the explainer says conspired. It was not just one person according to the explainer. And his sources are unreliable for the following reasons . . ."? I suggest that the comments about George Zimmerman having murdered a child be deleted for BLP. Are all the objections to my talk page comments being made in order to further some political & religious agenda, rather than promote NPOV on WP? Is it honest for an administrator to claim that I said catholics were mariolators, when what I posted was "There exist a variety of Christian views on Mary ranging from the focus on the veneration of Mary in Roman Catholic Mariology to claims by others of mariolatry." Examine carefull7 the charges by this adminstrator and conclude for yourself if his presentation is honest or not. Are his charges trumped up & driven by his political and/or religious agenda? Did I ever edit war over anything?(PeacePeace (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)).

Starting off with a personal attack in the form of a rhetorical question was a bad move. Using anecdotal claims to defend content points doesn't help either (I can count the number of Baptists I've met on one hand who object to being called protestants, and I'm Baptist). It is appropriate to call a WP:FRINGE source a mess. Would you accept similarly academically low-quality sources from Muslim or Hindu sites? Don't pretend the answer is "yes," we know it's not.

Are some persons on Wikipedia so committed to their political agenda -- at best, that's a Tu quoque, but you don't have any evidence for it.

Claiming I made accusations I never made also doesn't help (no one has accused you of edit warring on this page, don't try to distract people with strawmen).

Also, if you can't accept that QAnon (the fascist cultus based on the Pizzagate conspiracy theory) is a conspiracy theory, I'm gonna need to go ahead and block you under WP:CIR (whatever the result of this discussion is being independent of that and this result applying should you ever come to your senses enough to be unblocked). QAnon is so patently obviously wrong that if you don't get that, you shouldn't be editing, period. It's not politics, it's basic awareness of reality.

I'm giving you real advice right now: your only hope to avoid a site ban (or at least an indefinite block) is you agree to a topic ban from religion and politics articles. Emphasize your edits to other topics, like technology, -- Oh, you just posted a 10,000+ byte screed to my talk page claiming Birtherism is weasel word, a substitute for a rational consideration of where Obama was born, advocating a book that calls a witness to the Trayvon Martin's killing a "plus-sized" fraud, arguing that Martin was trying to murder Zimmerman, and engaging in a form of homophobic Holocaust denial with Whether or not Nazis were in favor of men-lying-with-men, or persecuted them requires presentation of reliable research. I will pray that Christ teaches you what reason is soon but until that happens, you need to be elsewhere. Site ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Topic ban, religion and politics, very broadly construed. Based on the 28 diffs in the initial complaint and the talk page admonishments I have to go with broadly construed topic ban until PeacePeace can show that they can edit in accordance with guidelines and policies. I know editors and admins might have to be Johnny-on-the-spot about enforcing this, but I am not seeing overtly contentious editing. I mean that I am not seeing edit warring and don't see editors mired in endless combative talk page discussions. So, maybe there is at least a strand of hope. If there was editing warring and contentious talk page discussions I would definitely say "site ban" as a lost cause. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Site ban - the fact that he has made a few constructive edits is irrelevant. This very well evidenced complaint is a slam dunk. You could add just random words to articles and occasionally they'd be correct. A very few positives does not offset the tremendous amount of poor quality edits. John from Idegon (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Sometimes really bad actors manage to avoid warnings, and this editor is an overwhelming net negative. Miniapolis 21:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Site ban. I was wondering when this user would show up here. I feel like I fell victim to Bystander effect. Ian has the right of it.--Jorm (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Site ban (first choice) or TBAN (second choice). Here to Wrong Great Rights. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

User: PeacePeace, this is Off topic, WP:NPA, and WP:NOTFORUM Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The complaining Administrator has posted falsehood and libel; he is harassing and bullying. But as Wikipedia is an aristocracy, what can I expect out of a kangaroo court? Specifically: "problematic edits"? They are a problem to the extent that they run counter to the POV of the Administrator, who cannot tolerate NPOV, even in a discussion on a talk page. Suggesting an objective NPOV, rational approach to QAnon is quite proper, though I know little about them. The essence of the disagreement on Seth Rich has nothing to do with conspiracy theory (weasel words to avoid rational discussion). The point is not whether a group of people came up with a theory; the question is twofold: a) Was Seth Rich the leaker? (there is good evidence from reliable sources for that; b) was Seth Rich's murder done by the DNC or their operatives (so far as I know, no good evidence for that). But the issue should be handled rationally, not basing conclusions on 1 democrat private source Cloud Strike, even if Cloud Strike was picked up and believed by a number of agencies who never examined a computer. Using "moonbatshit" to settle an issue indicates intemperate lack of NPOV. Unsourced material should be removed. Whether or not Nazis were in favor of men-lying-with-men, or persecuted them requires presentation of reliable research. Of course the MSM is not a reliable source on Trump or GOP since MSM is rabidly anti-Trump & a participant in political warfare. Political opponents are not reliable sources. No evidence was given by the administrator that I ever said willfully presenting false information was not lying. No evidence was given that to speak of someone living in a Kenya hut is racist. Judging & jumping to conclusions is a characteristic of rabid protagonists in political warfare, which apparently this adminstrator does. The "allegedly alleging" statements are too confusing to be given serious concern by any but a kangroo court. The administrator gave no proof that there is widespread police brutality, as opposed to isolated instances. When did I ever say it is OK to take right wing claims at face value without examination? How is it that left-wing allegations should be taken at face value? "hung out a lot" requires adequate establishment from reliable sources. "a lot" is weasel words. How often, when & where? "Hung out" is again weasel words. Specific associations not vague smear words are required with reliable sources to avoid libel. So what if I recommend something on a talk page? Who is so bigotted that they can't stand a suggestion they disagree with? When did I defend the reputation of Zero Hedge. I have no recollection of that & know little of Zero Hedge. & if I did that on a talk pages, so what? Are administrators & editors so bigoted & prejudiced that they cannot stand suggestions they do not agree with? Nothing had been proven in court about Steve Bannon or and body else. And to call it a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory! To call it a Wall fraud scheme, is also potentially libelous as no proof has yet been established. Do you want Wikipedia sued? This is judging before the evidence. It is a fact that Brian Kolfage raised about $25 million for a wall. It is also a fact that about 4-5 miles was in fact erected. How does this compare with the price the federal government is paying, something like $30 million a mile? Money was raised; wall went up. You probably don't like it & want it stopped by any means? Indeed SPLC is not a reliable source, but a warrior in the cultural war. "SPLC is not a reliable source, but an opponent in the cultural war" Birtherism is weasel word, a substitute for a rational consideration of where Obama was born; which consideration is worthy of research-- not that it makes any difference as his mother was an American. So what if somebody claims Obama was not born in USA??? Why the big concern over it? I certainly never claimed that the DNC murdered Seth Rich; I believe the evidence is against it. And I never posted such on Wikipedia. If you want to consider theories of Sean Hannity you should address the claims & evidence. Repeating as a mantra "conspiracy theory" proves nothing. If Sean Hannity said Hillary was an alcoholic epileptic (which I doubt), document it and refute it. Such a claim is not handled by repeating the mantra "conspiracy theory." If it is though, you need to list the people who got together and concocted it, give good evidence that they did from reliable sources. I don't recall ever putting anything is "scare quotes," neither do I know what that means. But if I had, so what? Speaking about a murder of a child in the Zimmerman case makes you & perhaps Wikipedia liable for a libel suit. No murder took place. A young man (not a "child") over 17 years old ambushed Zimmerman per evidence when Zimmerman was heading for his truck. Per evidence, Zimmerman was getting beaten with head knocked vs concrete, a lethal weapon by Travyon Martin. This is what the evidence, even evidence produced by the prosecution established. The verdict was not guilty. A great amount of research has been done by Joel Gilbert in his book, The Trayvon Hoax. Go read it. The child pictures of Trayvon Martin are a hoax, putting on little child pictures way out of date. Zimmerman did not approach Trayvon with a gun per evidence. Trayvon approached & ambushed Zimmerman, who was forced to shoot to save his life when he was on his back. Chosing the Washington Times over WaPo & MSM is NPOV. If you don't like it, you are free to revert it, as I don't edit war. I don't really know what you refer to, if it is a comment on the article's Talk page. You seem to think that a comment on a Talk page which disagrees with your liberal agenda, is a damnable sin. If an article speaks about a man wanting to visit his children when he has a dispute with his wife, & she blocks the visits, as "a man wanting to visit HER children," is an outrage. I suggested on a talk page, (not making the edit) that it would better say HIS children. The man wants to visit his children, not her children (he wants to visit because they are his kids, not hers. That is not dame-smacking chauvinism. And your calling it that is bullying by an adminstrator. This appears false, the claim that I treated Anabaptis views as almost the entirety of "non-RCC" views." And it is you who added the word "merely". Saying professed Christians leaves open the question of who is the real Christian. & are you again objecting to a discussion on a talk page? Lets see your proof that I asserted one denomination hold the fundamentals of the faith while another does not. When did I put that into an article? What is wrong with noting that Campus Crusade for Christ changed their name? On the Rapture the point is that all Christians are obligated to believe in the Rapture because 1 Thes 4:17 says "we shall be raptured" = rapimur = we shall be caught up. Often the Rapture doctrine is confused with Pre-Tribuational Rapture theory; the timing of the Raptures is in dispute. If somebody believes that the Rapture is of the spirit at death, that does not mean such a person is not a Christian. But the rapture is a Bible fact, itself. BTW, I don't recall editing an article & saying in an article that all Christians believe in the Rapture. Are you again carping over a comment on a talk page? The belief in a Rapture has been traced back to Pseudo-Ephraim at least, which is not a "mess." Your pejorative "mess" is uncivil and improper. If you believe the source is invalid, give a rational reason. If you have some proof that I edited an article and denied that Catholics disbelieve Joseph's children were from a previous marriage, post the proof or retract. The statements put on internet sites can be evaluated for accuracy. I never said that all fundamentalist claims on Joseph were true. And what do you mean by blog? Do you dismiss scholarly sites as blogs because the writers believe the basics of the faith? If you have some proof that I asserted that Anglicans and Lutherans do not have "saints," either post it or retract. If you accept books as reliable sources because Oxford published them, then you endorse the Scofield Reference Bible. So please have Wikipedia announce that for SP the SRB is a reliable source! These publishers can publish works which contradict each other, which is quite common for Biblical and Theological writings. To summarily dismiss the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society out of hand, is just prejudiced discrimination. I wrote that the range of evaluation of Catholic theology on Mary is across a spectrum and that some consider it mariolatry. You very dishonestly attributed that POV to me as if I wrote that on WP. I wrote that some baptists don't consider themselves as protestants, as having a heritage from those who came out of the RCC. That is just a fact. It is established history that there were Christians in the middle ages who did not accept the pope, before the reformation. You seem to like to put words in my mouth, like mere before objectors. Corporal punishment has a long approved history in the USA; and it is proper to speak of objectors. Ian.Thomson seems obsessed with me and has a desire to squash me on Wikipedia, but he has no legitimate grounds. Apparently he objects to anything I post which suggests that his liberal POV is wrong. So now I have this kangaroo court going which I think will be dominated by liberals who insist on their POV, having no regard for NPOV. It is driven by Ian.Thomson's personal opinions, not NPOV. But I assure you that in the end justice will be. Done. Are you ready to give account for every idle word you spoke & act you did? It is appointed to man once to die, but after that the judgment. Finally I call for the removal and banning of Ian.Thomson for harassment, posting falsehoods with personal attacks, intemperate language, and bullying. (PeacePeace (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll only reply to this because it's relevant about Wikipedia: Chosing the Washington Times over WaPo & MSM is NPOV. If you don't like it, you are free to revert it, as I don't edit war. I don't really know what you refer to, if it is a comment on the article's Talk page. You seem to think that a comment on a Talk page which disagrees with your liberal agenda, is a damnable sin. Have you looked at the assessment of the Washington Times at WP:RSP? Favoring better sources because there is community consensus that this one is suboptimal is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT... Then about talk pages: they are not forums for general discussion and political debates (WP:NOTFORUM). —PaleoNeonate – 01:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

PeacePeace, you aren't helping yourself there. I haven't seen any evidence that Ian.thomson is "obsessed", merely that he is concerned about your edits. And even if there were such evidence, the accusation itself runs counter to WP:NPA. I've asked him for a correction above, and now I'm going to ask you to strike that claim per WP:NPA. I would further note that the many users who are voting for a site ban are saying that you can't or won't change. Are they right? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ripe for SNOW CLOSE SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently there's nowadays supposed to be another 48 hours to go on this. I had indeffed on the basis of the screed above and then reconsidered, but we can let this go another couple of days, I suppose. However, I'm inclined to place a term block for personal attacks and continuation of the behavior that's being examined. This editor is advancing a partisan personal set of agendas, and their userpage indicates that they're not interested in working with other editors, as they alone are the sole judges of truth and falsity. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support site ban The notion that articles from the mainstream media should be rejected as reliable sources about Trump is ludicrous and entirely contrary to the philosophy of this encyclopedia, which is not called Conservapedia. Then there is the TLDR ranting and raving, and the unfounded accusations against named and unnamed editors. I am sure that this person can find another website where their misbehavior will be tolerated. Not here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Broad topic ban from Religion and Politics There seems to indeed be disruptive editing in two areas. Banning theeditor from them should soon reveal whether they have the potential to edit constructively elsewhere. It will be easy enough to go the next step if needed. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban Considering this reply when invited on ANI: Special:Diff/976932815 I don't think this attitude would be constructive in any topic area. The user also claims to retire in the next edit, an unfortunate indication they were only interested in using Wikipedia for advocacy instead of moving on... —PaleoNeonate – 02:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

In agreement with PaleoNeonate, it seems to me these last screeds and possible retirement are indications this user was only "interested in using Wikipedia for advocacy instead of moving on." It appears they were not interested in forging any kind of agreement with the community. So, I say, good riddance. I don't appreciate having my time and other editors' time wasted. --Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Site ban I have struck my previous Ivote. I am changing it to "site ban" based on the 28 diffs in the initial complaint, the talk page admonishments, and Peace's various rants in response to this discussion, which can be found here and other editors' talk pages. See above diffs for other editors' talk pages pertaining to this matter. The aggregate of observed behavior indicates PeacPeace promotes advocacy while discounting reliable sources, and demonstrates a lack of interest in community feedback. NOTHERE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban Peace's rant says it all. Basing off the evidence that others have presented, he is clearly NOTHERE. Goose^(Talk!) 20:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban The hostile rant above only cements the history of disruptive editing we've seen from this user. Also, it seems that consensus for site ban is there, along with 72hr waiting period for block having been exceeded, it would be nice to get an administrator to close this incident. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 09:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support site ban due to the above diffs and their response here.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

DanielZu and NLT

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

---

This is a clear-cut violation of WP:NLT per Google Translate. Their block should thus be upped to indefinite (@Ad Orientem:), not only for that but clearly because they are WP:NOTHERE. Google Translate of their userpage also suggests they are socking, but I don't know of any specific accounts.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE with a splash of NLT thrown in for flavor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

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

• I love the idea of suing Wikipedia for undermining the US Constitution...in a different language Nosebagbear (talk)

• Actually, he says that he intends to travel to the US in 2021 for the purposes of suing Wikipedia. His user page states that he's an english speaker, maybe he should sort himself out and read some of the policy pages... --Blackmane (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thuramir I, of the Knights of Freespeech

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

---

• Thuramir I, of the Knights of Freespeech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blatant vandalism at Cuties. Clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. snapsnap ^(talk) 01:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Indeffed. VOA. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Urgent: highly active vandal Armanbee

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

---

Can an admin please step in and stop this vandal? My head is spinning trying to stay on top of the reverts and I’m having to basically do it manually. Thanks Vandal is blocked Raven^(Zing) 06:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

User:LoganBlade

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

---

User:LoganBlade has repeatedly disrupted the WP:RfD tag added to this redirect page by admin Rosguill, despite several reverts and requests to desist. LoganBlade apparently objects to the fact that the RfD tag automatically "freezes" the redirect, despite the fact that the RfD template is (presumably) intentionally designed to suspend the redirect while the RfD discussion is taking place.

On a separate matter, LoganBlade has also not followed several requests on their Talk page (and elsewhere) to correct their misleading customized signature, per WP:SIGPROB. Muzilon (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Backlog at RPP

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

---

Please see to the backlog at WP:RPP. Thanks! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent promotional edits and block evasion at Karnal

Appears to be WP:LTA by socks associated with Casper Anand (talk · contribs). And large blocs of copyright violation content, so some rev/deletion as well as page protection may be in order. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• A rangeblock of 2409:4051 might be necessary--it's where Casper appears to be editing now. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

AnOrionPicturesRelease25

AnOrionPicturesRelease25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has already been blocked once for disruptive editing and page moves, and they continue to make these virtually every day. While not all of their edits are vandalism, many of them are (Special:Diff/976698583 and Special:Diff/976248213 in the last 50 edits) and as far as I can tell all of their page moves are disruptive. I feel they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, just to waste people's time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Compounding the situation is that they have not, as far as I can see, communicated with anybody. I'm not convinced they're editing in bad faith; however, disruptive edits made with good intent are still disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

They remind me of someone, I just can't recall who. Canterbury Tail talk 23:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"I'm not convinced they're editing in bad faith" Adding the names of Shuki Levy and Haim Saban to the article on shit seems like a BLP violation to me. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that this editor is enough of a positive to the encyclopedia that we should go through the rigamarole of further escalating blocks. Re-blocked, this time as an indef, for disruptive editing and lack of communication. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

He should have been named blocked right out of the gate, as Orion Pictures is a production company - {{usernameblock}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B011:1E33:19D1:DCA1:DACE:741F (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC closure review

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RFC closure review

 – Wrong venue. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

67.61.89.32

67.61.89.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring against consensus to insert original research at SpaceX Merlin. See Talk:SpaceX Merlin#Original research about environmental concerns. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

He seems to have contracted the ANI flu, and stopped editing as soon as he got the ANI notice. Our usual practice in such cases is to do nothing and hope someone will refile if he resumes. Whether getting the ANI flu and then resuming editing once the ANI case is archived should be such an effective method of avoiding sanctions is a discussion we might want to have, but not here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Phil Bridger

Hello; I just wanted to flag to someone that User:Phil Bridger appears to be engaging in harassment on Talk:Devi Sridhar. He accused an editor of racism: "I hope that it's not sexism or racism that motivates editors to rubbish her qualifications, but it very much seems that way."

The editor replied: "can I just note that as a non-white female physician, there is certainly "not sexism or racism" that is directing my evidence - rather my own medical experience, research and training."

He then made a rather disturbing comment: "I'm rather surprised that a qualified medical practitioner would use such a junk source: I would certainly find it difficult to trust my health to you."

This appears to be a blatantly abusive comment to the profession of another user. 2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not see anything in Phil Bridger's conduct that rises to the level of harassment. I remind the IP that Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say, not the off-Wikipedia qualifications of the editors. All parties should resume discussion on the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Not abusive, but simply accurate. Would anyone trust their health to someone who cited this as a reliable source? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I also included a primary citation of a British Medical Journal article, which I still do not yet understand why that qualifies as an unreliable source? Regardless - if you want to impeach my medical credentials on the basis that "Would anyone trust their health to someone who cited..." I wish you the best in medical school. 2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Just for context, the IP who has been battling at Devi Sridhar on behalf of that blogpost (and piously pointing to the BMJ when people complain about the blogpost) also reported me for edit-warring before reporting Phil Bridger for "abusive behavior." Per WP:NOTBATTLE he/she really needs to chill. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the IP from Devi Sridhar since it's very clear you can't use a random blog for contentious material in a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite, but another new account DrJoHeiter, who just arrived today at this obscure dispute, agrees 100% with the IP's opinions, so blocking the IP isn't going to solve this. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarified my position earlier in the Talk page earlier - I think the conclusion reached at is the right one (an issue for regulators, not a Wikipedia article until they produce something that can be cited for it). To be clear, I have no intention to make edits to the page. DrJoHeiter (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This does not rise to the level of an ani report. Phil Bridger was certainly not abusive and whether the comments were uncivil is debatable-although I say no. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this was indeed ANI worthy, as evidenced by the partial block even if it's ANI worthy because of the well deserved BLP boomerang instead of for the reasons in the opening statement. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism, socking, NPA violations and abuse

Hi admins. Please can you review the below edit contributions, as you can see the majority are abusive and in direct violation of policies such as WP:NPA. Suspect this is LTA given the apparent use of socks - someone should block and start an SPI thread. Cheers - 188.29.165.219 (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You havent given us anything to look at. Can you post diffs or a link to the reported user(s). Amortias (T)(C) 09:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure - 188.29.165.219 (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

? Acroterion (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to upload a few of the edit diff links but it's not working. I think there's a filter preventing this - 188.29.165.219 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any public filter trips. [325] Could you at least mention one or more pages where the editor is a problem, or even better, one or more of their user names? Are you sure you are linking to something on en Wikipedia? We cannot do anything about any other website. Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User:5.186.116.1

I don't know how many disruptive edits this IP has done, I've reported and it got blocked, but the contrib might need to be reviewed. I am going to bed! Night folks. Govvy (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant image

Anonymous editors have been inserting File:LizzoBrixt06Nov19-10 (49216792848) (cropped).jpg into irrelevant articles for the past month or two. The current target is Summit Mall (infobox); previous pages have been mainly years such as 1987, 1990 and 1992. Different IP every time. Certes (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Could it be added to the bad image list, or is that unnecessary? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 23:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That could help I would think. I've blocked the IP at Summit Mall as well for repeated posting of the image. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Carliertwo

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

I've been rewording and tagging many Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles where statements relating to critical reception are not supported by a source, and there are other examples of unnecessarily laudatory editorialisation. These have been reverted by Carliertwo who contends that I'm "outnumbered" (eg [326], [327], [328]) and that consensus dictates that the existing text was fine (eg, [329], [330]). I've cited, variously, WP:VERIFY, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:PUFFERY and WP:SAID in response, since I have trouble believing that one can be "outnumbered" in these situations. I warned the user that I'd be taking the matter here; they've continued to revert to the previous, unsourced and non neutrally worded versions of the articles.

This is part of an ongoing situation where I've noticed that the Banshees album and song articles have unsourced genres in the infobox; use subjectively applied terms like "very favourable" in the reviewer ratings box (where the guideline dictates that we should not: "... do not include language like "Very favorable" or "(mixed)" in the template, as this would be original research"); and frequently adopt exaggerated phrasing to describe a reviewer's reaction to the work. In the latter cases, the description is not supported by sources; it's a Wikipedia editor's PoV.

Last year, I found that Carliertwo was unable or unwilling to appreciate that the genre for the Banshees' cover of "Dear Prudence" required a source; again, their rationale was based on the idea that consensus had been established simply through years of the unsourced genre remaining unchallenged. I filed a report on the user Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive394#User:Carliertwo reported by User:JG66 (Result: ) and was disappointed that no admin picked up the report. Meantime, with the report filed, Carliertwo suddenly stopped the disruptive behaviour. From trying to locate that in the archives, I've just come across other complaints raised here about their behaviour on the same band's articles: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive942#User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees (again), both from 2017.

Given that, I don't hold out any hope of being able to hatch out an agreement on the album talk pages. The edits I've attempted to make are all supported by policy, whereas the user appears to think they can be circumvented in favour of a popularity contest among editors. I'd like to be free to make those changes again, and I think Carliertwo needs a substantial topic ban from all things Siouxsie and the Banshees. JG66 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at the talk page of many Satb albums articles like for this album [331].

at the talk of The Scream (album)'' article, I explained that these two first sentences in this section [332] were a presentation of what follows , and they reflected what's inside the reviews. Excerpts of those reviews: "Record Mirror: The Scream "points to the future, real music for the new age", Melody Maker "...constantly inventive", ZigZag "magnificent record", Adam Sweeting "magnificent masterpiece", NME's Nick Kent "the traditional three-piece sound has never been used in a more unorthodox fashion with such stunning results", Paul Morley "it's innovation".

So why does this user tag those sentences, Upon its release, The Scream received critical acclaim. Critics in the British and American press generally agreed that the album was a landmark of its time and that the band's willingness to experiment made it a challenging listen., with "fact needed" whereas it is a presentation of what follows in the section with those 5 star reviews mentioned just previously here in my reply. Then, why does this user put in the commentary of this edit, "wp:puffery" and "wp:impartial" ? These two sentences have been present for more than 6 years, no user editing on that article (including professional journalist User:Greg Fasolino, who edited on all those satb albums articles) has said that these two sentences were cases of puffery and impartial.

Another case for this album [333], this user also tagged this sentence Peepshow received critical acclaim whereas the reviews were rated like this; Q (magazine) "5 out of 5 star review" and when there isn't any rate, the reviewers say: Record Mirror "Brimming with confidence [...], Peepshow is the Banshees' finest hour", Spin (magazine) "a dancefloor winner ... delightful, majestic ballad..the band sound as confident, abandoned and excited as when they started", Stereo Review, "Best of the Month"]], NME "Peepshow is the best Banshees record since A Kiss in the Dreamhouse". isn't it a critical acclaim ? Again this sentence was a presentation of all the reviews that follow in the section. So why does this user write "puffery" and "impartial" in their comment [334] ?

I had also suggested to ask a third opinion for all those satb albums articles [335]... Carliertwo (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No source supports statements like "The UK music press was unanimous in its praise for the album on its release" at A Kiss in the Dreamhouse. Ditto for "The four-CD box set compilation received critical acclaim upon its release" at Downside Up. They're just gratuitous statements, as are the constant references to music critics "hailing" albums and so forth.

If another writer comments that an album received a rave review in Melody Maker or was met with widespread praise, that would be different. But it's not the case in a single one of those Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles; rather, editors have synthesised the impression given by several favourable reviews to make an overall, grand statement. In all these examples the "hail"-worthiness of each writer's piece is self-sourced to the original review. And as mentioned, the reviewer ratings boxes have many subjective descriptions stating that a review was "highly favourable", etc. So overall, we're often taking isolated praise, adding unnecessarily lavish description in Wikipedia's voice when the quotes speak for themselves, and then constructing an overall description of critical reception based on that. It doesn't matter whether the impression one might get from a whole load of reviews is that "Upon its release, The Scream received critical acclaim. Critics in the British and American press generally agreed that the album was a landmark of its time and that the band's willingness to experiment made it a challenging listen." – it's not for us to say it. The approach, the correct approach as I've always understood it, is applied everywhere else on Wikipedia, or it certainly wouldn't be reverted to a version containing the sort of issues I'm highlighting if an editor sought to impose that approach.

At OK Computer#Critical reception, we have sources to support "OK Computer received critical acclaim. Critics in the British and American press generally agreed that the album was a landmark and would have far-reaching impact and importance ..." Same for statements at Pet Sounds (in the sections Contemporary reviews and Acclaimed status) such as "Early reviews for the album in the U.S. ranged from negative to tentatively positive ... By contrast, the reception from music journalists in the UK was highly favourable ... Pet Sounds has since appeared in many 'greatest records of all time' lists and has provoked extensive discourse regarding its musicianship and production." Or at Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)#Critical reception: "Aftermath received highly favourable reviews in the music press." And at Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)#Legacy and reappraisal: "Aftermath is often considered the Rolling Stones' first classic album." At Abbey Road#Contemporary: "Abbey Road initially received mixed reviews from music critics, who criticised the production's artificial sounds and viewed its music as inauthentic." and at Abbey Road#Retrospective: "Many critics have since cited Abbey Road as the Beatles' greatest album." All these statements are not only supported by reliable sources, but they're not self-sourced to the favourable/unfavourable reviews themselves.

I could go on and on with examples ... because, to repeat, I've seen this combination of puffery/OR/synthesis as increasingly a trait of Siouxsie and the Banshees articles, but not too many others. And the idea that because something's been in place for years at the articles then all's well is just ridiculous. Since when does that trump the policies I've cited? The album articles I've highlighted as having the correct approach are all of high standard, they've been well maintained since making GA or FA, and they're in keeping with what's done throughout the Music project, as far as I can see. It's as if these Siouxsie and the Banshees articles are frozen in time and are being actively allowed to violate some pretty clear policies. JG66 (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Persistent promotional edits and block evasion at Karnal

Appears to be WP:LTA by socks associated with Casper Anand (talk · contribs). And large blocs of copyright violation content, so some rev/deletion as well as page protection may be in order. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• A rangeblock of 2409:4051 might be necessary--it's where Casper appears to be editing now. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

AnOrionPicturesRelease25

AnOrionPicturesRelease25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has already been blocked once for disruptive editing and page moves, and they continue to make these virtually every day. While not all of their edits are vandalism, many of them are (Special:Diff/976698583 and Special:Diff/976248213 in the last 50 edits) and as far as I can tell all of their page moves are disruptive. I feel they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, just to waste people's time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Compounding the situation is that they have not, as far as I can see, communicated with anybody. I'm not convinced they're editing in bad faith; however, disruptive edits made with good intent are still disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

They remind me of someone, I just can't recall who. Canterbury Tail talk 23:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"I'm not convinced they're editing in bad faith" Adding the names of Shuki Levy and Haim Saban to the article on shit seems like a BLP violation to me. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that this editor is enough of a positive to the encyclopedia that we should go through the rigamarole of further escalating blocks. Re-blocked, this time as an indef, for disruptive editing and lack of communication. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

He should have been named blocked right out of the gate, as Orion Pictures is a production company - {{usernameblock}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B011:1E33:19D1:DCA1:DACE:741F (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC closure review

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RFC closure review

 – Wrong venue. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

67.61.89.32

67.61.89.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring against consensus to insert original research at SpaceX Merlin. See Talk:SpaceX Merlin#Original research about environmental concerns. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

He seems to have contracted the ANI flu, and stopped editing as soon as he got the ANI notice. Our usual practice in such cases is to do nothing and hope someone will refile if he resumes. Whether getting the ANI flu and then resuming editing once the ANI case is archived should be such an effective method of avoiding sanctions is a discussion we might want to have, but not here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Phil Bridger

Hello; I just wanted to flag to someone that User:Phil Bridger appears to be engaging in harassment on Talk:Devi Sridhar. He accused an editor of racism: "I hope that it's not sexism or racism that motivates editors to rubbish her qualifications, but it very much seems that way."

The editor replied: "can I just note that as a non-white female physician, there is certainly "not sexism or racism" that is directing my evidence - rather my own medical experience, research and training."

He then made a rather disturbing comment: "I'm rather surprised that a qualified medical practitioner would use such a junk source: I would certainly find it difficult to trust my health to you."

This appears to be a blatantly abusive comment to the profession of another user. 2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not see anything in Phil Bridger's conduct that rises to the level of harassment. I remind the IP that Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say, not the off-Wikipedia qualifications of the editors. All parties should resume discussion on the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Not abusive, but simply accurate. Would anyone trust their health to someone who cited this as a reliable source? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I also included a primary citation of a British Medical Journal article, which I still do not yet understand why that qualifies as an unreliable source? Regardless - if you want to impeach my medical credentials on the basis that "Would anyone trust their health to someone who cited..." I wish you the best in medical school. 2A01:4B00:84C7:9E00:D972:2639:7E7B:DF23 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Just for context, the IP who has been battling at Devi Sridhar on behalf of that blogpost (and piously pointing to the BMJ when people complain about the blogpost) also reported me for edit-warring before reporting Phil Bridger for "abusive behavior." Per WP:NOTBATTLE he/she really needs to chill. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I've partially blocked the IP from Devi Sridhar since it's very clear you can't use a random blog for contentious material in a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite, but another new account DrJoHeiter, who just arrived today at this obscure dispute, agrees 100% with the IP's opinions, so blocking the IP isn't going to solve this. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarified my position earlier in the Talk page earlier - I think the conclusion reached at is the right one (an issue for regulators, not a Wikipedia article until they produce something that can be cited for it). To be clear, I have no intention to make edits to the page. DrJoHeiter (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This does not rise to the level of an ani report. Phil Bridger was certainly not abusive and whether the comments were uncivil is debatable-although I say no. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this was indeed ANI worthy, as evidenced by the partial block even if it's ANI worthy because of the well deserved BLP boomerang instead of for the reasons in the opening statement. Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism, socking, NPA violations and abuse

Hi admins. Please can you review the below edit contributions, as you can see the majority are abusive and in direct violation of policies such as WP:NPA. Suspect this is LTA given the apparent use of socks - someone should block and start an SPI thread. Cheers - 188.29.165.219 (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

You havent given us anything to look at. Can you post diffs or a link to the reported user(s). Amortias (T)(C) 09:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure - 188.29.165.219 (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

? Acroterion (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to upload a few of the edit diff links but it's not working. I think there's a filter preventing this - 188.29.165.219 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any public filter trips. [336] Could you at least mention one or more pages where the editor is a problem, or even better, one or more of their user names? Are you sure you are linking to something on en Wikipedia? We cannot do anything about any other website. Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

User:5.186.116.1

I don't know how many disruptive edits this IP has done, I've reported and it got blocked, but the contrib might need to be reviewed. I am going to bed! Night folks. Govvy (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant image

Anonymous editors have been inserting File:LizzoBrixt06Nov19-10 (49216792848) (cropped).jpg into irrelevant articles for the past month or two. The current target is Summit Mall (infobox); previous pages have been mainly years such as 1987, 1990 and 1992. Different IP every time. Certes (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Could it be added to the bad image list, or is that unnecessary? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 23:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That could help I would think. I've blocked the IP at Summit Mall as well for repeated posting of the image. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Carliertwo

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

I've been rewording and tagging many Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles where statements relating to critical reception are not supported by a source, and there are other examples of unnecessarily laudatory editorialisation. These have been reverted by Carliertwo who contends that I'm "outnumbered" (eg [337], [338], [339]) and that consensus dictates that the existing text was fine (eg, [340], [341]). I've cited, variously, WP:VERIFY, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:PUFFERY and WP:SAID in response, since I have trouble believing that one can be "outnumbered" in these situations. I warned the user that I'd be taking the matter here; they've continued to revert to the previous, unsourced and non neutrally worded versions of the articles.

This is part of an ongoing situation where I've noticed that the Banshees album and song articles have unsourced genres in the infobox; use subjectively applied terms like "very favourable" in the reviewer ratings box (where the guideline dictates that we should not: "... do not include language like "Very favorable" or "(mixed)" in the template, as this would be original research"); and frequently adopt exaggerated phrasing to describe a reviewer's reaction to the work. In the latter cases, the description is not supported by sources; it's a Wikipedia editor's PoV.

Last year, I found that Carliertwo was unable or unwilling to appreciate that the genre for the Banshees' cover of "Dear Prudence" required a source; again, their rationale was based on the idea that consensus had been established simply through years of the unsourced genre remaining unchallenged. I filed a report on the user Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive394#User:Carliertwo reported by User:JG66 (Result: ) and was disappointed that no admin picked up the report. Meantime, with the report filed, Carliertwo suddenly stopped the disruptive behaviour. From trying to locate that in the archives, I've just come across other complaints raised here about their behaviour on the same band's articles: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive942#User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive951#User:Carliertwo and Siouxsie and the Banshees (again), both from 2017.

Given that, I don't hold out any hope of being able to hatch out an agreement on the album talk pages. The edits I've attempted to make are all supported by policy, whereas the user appears to think they can be circumvented in favour of a popularity contest among editors. I'd like to be free to make those changes again, and I think Carliertwo needs a substantial topic ban from all things Siouxsie and the Banshees. JG66 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at the talk page of many Satb albums articles like for this album [342].

at the talk of The Scream (album)'' article, I explained that these two first sentences in this section [343] were a presentation of what follows , and they reflected what's inside the reviews. Excerpts of those reviews: "Record Mirror: The Scream "points to the future, real music for the new age", Melody Maker "...constantly inventive", ZigZag "magnificent record", Adam Sweeting "magnificent masterpiece", NME's Nick Kent "the traditional three-piece sound has never been used in a more unorthodox fashion with such stunning results", Paul Morley "it's innovation".

So why does this user tag those sentences, Upon its release, The Scream received critical acclaim. Critics in the British and American press generally agreed that the album was a landmark of its time and that the band's willingness to experiment made it a challenging listen., with "fact needed" whereas it is a presentation of what follows in the section with those 5 star reviews mentioned just previously here in my reply. Then, why does this user put in the commentary of this edit, "wp:puffery" and "wp:impartial" ? These two sentences have been present for more than 6 years, no user editing on that article (including professional journalist User:Greg Fasolino, who edited on all those satb albums articles) has said that these two sentences were cases of puffery and impartial.

Another case for this album [344], this user also tagged this sentence Peepshow received critical acclaim whereas the reviews were rated like this; Q (magazine) "5 out of 5 star review" and when there isn't any rate, the reviewers say: Record Mirror "Brimming with confidence [...], Peepshow is the Banshees' finest hour", Spin (magazine) "a dancefloor winner ... delightful, majestic ballad..the band sound as confident, abandoned and excited as when they started", Stereo Review, "Best of the Month"]], NME "Peepshow is the best Banshees record since A Kiss in the Dreamhouse". isn't it a critical acclaim ? Again this sentence was a presentation of all the reviews that follow in the section. So why does this user write "puffery" and "impartial" in their comment [345] ?

I had also suggested to ask a third opinion for all those satb albums articles [346]... Carliertwo (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No source supports statements like "The UK music press was unanimous in its praise for the album on its release" at A Kiss in the Dreamhouse. Ditto for "The four-CD box set compilation received critical acclaim upon its release" at Downside Up. They're just gratuitous statements, as are the constant references to music critics "hailing" albums and so forth.

If another writer comments that an album received a rave review in Melody Maker or was met with widespread praise, that would be different. But it's not the case in a single one of those Siouxsie and the Banshees album articles; rather, editors have synthesised the impression given by several favourable reviews to make an overall, grand statement. In all these examples the "hail"-worthiness of each writer's piece is self-sourced to the original review. And as mentioned, the reviewer ratings boxes have many subjective descriptions stating that a review was "highly favourable", etc. So overall, we're often taking isolated praise, adding unnecessarily lavish description in Wikipedia's voice when the quotes speak for themselves, and then constructing an overall description of critical reception based on that. It doesn't matter whether the impression one might get from a whole load of reviews is that "Upon its release, The Scream received critical acclaim. Critics in the British and American press generally agreed that the album was a landmark of its time and that the band's willingness to experiment made it a challenging listen." – it's not for us to say it. The approach, the correct approach as I've always understood it, is applied everywhere else on Wikipedia, or it certainly wouldn't be reverted to a version containing the sort of issues I'm highlighting if an editor sought to impose that approach.

At OK Computer#Critical reception, we have sources to support "OK Computer received critical acclaim. Critics in the British and American press generally agreed that the album was a landmark and would have far-reaching impact and importance ..." Same for statements at Pet Sounds (in the sections Contemporary reviews and Acclaimed status) such as "Early reviews for the album in the U.S. ranged from negative to tentatively positive ... By contrast, the reception from music journalists in the UK was highly favourable ... Pet Sounds has since appeared in many 'greatest records of all time' lists and has provoked extensive discourse regarding its musicianship and production." Or at Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)#Critical reception: "Aftermath received highly favourable reviews in the music press." And at Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)#Legacy and reappraisal: "Aftermath is often considered the Rolling Stones' first classic album." At Abbey Road#Contemporary: "Abbey Road initially received mixed reviews from music critics, who criticised the production's artificial sounds and viewed its music as inauthentic." and at Abbey Road#Retrospective: "Many critics have since cited Abbey Road as the Beatles' greatest album." All these statements are not only supported by reliable sources, but they're not self-sourced to the favourable/unfavourable reviews themselves.

I could go on and on with examples ... because, to repeat, I've seen this combination of puffery/OR/synthesis as increasingly a trait of Siouxsie and the Banshees articles, but not too many others. And the idea that because something's been in place for years at the articles then all's well is just ridiculous. Since when does that trump the policies I've cited? The album articles I've highlighted as having the correct approach are all of high standard, they've been well maintained since making GA or FA, and they're in keeping with what's done throughout the Music project, as far as I can see. It's as if these Siouxsie and the Banshees articles are frozen in time and are being actively allowed to violate some pretty clear policies. JG66 (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

ÆCE - Topic ban?

ÆCE (talk · contribs) as of late has taken to pages related to Sushant Singh Rajput and Rhea Chakraborty in an effort to include BLP-violating material.

Some background and context: Back in June, Rajput was found dead in what the press has for the most part described as a suicide via hanging. Unfortunately, his family and several dedicated fans reject this, and since then a few conspiracy theories have cropped up as a result, one of which essentially blames Chakraborty, who was at the time living with him (if I'm reading these reports right), of murdering him. At present, Charaborty is being investigated for abetment of suicide after the family's accusing her of same.

Onto ÆCE. While we've had no shortage of people who're trying to demand we remove the suicide claim from the article and its fork and infobox, ÆCE is instead trying to mould the text in such a way as to advance the "Chakraborty killed him" conspiracy theory surreptitiously; see here and here. He's filed spurious dispute resolution requests at 3O and at DRN, and shows no signs of listening to anything but mute assent. Cyphoidbomb and I have attempted to try to explain things to him as evenly as possible, but he only listens insofar as to find something he can use as a strawman and avoids addressing the most salient points (more specifically, the WP:BLP concerns Cyphoidbomb raises and the sources countering his position I've raised). Considering he's unwilling to accept any form of criticism and does not appear to be willing to see his interactions on those pages as anything but adversarial, I am asking that ÆCE be topic-banned from the topic of Sushant Singh Rajput's death, broadly construed. He has been DS-warned in re BLP/India, but after this MWoT I'm of the opinion he needs to be forcibly disengaged from the topic sooner, not later. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 02:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(Link to notification of ÆCE: [347]) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 03:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Responding admins, please see the "prime suspect" content added here and here and here (all three are basically the same) and please see if you notice anything problematic about it before reading on. The source ÆCE used was Hindustan Times. I explained in sufficient detail at Talk:Rhea Chakraborty that the content the user submitted was poorly-conceived, and lacked sufficient context, and that this lack of context resulted in potentially defamatory content that made a very strong negative implication. It doesn't help that the Hindustan Times source makes the same unqualified problematic statement. The editor ÆCE not only failed to comprehend the problem, but then opened a dispute resolution case about it, despite this being a pretty fundamental "hey, stop adding this problematic content" issue. I explained it again, yet the user still seems oblivious as of this DRN comment (TL;DR: search for is a "prime suspect" in Shushan's death case). The editor is new, so some learning curve is maybe expected, but they seem to fundamentally not understand the underlying issue, that you can't make poorly-qualified statements about people's involvement in crimes. I now have questions about the user's competency to edit in this area. In addition to this, the user keeps wanting to expand the discussions into multiple tangents about various aspects of the case, and is doing so not only at the DRN case, but also at Talk:Rhea Chakraborty, at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput and Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. I agree with Jéské, that this feels very agenda-driven, and it has become a major time-suck for editors to follow the same arguments from page to page. If an admin wants to try to teach them the ropes, fine, but otherwise, there is merit to Jéské's topic ban suggestion. There seems to be no way to educate the editor or satisfy their every question and counterpoint. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this is now moot. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

user:Za-ari-masen POV pushing, removing citations, and referenced texts and general WP:DE

• Za-ari-masen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Za-ari-masen (talk · contribs) is removing citations [348] and cited texts [349]. A number of editors have tried to WP:GF to engage with him on various POV pushing where he is in the minority of one, but he seems impervious to all arguments. Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system He will reject sources on one pretext or the other if they do not align with his POV. [350]. This behavior has been persistent. Chaipau (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Chaipau and the other user (Msasag) are simply misrepresenting the sources at multiple articles in what seems to be an ethnic POV pushing. The case here is Rangpuri language and Bengali-Assamese languages. The most widely used source for linguistic articles on Wikipedia, Ethnologue, lists "Bengali script" as the writing system for Rangpuri language[351]. But Chaipau is rejecting the source and replacing it with citations from sources that don't even support his edit to include Assamese alphabet or Bengali-Assamese script in what seems to be a source misrepresentation. Instead of discussing and addressing the issue, Chaipau and Msasag has resorted to edit-warring. The predisputed version at both articles had Bengal as the writing system for Rangpuri language. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • We have tried many ways to break this stonewalling by Za-ari-masen, to no avail. The biggest hindrance is this editor's behavior. We took the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_Ethnologue_reliable_for_the_Kamta_group_of_languages?. It was pointed out there that Ethnologue was a WP:TERTIARY source and Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY [352], but Za-ari-masen continued to not hear and renewed his tirades in Talk:Bengali–Assamese_script#Article_title (after slapping a tag on the article [353]). It was pointed out to him that he has been pushing his POV persistently since February 2019 [354]. He would move the page unilaterally without any discussion [355], [356], [357] (all of which had to be reverted. Eg. [358]) His behavior has been persistently disruptive on a long term basis, and he has been a hindrance to WP:CONSENSUS. Chaipau (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In this thread (Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system) Za-ari-masen is arguing with each and every other editors commenting there, which includes me, u:Austronesier, u:Msasag, u:Mohsin274, etc. Even after he "solicited" help from others [359], he ignored their advice when they went against him [360], [361], and continued with his POV pushing. Za-ari-masen is extremely disruptive, and in this case continued to stonewall even as there was a clear consensus among the rest of the editors. Chaipau (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't know why you are showing diffs of selective comments. On Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics, Uanfala commented that the Toulmen source that you were citing is already referenced in the Ethnologue survey for the language. So that makes Ethnologue a superior source in my opinion. In another section of the same talk page, LiliCharlie [commented ""It"? No. Unicode calls the script "Bengali script"]". Even on Rangpuri Language, Fylindfotberserk commented "As for this matter, one can ref the unicode source if it is newer and necessary." Overall, the neutral editors didn't take any sides as to what the script should be called. In fact, the diff of the comment by UserNumer you showed actually supported my position as he commented "Rangpuri is the term used by ethnic Bengalis of Bangladesh (and possibly a few West Bengalis). This specific tongue is written with the Bengali script". Yet, I agreed to keep both the scripts in the infobox as a compromise but even that was reverted by Msasag, who has simply been aimlessly edit-warring. The moves on Bengali-Assamese script were made 18 months back and I already accepted my mistake and refrained from moving the article. Even there, several editors have had corroborated my argument, [362], [363]. I'm at least allowed to discuss my points on talk pages, this is not WP:DE. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Za-ari-masen is making conflicting and misleading edits. I have noticed he changed the writing system of some Languages from "Bengali-Assamese script" to "Bengali script". In the talk pages, Msasag and Chaipau have provided many references to make him understand why it should be "Bengali-Assamese script" and not "Bengali script". But, he rejected all the points and is not ready to agree. We didn't reach any conclusion yet, but he is continuously making changes. And when Msasag reverted his repetitive edits, he reported the user for edit warring. He also proposed to rename "Bengali-Assamese script" to "Bengali script". By doing this, he will recreate an issue that was solved long ago after a year long discussion. Mohsin274 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Additional behavioral issues from India-Bangladesh topics

• Za-ari-masen is regularly engaging in disruptive editing on Bangladesh Liberation War by removing peoples' comments,[364] starting RfC and then withdrawing after it went against his POV,[365] casting WP:ASPERSIONS by calling editors a "nationalist"[366], engaging in very selective WP:CANVASSING,[367] wikilawyering,[368] and more. A sanction for such WP:CIR issues is definitely warranted. Orientls (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd request the admins to look at the diffs carefully because Orientls is clearly misrepresenting the diffs. The comment I removed from Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War was a blatant WP:NPA which was already stated by User:Nomian at the discussion[369] and after being restored by another editor, the comment was eventually redacted by an admin. I withdrew the RfC because according to WP:RFCCLOSE, the nom can withdraw the RfC. There was a solution proposed and approved by uninvolved editors so I thought there was no need for an RfC anymore. Before withdrawing, I also left a comment expressing my desire to withdraw, nobody objected and User:Aditya Kabir even supported it[370]. The comment being described as WP:ASPERSION was "I think nationalist sentiments have been exhibited from both sides...", I don't how it's aspersion. Regarding WP:CANVASSING, the diff itself shows that I didn't even notify any editor as I used "noping" to write the usernames of different editors in my comment. This false allegations are nothing new by Orientls as he has been doing this for everyone who opposes his POV, even User:Aditya Kabir and User:Kmzayeem have been subjected to such false allegations by Orientls multiple times at the talk page. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

But how any diffs were misrepresented? Just because you don't see any disruption in your editing, doesn't mean you are not being disruptive. I see you are still selectively WP:CANVASSING the editors so that they can come and defend you but note that you are alone responsible for your edits. These 2 diffs[371][372] are not similar to each other. "I withdrew the RfC because according to WP:RFCCLOSE, the nom can withdraw the RfC" but WP:RFCCLOSE's 5 points contradict every single reasoning of yours. Seeing your response here, it is clear that this is exactly what you do when you are discussing articles or interacting with other editors i.e. exhibit your own issues with poor comprehension skills. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

"But how any diffs were misrepresented?" From what I can see, not all diffs match Orientis' description of them. Za-ari-masen removed an anonymous editor's comments about the inferiority of Bangladesh's military in comparison to Pakistan, and the same editor's comment that the ones who disagree are Bangladeshi nationalists. The comment was not particularly constructive. The "aspersions" diff acknowledged nationalist sentiments on both sides of an argument, without accusing any specific user. The "canvassing" diff demonstrates that no users were pinged, so not a real case of canvassing. Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean from "an anonymous editor's comments"? See WP:IPHUMAN. The messages clearly didn't warrant blanket removal, and removing the comment was nothing more than an attempt reduce opposition. Making conduct based allegations without citing diffs is casting aspersions and just making acknowledgement of "nationalist sentiments on both sides of an argument" without providing any evidence does not make it any less of "aspersion" as long as it is not backed with the evidence. Orientls (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know all the stories and backgrounds here, but the one I know seem to be somewhat mispresented by the diffs and the commentary provided by Orientls. Za-ari definitely has discussed the closure of the RfC before he closed it (he also stated his reason), he was within his rights to do so (though it was probably not the right course of action, given the combustible nature of the discussion), and when reverted, he didn't go into war.

He closed the RfC because he explicitly agreed to the status quo achieved, not because it went against him. Rather the current status quo went against what Orientls wanted and he is the one who reverted the RfC closure (I am not trying to incriminate him, just pointing out the irony). As for the "nationalist POV" bit, I believe that particular word was used over a dozen times by at least half a dozen editors, including Orientls and I.

As anyone reading this would have noticed, I have provided no diffs here (I don't want to waste my energy on digging dirt for nothing). But that doesn't mean I can't. Anyone can ask for the diffs if needed, and I shall provide them as promptly I can.

Thank you. Y Tea anyone? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The close was completely inappropriate and having "discussed the closure of the RfC" is not gonna fly especially when Za-ari-masem is deliberately misrepresenting WP:RFCCLOSE. I am not the "one who reverted the RfC closure", and not a single time I have used the word "nationalist". You should better try citing diffs for your claims and you are not going to put up a strong defense for Za-ari-masen if you continue making these invalid claims. Orientls (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You are right. You didn't right "nationalist POV", you wrote just "POV" (I checked back). And you didn't revert the closure. Srijanx22 did, another editor from the team bludgeoning that talk, did. If I remember correctly the status quo really went against all of your opinions (not Za-ari's). Good that you have most everyone of that team here, including him. Anyways, my interest here is not Za-ari or Rangpuri language. So I think you can continue this without my participation. You guys have already managed a 48 hours block against me, and I don't think I have enough lawyering in me to fight with this kind of games. Y I go back to my cup of tea. Have nice day all. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Self-trout Not nice. Reducted. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban for Za-ari-masen

Za-ari-masen has been blocked 2 times this year over a subject that is intersection between India and Bangladesh. There has been already one ANI thread against Za-ari-masen earlier this year.[373] Two days ago, Za-ari-masen went ahead to report an editor on WP:ANEW[374] while himself violating WP:3RR by making 6 reverts in just 7 hours 1 day.[375][376][377][378][379][380] The above response which reads nothing more than WP:GASLIGHTING given the misrepresentation of WP:RFCCLOSE alone, I do think that Za-ari-masen lacks the necessary competence to edit in this area and should be topic banned from anything related to India and Bangladesh for an indefinite period.

• Support as proposer. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support The continued double downing, failure to understand any policies and the recent edit warring against multiple editors is enough to justify this sanction. Orientls (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose A topic ban based on two incidents, a mention of past blocks (dude, many of our admins have one or two blocks under their belts, and I have one too, WP is not about being judgemental), an essay and an untruth about an RfC closure (see above discussion)... can that really be a case for topic ban? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion per selective canvassing above.

• Oppose A clear case of editor targeting. Orientls and Abhishek0831996 are part of the group of users who had been edit-warring and stonewalling Bangladesh Liberation War. Za-ar-masen's RfC at the talk page of Bangladesh Liberation War brought attention of the wider community to stop the stonewalling and this led them to target the editor here. Orientls has clearly falsified the diffs which had been explained by Dimadick above. Even Abhishek0831996 has used the same tactic by falsely claiming "6 reverts in just 7 hours" when the diffs actually extend across 31 hours and all of the diffs don't seem to be reverts. I think an action is due against Orientls and Abhishek0831996 for using ANI as a forum for personal vendetta against an editor, that too by falsifying diffs. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kmzayeem (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion per selective canvassing above.

• I don't see a single diff being falsified, and given you don't even understand what is a WP:REVERT since all of those cited edits indeed "seem to be reverts", I can't expect anything from you. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

And it seems both Abhishek0831996 and Orientls have started to bludgeon, [381], [382], like they did at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: As the reporter, I shall not take a position here; but in this thread (Talk:Rangpuri_language#Writing_system) Za-ari-masen is arguing with each and every other editors commenting there, which includes me, u:Austronesier, u:Msasag, u:Mohsin274, etc. Even after he "solicited" help from others [383], he ignored their advice when they went against him [384], [385], and continued with his POV pushing. Za-ari-masen is extremely disruptive, and in this case continued to stonewall even as there was a clear consensus among the rest of the editors. Chaipau (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC) — moving this comment to the top of the section in context. Chaipau (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Misrepresentation of source on Bengali–Assamese languages[386] is concerning because the quote verifies the information of the source by noting "as used in Assamese script". But this user makes 3 reverts [387][388][389] without any participation on talk page just to remove the term by falsely claiming that it is not in the source. This clearly shows that we are better off without having this user create problems in this whole subject. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

After Abhishek0831996 and Orientls I was waiting for Srijanx22 to join in. This is the same group of editors that has been hounding Za-ari and bludgeoning the Liberation War article, has fought him in other ANIs and came after me when I supported him. This pretty much looks like a pattern of behaviour with this particular group of editors. But, seriously guys, are you going to use every revert Za-ari ever made against him? Well... your choice. Maybe you guys will win. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Self-trout Not nice. Reducted. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support: When Za-ari-masen was warned about edit warring in the jhalmuri and mutton curry articles, he called Kingarthur581 a "troll."[390] Also, when his behavior was pointed out, he "did not hear that".[391] --1990'sguy (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with what have been said above that this seems to be a spillover of the animosity shown at Bangladesh liberation war dispute. Folks, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to fight wars as representatives of different countries. Ganging up on a person if you disagree with them is uncalled for. W.r.t the original report, I don't see any formal dispute resolution effort at the language articles, perhaps, adopting one of the DR venues is the best approach to sort out a disagreement. WP:ANI only creates animosity and should be used as the last resort. Nomian (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nomian (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion per selective canvassing above.

Nomian Thank you for your suggestion on taking this through the DR process, but we have tried many ways to break this stonewalling by a single editor, to no avail. The biggest hindrance is this editor's behavior. We took the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Is_Ethnologue_reliable_for_the_Kamta_group_of_languages?. It was pointed out there that Ethnologue was a WP:TERTIARY source and Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY [392], but Za-ari-masen continued to not hear and renewed his tirades in Talk:Bengali–Assamese_script#Article_title (after slapping a tag on the article [393]). It was pointed out to him that he has been pushing his POV persistently since February 2019 [394]. He would move the page unilaterally without any discussion [395], [396], [397] (all of which had to be reverted. Eg. [398]) His behavior has been persistently disruptive on a long term basis, and he has been a hindrance to WP:CONSENSUS. Chaipau (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC) - moving this comment to a reply to Za-ari-masen instead.

• Comment Hi, I stumbled in this discussion through the notification for mentioning me here, I am not here to judge anyone or take any party's side. I do agree that I had disagreement and argument with Za-ari-masen previously but he is also very friendly toward me and helped me create the article shukto and I think except some disagreement in past, he is a very nice person. But I am also opposing the term Ganging up on a person used by Nomian, Accusing the supporters of topic ban as some "Indian Wikipedians who are trying to gang up on a Bangladeshi Wikipedian and block him just for personal disagreement without any reason" is a very serious accusation when the discussion going on here with each party providing their proofs and reasons and where the general consensus is being taken up without disrespecting any opposition party's opinion. I hope Za-ari-masen will evade this process and won't engage in further NPOV dispute with other editors as accused. Kingarthur581 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to disrespect anyone here and I didn't say it's an Indian vs Bangladeshi scene. My only intention was to accurately describe the situation. I apologize brother if my comment sent a wrong message which was not intended. Nomian (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support I DID NOT HEAR THAT is best way to describe the attitude Za-ari-masen pursues. He has been blocked multiple times for similar set of misconducts earlier as well. Most of his edits which caused him to be reported here, are focused on unsourced PoV tweaks, not about substantial changes in article but rather like changing country of origin being Bangladesh for cuisines/languages/scripts (regularly involves in it and causes disputes) or Bangladeshi victory on liberation war etc..[399][400] He misrepresents sources, rejects or ignores elaborations by other editors, even pushes news articles from barely used sources as "established reliable sources" [401] for whom, not even an RfC ever occurred, (that even without interpreting the context within those sources). He has been pushing for a result unsupported by sources on Bangladesh Liberation War, and always starts to accuse other editors of not assuming good faith towards him, bullying him or gaming the system. But has never cared to failed to provide any sources. He holds serious competence issues and displays gross failures to understand Wikipedia policies about WP:VAND/WP:EW/WP:CANVASSING.[402][403] It is not like that anyone has not tried to help him understanding how system works. [404][405][406][407], he ignores that and instead flamebaits is his own misconduct. It is not entirely true that his misconducts are only because his lack of understanding of sources and wikipedia. But rather his WP:ILIKEIT preferences motivate him to derail underway dispute resolutions. For instance, closure of this ongoing RfC without concensus towards his side, in fact, not even any substantial leaning to his preferred version, yet has an approved version (by which editors?) as a result [408] and in fact had been dragging his entire case in this RfC solely on emotions of editors on his side than any single reliable source. There are plenty more issues he has created and has become a problem for lot of good editors. He clearly is a disruptor than a contributor and should be topic banned until he realises and acknowledges for what he has been reported. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I can see a lot going there — repeating "source" 10 times, discussing an RfC closure (which is still within Za-ari's rights, though the unnecessary revert of the RfC is probably within the right of the reverting editor as well), repeating other editors, and contradictory agrument like he doesn't understand policy and he ignores policy (which, obviously, are not the same)... is there anything in this long and somewhat repeatative post that addresses Chaipau's complaint? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I shared my experiences, but don't forget multiple articles have been mentioned above where Za-ari-masen has aggressively edit warred. For policies, he indeed didn't understand it much. And kept mum on his own misconducts (and misconducts from the editors he favoured as well) to little part he was citing repeatedly. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Quite frankly, I do have to agree with the other Oppose !votes. A lot of this has came from assuming bad faith. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I would again urge the admins to carefully verify whether the descriptions of the diffs match or not. The source mentioned by Srijanx22 states on page 52, The Rajbanshis are making an effort to rediscover their own script by resurrecting the scripts of the texts written mostly during the 15th century which means the Rajbanshis are not using Assamese alphabet but are trying to create their own separate script which is why I removed Assamese alphabet. The claim of 1990'sguy is false because I didn't call the editor a troll rather described the inappropriate notice on my talkpage as "troll notice" in an edit summary. Aman.kumar.goel has just restated the same false allegation that he has been making against me for a number of times. All my edits are sourced, on Bangladesh Liberation War, I provided quotation from a book published by University Press Limited to back my argument. The news article mentioned by Aman is actually a source from The Daily Star (Bangladesh) which was used in an unsourced stub article, so essentially he was arguing to revert back to the unsourced version of the article without even providing any contradictory source. In both cases, he has tried to reject the sources just because they didn't match his POV. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support: The above comment by Za-ari-masen is really a case of WP:CIR. Searching for a script does not mean finding it. And then finding that the Rajbangsi script was identical to the Assamese script does not mean that the Assamese script is the Bengali script. I am amazed at these mind-bending inferences. I have noticed no substantive contribution from this editor in any of the articles I have seen so far except POV pushing; nor have I seen any help from him for the community to come to WP:CONSENSUS except never-ending conflict on nationalism issues. I have no choice but to support a topic ban, if not an indefinite ban. This editor displays WP:CIR issues and helps Wikipedia in nothing. Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: I believe you just killed your case with your last few posts, here and elsewhere. WP:CIR, though unusual, can be a reason for blocks and bans. I requested you to let go and not fight, and you didn't listen. Now you are here.

Even if you get out of this unsinged, please, learn to listen. Wikipedia is written by a community, not individual authors. Not listening in a community is a big problem indeed. Chaipau and Aman.kumar.goel has also complained about this tendency of not listening.

How do you remain compliant to a community if you don't listen to it? Not good, brother. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I have informed the user earlier that their edits are “anachronistic and problematic.”[409] I said to the user: Surely, you know that the Bengal region is shared between Bangladesh and India so don't you think the previous revisions characterizing these as being "Bengali" or from the "Bengal region" of South Asia are better? I agree with the other users here, clear WP:IDNHT and WP:CIR. Also, I find these examples to be more of the same problematic behavior.[410] [411] Even those who earlier supported them here, have now stated the following: How do you remain compliant to a community if you don't listen to it?.Eliko007 (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support When there is no doubt about apparent WP:CIR then there should be no doubt towards this proposed sanction. Lorstaking 13:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, because there's plenty of evidence here of people supporting sanctions to clear the decks of opposition. If there's evidence of problematic editing, it's much better handled at AE, where uninvolved administrators can decide whether this is just a content dispute or if there are genuine policy violations occurring. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh isn't covered by any Arbcom sanctions. Hence this issue cannot be handled on AE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• support 6-month topic ban. Aman Kumar Goel's diffs show a pattern of misconduct, but this thread also shows evidence of misconduct by others and disagreement over the severity of Za-ari-masen's poor behavior. Based on what I've seen, I feel Abhishek0831996 has a stronger case, but a possible consensus from this thread would be a temporary topic ban. Worldlywise (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support, mainly on the evidence provided by Abhishek0831996. Supposed or imagined behavior of others doesn't justify your own problematic editing and lack of remorse. Zakaria1978 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Is it me or does no one else see the misleading exaggeration in Abhishek0831996's report?

The six reverts which they initially claim to have been made within 7 hour and then amended to one day have been done within a span period of 2 days without violating 3RR. Still not the best of conduct and certainly an edit war over a content dispute. However, there is not a single warning on their talk page during or after this period, and this was brought straight to ANI by someone who themselves are a part of the content dispute during an ongoing discussion whereas this should have been the last resort.

The accusation of gaslighting also seems to be unwarranted and rather inflammatory especially from someone who is also accusing them of a lack of competence. WP:RFCCLOSE isn't a policy but a summarisation of general practice which does state that participants do at times close them. They should probably have not have made the close themselves considering how contentious the topic appears but I can see a conscious attempt to implement a compromise solution rather than forwarding their POV. (See the talk page revision)

I should probably mention that this is likely the extension of antagonism in two reports on Arbitration Enforcement between more or less the same group of editors (see the first two reports on Archive 270). To me this appears like a very blatant attempt "to clear the decks of opposition" as Vanamonde has already stated, and likely needs a much deeper inspection into the conducts of multiple editors here (which also should include Zia-ari-masem's but not in this manner). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Then you don't know what 3RR means because WP:3RR says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.... Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions." Doing 6 reverts in 32 hours isn't the right thing to do. You are wrong about other things too since Za-ari-masen has warnings and messages on his talk page, he does not deserve more warnings. Diffs show that he has been notified of his actions on his own talk page as well as elsewhere, on talk page & on other users' where he jumped to flamebait. His misinterpretation of policies from his comments clearly justifies allegations of gaslighting. Your false equivalence amounts to WP:ASPERSIONS and you should refrain from doing this type of misrepresentation since Wikipedia isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I've appropriately called their behavior to be an edit war as they by-passed the 3 revert rule by making a fourth revert a few hours after the passage of 24 hours from their third revert. Whereas your report above gives an impression that they blatantly disregarded the rule by doing 6 reverts within 24 hours which isn't the case. You have otherwise failed to demonstrate what policies they have "misrepresentated" and how it qualifies as "gaslighting," accusations especially of this kind need to be substantiated and your representation of those diffs does not work in your favor.

Moreover, I have not compared anyone to anyone here so I don't know what false equivalence you are talking about. If you think an uninvolved editor questioning your report is the same as casting aspersions and indulging in battleground behavior then that at the least is a failure on your part to assume good faith. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"More or less the same group of editors"... maybe that is what lies at the base of almost all the disputes, and certainly all the conflicts. Also the amount of false allegations, misquotes, cherrypicking etc. is somewhat unsettling. Can this also be a type of WP:POLSHOP? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakte: You were saying above "without violating 3RR", and now you are changing your words after you were given the correct definition of WP:3RR. Similarly you falsely claimed "same group of editors" who participated in unrelated reports have entered here, when most of the editors here have nothing to do with those reports. Reliable sources, WP:RFCCLOSE, etc. have been blatantly misrepresented by Za-ari-masen and to continue refusing to agree with the actual interpretation of the sources or the policies is indeed gaslighting. With so many faulty interpretations of policies from you in offering a dubious defense for the reported editor is misleading, but it is also appalling that you are ready to point out "assume good faith" contrary to WP:DLTAGF even after falsely accusing others of "blatant attempt "to clear the decks of opposition"". This type of conduct speaks mainly about your own problematic approach. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Your inability to differentiate between violation of 3RR and any edit warring isn't me changing my words, more importantly you have yet to address the obvious exaggeration in your presentation. Secondly, I don't see them even mentioning reliable sources here and don't find the defense of their RfC closure to be "gaslighting."

There is also amply evidence to the effect that this is indeed an attempt "to clear the decks of opposition" which is something pointed out not just by me. For instance, every single editor (with the exception of the sysops) who were either mentioned or commented on the two AE reports are all involved in this report.

Whereas I have yet to see anything other than unsubstantiated inflammatory accusations from you till now which itself is disruptive conduct not suited for collegial discussions on Wikipedia. Since you are now accusing me of "many faulty interpretations of policies from you in offering a dubious defense for the reported editor," I would like you substantiate that as well. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

What everyone can see is that you are alone with your misrepresentation of WP:3RR and your misleading definition that "the 3 revert rule by making a fourth revert a few hours after the passage of 24 hours" is not a 3RR violation - is not supported by any guideline or policy.

If this is not a misrepresentation of source then what it is? I am yet to see your rather a fairytale "amply evidence" given there is no policy which says that you are not allowed to report an editor for WP:DE just because you editing the same topic as him.

At this stage, you are only trying to have the last word and I don't think I will be interested in entertaining this WP:IDHT of yours any further. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't come here to start a long dispute but if you continue to throw inflammatory accusations at me then I would have to respond now, wouldn't I? Your conduct till now in response to my comment has only strengthened my opinion on the oppose !vote.

For example take a look at the policy on edit warring and how it defines 3RR and Edit Warring.

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring.

Your report makes it seem like they blatantly crossed that "bright line" with 6 reverts. I pointing out that they did not in fact violate 3RR, i.e cross the "bright line" which is prohibited with emphasis but considered that they did indulge in edit warring by by-passing it (gaming the system). In response you could have easily corrected it but instead resorted to accusing me of misrepresentation of 3RR and pretending as if there's no difference.

In fact, in response to my comment you've accused me of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, contradicting WP:DLTAGF (an essay) because I linked assume good faith, of falsely accusing others and as of latest WP:IDHT while ignoring or similarly denying all the original points I made. In light of this, how am I to support your unsubstantiated accusations against them on something like WP:GASLIGHTING?

Regarding the one "misrepresentation" of theirs that you've bothered to link for the first time, it can be reasonably argued that usage of a letter from a script isn't equivalent to adoption of the script. Something which I assume you'd be able see if you made an effort to see their side of the debate, curiously enough you're the one accusing me of WP:IDHT. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per the diffs provided for edit warring on multiple pages and misrepresentation of sourses. It seems that the user has language problems (difficulty in understanding others) in addition to the lack of collaborative conduct. The indefinite topic ban should give them enough opportunity to remedy their behaviour. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support The complete refusal to accept any mistake is concerning, and this message by Za-ari-masen was the last straw. Capitals00 (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, frankly, what I see in the diffs are only disagreements, "the source says this — no, the source says that", "we shouldn't use this source — no, we should." There is still no clear evidence if Za-ari-masen has really violated the policies and the support votes in this funny poll are precisely what Vanamonde93 stated, to clear the decks of opposition. Posts from Tayi Arajakate give more insights as to how Za-ar-masen is being targeted by his opponents. A successful attempt at targeting an editor would encourage the group to target others and would set a dangerous precedent, especially when we know that there has been some organized campaigning in different forums outside to influence editing in Wikipedia in this topic area. --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)