Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1030

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

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

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

I agree with your intent, but must point out that attempts to cut the drama often result in even more drama than there would otherwise have been. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A different editor has made the point more clearly and eloquently than me at the move discussion. (the bottommost addition is the comment I'm referring to) Sean Heron (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the "no consensus" NAC RM closure at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Requested move 11 February 2020 was fair. It followed the previous "no consensus" close at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak/Archive 7#Requested move 2 February 2020, which was also fair, and there have been three speedy closes of new RMs in-between. A large number of editors have now considered and expressed an opinion on these RMs (which are all variations of the same RM, namely taking the name "Wuhan" out). I think that we should have a moratorium on RMs for this article for a few weeks, rather than the current repeated RMs, which I don't think are getting anywhere, and are a drain on editing time. Consensus will become much clearer in the months ahead, but it is not there now. Britishfinance (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• It needs to have at least a 14-day quarantine period before making any more RMs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Per the Talk Page, I count at least 5 RMs in the last 10 days (4 closed and one open), all with variations of removing "Wuhan" from the title. I think the article could do with some kind of enforced break on RMs (particularly ones that involve removing "Wuhan" from the title for a few weeks). Britishfinance (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I kind of assumed people would address the issues put forwards. What's not clear on the current title being a) a highly problematic name, as it is stigmatising and b) nowhere close to being the WP:COMMONNAME? This whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't effectively xenophobic obstructionism (I'm not saying that users opposing the move are xenophobic, but in sum, that's the outcome that is being achieved).

I'd also like to point out that a large proportion of the "not-votes" in the first closure Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak/Archive 7#Requested move 2 February 2020 (which was biased if you ask me, but somewhat acceptable), were for "wait until the official name is decided, which should be in a short period of time". Which returns me to my first point - the official name is out. So tell me again, what are the arguments for the xenophobia encouraging name? (All I can think of is inertia, and the notion of not wanting to appear anti-racists [God forbid we appear anti-racist! Much better to appear racist!] ). Regards, but with little understanding for some of the points put forwards here, Sean Heron (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. !Votes are not assessed by number, but by weight of argument.

Give it a rest. What's the WP:DEADLINE? Why the rant about xenophobia and anti-racists? Some of us are just trying to build an encyclopaedia.

An awful lot of time can be wasted on trying to get pagenames exactly right during ongoing events. It really is a waste of effort. Just make sure above all else that readers can find what they're looking for, and worry about the fine bureaucratic details later. I've seen futile arguments about whether an article about a recent demise should be titled "Death of", "Killing of", "Shooting of" or "Murder of". Just leave the damthing alone until matters are more clear. Narky Blert (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I agree that !Votes should not be assessed by number. But I'm still to hear the weight of one argument to be made for keeping the current title - and I mean it, I can't think of even one! So that is precisely the problem here! And no - the point is not getting it "exactly right". I don't care whether the article is called "2019-20 outbreak of novel Coronavirus" or "COVID-19 outbreak" or "2019 Coronavirus epidemic" or whatever (at least not that much). But as per WP:COMMONNAME (to quote "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. ") move it away from the one that so obviously is stigmatising (oh - and I'll point out here again - the current name is not the most common one!)

And regarding the ranting - to be honest, its absolutely disgraceful that the article has had its current title for the better part of three weeks already. No deadline? Are you suggesting I pretend that the title a couple hundred thousand people a day read on that article has no effect? Regards Sean Heron (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Still waiting for anyone to actually address the issues I pointed out...

The RM closure yesterday was not done correctly by a non-admin, so just start a WP:MR before the discussion gets archived, and leave it at that. There should really not be any more RM discussion for at least a couple of weeks after that. Hzh (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S. Done - I've put the closure up for review. Sean Heron (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

How on earth is the name stigmatizing? It's just the location where the outbreak started. Also, this looks like a content dispute to me. My advice is to just wait until all the drama settles down, and you can discuss a name change then. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 01:48, 14 February 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.

USS Nimitz UFO incident edit war

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

---

I am at the center of an edit war on the USS Nimitz UFO incident page. I have been tying to work on this page adding sources and carefully interfacing with the community in the talk page and over at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident but to no avail (this discussion is filled with unmotivated personal attacks). A user has just reverted all of mine and other edits back to an arbitrary point in time (not so arbitrary...my first edit). I have reverted and attempted to deescalate by including what constructive contributions he had proposed (including sections related to ongoing discussions which he had removed blindly) but he has simply reverted me once more and challenges me to continue. Nothing of the sort has happened to me before so I'm not sure how to handle this but the work of several editors and multiple ongoing discussions are being trumped by this behaviour. Here is the last revert in question: [1] Thanks. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This really isn't the forum for content disputes. Use disputes resolution and accompanying requests to resolve the dispute. In case of chronic edit warring, list on AN3. Thanks and good luck. El_C 17:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you I will follow your advices! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Request for deadlock-breaking on coronavirus disease move discussion

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

---

There seems to be deadlock at Talk:2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease#RfC:_What_should_the_new_name_for_this_article_be?. There's overwhelming consensus that the current article title is wrong, and should be changed ASAP, and agreement on the two reasonable alternatives for the new name; but deadlock on whether COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019 is the right one of the two to choose. The last discussion close ended with a request for admin help, but didn't post here. I'd toss a coin and fix it myself, but I've already participated in the discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Pure content dispute. I don’t see why this is here. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's procedural deadlock, and someone needs to come along to fix it in the spirit of WP:IAR. -- The Anome (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • What deadlock? The RfC (or RM masquerading as a RfC) wasn’t even open 9 hours. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Not really. The RM hasn't even run its full seven days yet. And this certainly isn't so urgent that it requires an incident resport here. WP:AN and WP:ANRFC are the more usual places to request admin eyes that aren't an incident. I do think the discussion is ripe for closure some time soon though, but what we don't want is someone who's just going to "toss a coin" on this... we need a considered analysis of the arguments made and the discussion, with hopefully a rationale that everyone can (albeit grudgingly) accept. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

    • There is no rush. Both of the proposed candidates are redirects to the current article, so no one searching for either of those options is going to have any difficulty finding the article. Take the time to think it through and reach a consensus decision.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome: WP:CEN is best suited for this imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:20, 16 February 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:141.161.133.29

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.

---

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

This user has shown a persistent pattern of POV editing using unsourced allegations, weasel words, original research, misrepresentation and deletion of sourced content with weak or no justification. The user has been given an abundance of warnings but has not shown any acknowledgement of them and continues to make POV edits that are unhelpful, go against article consensus and appear to me and other editors to advance a political agenda.

Here is a collection of problematic edits by this user:

• Michel Foucault – 02:30, 26 January 2020
• Camillo Berneri – 12:30, 26 January 2020
• Left Democratic Front (Kerala) – 13:08, 27 January 2020
• Socialist Party of Albania – 15:17, 27 January 2020
• Bunkers in Albania – 15:33, 27 January 2020
• Religion in Albania – 16:51, 27 January 2020
• Sino-Albanian split – 03:21, 28 January 2020
• Cayman Democratic Party – 03:12, 29 January 2020
• Suharto – 01:29, 30 January 2020
• Sukarno – 01:49, 30 January 2020
• Embedded liberalism – 03:09, 30 January 2020
• Fred C. Koch – 03:16, 2 February 2020
• Winfield Scott Hancock – 17:24, 2 February 2020
• Walt Whitman Rostow – 14:49, 4 February 2020
• Alberta Non-Partisan League – 04:02, 6 February 2020
• Cambodian People's Party – 23:12, 6 February 2020
• Keith Ellison – 03:43, 8 February 2020
• Party for Freedom – 18:06, 8 February 2020
• Freedom Party of Austria – 18:24, 8 February 2020
• Alliance for the Future of Austria – 18:38, 8 February 2020
• Podemos Perú – 15:55, 9 February 2020
• Alliance for Progress (Peru) – 15:55, 9 February 2020
• National Solidarity Party (Peru) – 15:56, 9 February 2020
• Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) – 01:40, 12 February 2020
• Alexander Swettenham – 12:45, 13 February 2020

Tdc42 (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, this is puzzling. Maybe a potential block is in order? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP user for two weeks for long-term disruptive editing and despite the multiple warnings left on their user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:30, 15 February 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:Denisarona's repeated rollback misuse and failure to communicate

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

---

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

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

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

• a good-faith edit, possibly just a good edit;
• a misguided but nevertheless a seemingly good-faith edit;
• a good-faith edit;
• yet another good-faith edit,
• and a seemingly reasonable red link addition, there's apparently even a very early stage draft for a potential article.

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

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

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

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

This is a clear misuse of rollback. The edits in question may or may not have needed to be reverted (I haven't checked that) but they were clearly not vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the reversion of your good faith edit without comment was bad, and have restored it.

The message you left on the user's talk page ought, in my opinion, to have been a little more friendly and a little less confrontational. In my experience, if you're friendly and assume good faith you're more likely to get an explanation and/or an apology. By saying this I am not excusing the rollback. --kingboyk (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's true enough as a general rule, but I will note that the friendly approach was tried in 2019 and generated the same response from the user as my direct approach, i.e. a summary deletion of the message. Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone with advanced permissions, such as rollback, should be able to cope with robust questioning of their actions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Just curious, Iaritmioawp, but why are you editing logged out, from an IP account? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Simply put, it's convenient. Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is an appreciable concern, though while the deletion of concerns from 2014, that is a major gap, so I've somewhat discounted that. However, the burst in February alone plus the lack of response (well, one very specific response) in your case is sufficient to require an explanation. The community has been pretty clear that tools require a willingness to answer to queries about their usage. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• As a vandal-reverting rollbacker, I'm moved to agree with the concerns expressed here regarding the February rollbacks being pointed to, along with the Talk page deletions. I'd suggest pulling the permissions asap unless there is a prompt explanation/contrition/understanding and agreement to improve expressed. Jusdafax (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  The urgency may be exaggerated. Let's just wait for an answer, unless the user resumes editing without providing an answer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think the urgency is exaggerated. And I find reverting talk page comments about one's edits as "cretinous" unbecoming. @Denisarona:, I think it best if you not edit further without responding here.-- Deepfriedokra 05:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  The 'cretinous' edit summary is certainly unbecoming, but it was from 2014 so is probably a bit stale. However, this is a clear misuse of rollback, and Denisarona ought not to be removing legitimate queries about reverts from their talk page without a response. My advice to CVUA trainees is that mistakes with reverting vandalism do inevitably happen; when they do, and a good faith user comes to your talk page to complain, you should engage with them politely even if they are rude. Check the edit and, if your revert was a mistake, apologise quickly and profusely. Denisarona - I'm sure it would set people's minds at ease if you were to state here that you understand what people are saying, that you have refreshed yourself with WP:ROLLBACK, and that this won't be something we ned to revisit. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Damn. 2014. Didn't see the timestamp. (need new glasses). But as Girth Summit says, back when I did a lot of RCP, I'd make the occasional mistake with rollback and apologize, 'cause to be blunt, it really pisses people off and rightly so. I'm inclined to just pull the tool and ask them to reapply after 6 months, 'cause their error rate is too high. I don't know if anyone still likens overzealous rollback to playing an active shooter video game, but one must take care to not give that impression. (When I was a lad, we had to carry our templates on our backs through the snow, going uphill both ways.)-- Deepfriedokra 13:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  On the other hand, 2014 suggests chronicity if the problems persist today. If we are going to hand out tools that once were available only to admins, we need to hold accountable those using them.-- Deepfriedokra 13:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Last edit 2020-02-10T17:57:34-- Deepfriedokra 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  +1 to removing rollback - give them a day or so to communicate (as far as I can tell they last edited before this thread was opened), and if no explanation is forthcoming, pull it. Speaking as a fellow rollback-equipped editor, this doesn't look like appropriate use of the tool (fails WP:ROLLBACK's appropriateness criteria), and I'd encourage Denisarona to consider using Twinkle's rollback and providing an edit summary instead of using the built-in rollback tool. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra that would be WP:MMORPG. Creffett I'm with you on recommending Twinkle rather than standard rollback in most circumstances - the ability to choose one of the options that allows you to tap out a quick edit summary, which is much better practice when dealing with anything but obvious sheer vandalism, is very convenient. That wouldn't help with the refusal to communicate when questioned about a revert though. Looking back through the history Denisarona's user talk page, I'm seeing a great deal of trolling and abuse going back a long way - that comes with the territory if you do RCP, but it isn't pleasant, and it might have affected their ability/willingness to discern between good faith editors questioning a revert, and trolls coming to harass them. Removing the perm won't help with that - it might even make things worse (I take all this abuse for years and this is the thanks I get?). What I'd like to see is for them to log in, see this discussion, re-read the relevant guidance, and make a statement to the effect that they understand the concerns and will strive to improve their practice moving forward - a driver awareness course, rather than revoking their licence. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Deepfriedokra, I was obviously hoping for Denisarona's engagement here, but they haven't edited since this thread was opened. I don't think that this should be archived and forgotten about, so with a heavy heart I am inclined to default to your suggestion that the rollback perm be pulled. I'm not sure we need to wait 6 months for reinstatement - personally, I'd be happy to see it restored via an application to WP:PERM indicating that they understand why their use of it was inappropriate, and an undertaking not to do it again. Your thoughts would be appreciated. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Make it so. Permalink to this thread with explanation of conditions for reinstatement. Any opposed? Speak now.-- Deepfriedokra 23:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I'm going to add now that my laptop just died, my charger is at work, and I'm not going to attempt to do any of that on mobile. I support your proposal, but will leave it to someone else to implement, lest I make a total hash of it. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, now that we have clear proof the user isn't interested in discussing, or even recognizing, their mistakes, we need to consider also removing their pending changes reviewer flag. Such blatant unwillingness to be held accountable for one's use of advanced permissions as displayed here is incompatible with holding advanced permissions of any kind. I'm not opposed to their regaining the rights as soon as they commit to addressing constructive feedback going forward of course, but not until then. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I think removing pending changes would be punitive rather preventive of misuse.-- Deepfriedokra 03:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like they haven't used it a single time despite having it for 10 years so I don't see how it would be "punitive" at all. Then again, I suppose there's little enough harm in letting him/her keep the hat that I won't insist. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Iaritmioawp, actually the log for pending changes reviews is "review log", not "pending changes log" (no idea why, it's confusing). Schazjmd (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess the pending changes log is for admins applying the setting to articles then? Very counter-intuitive. I suppose with the new knowledge, I'd be inclined to insist on revoking the right as it is being actively used but it seems to me the ship has sailed. I'll keep an eye on Denisarona's use of the right going forward instead. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Iaritmioawp, I suggest that you don't keep an eye on anything Denisarona is doing. Leave them be and go do your own thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If you'd rather do it yourself, just say a word. Otherwise, I suggest you assume good faith and move on. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note I've removed Denisarona's rollback and left an explanatory note per Girth Summit's recommendation.-- Deepfriedokra 03:34, 14 February 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.

Winged Blades of Godric serving as proxy for banned user

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

---

☁Personally It appears Winged Blades of Godric is serving as a proxy for banned user PunjabCinema07.

Background: In 2013 a domestic violence complain was made against Gurbaksh Chahal, a software entrepreneur. Police investigating the report obtained a 30-minute surveillance camera video tape of Chahal kicking and punching his girlfriend 117 times. He threatened to kill her four times and smothered her for ten minutes with a pillow. Chahal was charged with 47 felony counts. However, a judge ruled that the video was inadmissible because the police seized it improperly. The DA agreed to reduce the 47 felony charges to two misdemeanors, to which Chahal pleaded guilty. He received probation, 25 hours of community service, a $500 fine, and an order to take a 52-week domestic violence class.

In 2014, a second woman reported that Chahal had assaulted her. This time, the DA charged Chahal with violating his probation, and because it wasn’t a criminal case but a probation violation hearing, the DA was able to submit the video tape to the court. The judge sentence Chahal to 6 months in jail for violating his probation, and after an appeal he served the six months starting in 2018.

In the course of Chahal’s very public run-ins with the law, two software companies he started, RadiumOne and Gravity4, fired him from his position as CEO.

Article white-wash: For several years there has been a concerted effort to white-wash Gurbaksh Chahal on Wikipedia. Chahal is a wealthy software entrepreneur and soft-pedaling his past as a domestic abuser is in his self-interest. According to a 2014 newspaper article (“As an SF Internet Tycoon Admits to Domestic Violence, a Battle Continues on His Wikipedia Page) he paid a PR firm to edit to edit the Wikipedia article about him.

The article has been the subject of seven ANI threads.

Over the years administrators have had to protect or semi-protect the Gurbaksh Chahal article many, many times.

Here is a partial list of editors who were permanently blocked from Wikipedia for attempting to soft-pedal or remove descriptions of Gurbaksh Chahal’s violent past from the article about him and articles about his companies (RadiumOne and Gravity4): Ekcpr, JusticeBro, Jui89, 115.134.82.11, Joydeep Ghosh, Hardeep Pathak, Meeanaya

Recent activity: Most recently the article came under attack from PunjabCinema07 and his sockpuppets. (On 27 January, the day before he was permanently banned, PunjabCinema07 threatened me. “Walls are closing in on your operation,” he wrote among other things. Unfortunately, the Internet being what is, this wasn’t the first time a man threatened me online, and I never really know how seriously to take these threats.)

On January 27 the page was protected and made available only to users with extended confirmed rights.

At that point, Winged Blades of Godric began to make numerous edits to the article, all of them extolling Gurbaksh Chahal’s career as an entrepreneur, his awards, and his business prowess. Like the white-washers who came before him, he did his best to bury Chahal’s past as a domestic abuser under numerous laudatory descriptions of his achievements. Winged Blades put the words “Chahal maintains innocence” in the lede and moved material about his domestic violence to a subhead of his “Personal life.” Descriptions of Chahal being fired from his companies were scrubbed from the Gurbaksh Chahal article.

It appears Winged Blades of Godric is serving as a proxy for banned editor PunjabCinema07. Here is my evidence:

• On 3 February banned user Barrackpore2020 (a sockpuppet of PunjabCinema07) wrote a laundry list of suggestions for the Gurbaksh Chahal article on Winged Blades’ Talk page. Minutes later Praxidicae reverted the entry, but nevertheless, every single one of the editorial changes Barrackpore2020 asked for got put in the article -- put there by Winged Blades of Godric. In other words, Winged Blades of Godric served as a backchannel to enter edits for a notorious sockpuppet.
• On 23 January Winged Blades wiped clean the Gravity4 article with a redirect. He did this without consulting editors first. He did this because the article had some bad things to say about Gurbaksh Chahal, the founder of Gravity4: "The lawsuit alleges that, during her job interview, the plaintiff was questioned about her thoughts on Gurbaksh Chahal's criminal history of domestic violence, and that the conference room where the interview took place was bugged with cameras and microphones so that Chahal could watch the interview."
• On 4 February Winged Blades wiped clean the RadiumOne article with a redirect. He did this, once again, to spare Gurbaksh Chahal. From the RadiumOne article: "After CEO Gurbaksh Chahal pleaded guilty to domestic violence battery on April 23, 2014, there were calls for him to step down as CEO. He was fired on April 27."
• On Feb 4 User 49.130.130.57 from his Talk page pinged the following to Winged Blades of Godric: "Winged Blades of Godric, let me know when I should see your updates changes from the email you sent earlier today. You already did RB, now do the other." RB refers to Rubina Bajwa, Chahal's girlfriend. What is "the other"? If you look at 49.130.130.57's contributions, you will see that he/she attempted to scrub Chahal's criminal activity and firing from the RadiumOne article.

It’s clear to me that Winged Blades of Godric is getting marching orders from PunjabCinema07 and user 49.130.130.57. Who are these people? I have asked Winged Blades to explain on my Talk page and on the Gurbaksh Chahal Talk page. I haven’t heard peep.

I believe Winged Blades of Godric is not acting in good faith. He is the latest in a long line of white-washers endeavoring to scrub the Gurbaksh Chahal article of as many traces of his domestic violence history as possible. Personally Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that WBG has been partially blocked from the Gurbaksh Chahal and Radium One pages by Deepfriedokra. I'm well acquainted with this article's history of shenanigans and most of the POV-pushers have been relative newbies who shared a fondness for making empty threats and quoting policies they didn't understand. None of these individuals seemed to know how Wikipedia worked, nor were they particularly overburdened in the cranium. It would be decidedly against the mold for a long-term, competent editor like WBG to be under the influence of Chahal's minions. But while I certainly don't want to believe that WBG is guilty of any kind of wrongdoing, the evidence above is somewhat concerning and needs to be addressed. Lepricavark (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm on a Wikibreak and only came 'cause of the message on my talk page. I regretfully blocked WBG from editing three Chahal related articles until his can be sorted. Please don't draw any unwarranted conclusions. Please examine everything, including my block decision. Any admin should feel to undo or adjust if they feel it's neded. I will be increasingly busy in real life until about Tuesday, and may not respond quickly. The page and it's history are a horror show. (As well as the talk page. You get the full savor sifting through that history) It's become a battleground between the whitewashers and those who place too much emphasis on the domestic violence issue. Trouble is, if you look through reverted edits on WBG's talk page, you will see instructions. It looks to me as if those instructions have been carried out. Please see This earlier ANI thread and this one for more context. @Primefac: in case they wish to comment Thanks Y'all.-- Deepfriedokra 02:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. @Chisme: I appreciate you left a note for me in response to my question on WBG's talk page.
  Having looked a little more into the case since then, I really don't agree with how Deepfriedokra has handled the dispute between you two. His response has not de-escalated the situation between two good faith editors. He gave WBG a partial block citing your evidence, yet he also suggested you are not objective in this and also making the page a hatchet job. Here's my take:
  WBG's actions, to me, suggest that he wasn't being particularly skeptical of the motivations of the editors who made those suggestions. He also has his biases, but they aren't the ones you think. WBG has previously maintained the companies are not notable, and his redirecting the pages seems to be an expression of that. That is to say nothing of his edits which remove a lot of the puffery present on that page. His stated goal has been to maintain neutrality in tone for the article, and the pro-Chahal meatpuppets seem to have latched onto that if you ask me.
  Is this a case of UPE? Well, no since WBG wouldn't need to get "marching orders" onwiki if that was the case. Proxying? I don't think that is what happened here either. WBG had independent reasons to make the edits in question regardless if he knew they were coming from PunjabCinema07 or not.
  Regardless, you're really not assuming bad faith here. Chahal seems to have paid literally anyone he could for a better article. You are coming from a perspective of having fought these goons forever now. Despite the bans in place, the article isn't exactly where it should be and the disruption has yet to stop. WBG redirecting two related articles seems mad fish-y, and the fact the same meatpuppets seem to support his efforts is probably infuriating. However, take them away and this becomes just a genuine content dispute over how to cover Gurbaksh Chahal.
  There's more to it if you look at the whole picture. (edit conflict × 2) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  I hope that doesn't sound like a lot of nothing, because it is something. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  For someone who (as best I recall) hasn't had any prior involvement with the article, you've constructed a very perceptive summary of the situation. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, Winged Blades of Godric accused the user PunjabCinema07 of being an undisclosed paid editor and pushed for this user to be blocked. Is it likely that a meat puppet or sock puppet would actually advocate for a ban of someone they were collaborating with? To me, that doesn't sound right; if WBG and PunjabCinema were in opposition to each other as recently as January 20, and were not cooperating with each other in an unethical way. It sounds from the history that this topic is intensely polarizing -- it's possible that WBG and PunjabCinema07 simply agree on content and that there isn't actual proxye diting going on. We can't rule it out though of course so it is worth hearing from what WBG has to say before assuming anything either way. Michepman (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Urgency makes sense if they were editing the other way, BLP and all. But how is an apparent whitewashing a block first sort later offence, that too for an editor with a clean block log? Did WBG stop responding to talk pages and start edit warring? Whatever happened to talking- "Hey WBG, serious concerns have been raised about your editing the following topics, please would you refrain from editing those articles until these concerns are addressed"? Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Usedtobecool: Honestly, that is the most concerning aspect of this entire situation if you ask me.
  Seriously, here is the reason this ANI report had to get filed. Also take a look at this justification.
  I sincerely suggest someone files a report on WP:AN next Tuesday about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• To some extent, I agree the article block was a bit much. The level of back and forth probably justifies full protection for a while to get things settled on the talk page. My suggestion would be to unblock WBG and fully protect the three articles. Ravensfire (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• This is weird.
  Weeks back, DeepfriedOkra (who blocked me) asserted that he found the entire personal life/domestic-violence section tabloidesque and deemed that it shall be massively trimmed and/or removed. He also wrote that If anyone wants to nominate for AfD, I thing it improve the encyclopedia. Regrettably, I see that deleting Chahal himself is not considered as a back-handed way of whitewashing Chahal. But, redirecting his company-pages are.
  I have indeed installed some of the edits (requested by his socks); there is no policy forbidding such acts and few days back, DeepFriedOkra explicitly noted The issue though is not Mr Chahal or the integrity of his minions. It is about our own integrity. If RS can be found to support the awards, or other content favorable to Mr Chahal, it would be best to have it.
  There is no edit-warring on the article (whatsoever) and I see that TSD has posted some kind of warning at Chisme's t/p (which was supported by DeepFriedOkra and Coffee, as well). Does the OP have clean hands? He argues that I moved DV section under personal life as a sign of whitewashing but carefully omits the t/p consensus in my favor. Also, I did not start editing the article after ECP was installed; much prior to that. Further, nothing about his firing has been scrubbed except that Chahal was not fired from Gravity4 contrary to Chisme's claims.
  I take a harsh interpretation of NCORP (as my AfD votes in domain of corporate-articles across the years will exhibit, I almost-always !vote delete/redirect) and have often redirected company articles, at unilateral discretion. The day I redirected Gravity4 (which has been since attributed a nefarious motive by Chisme) was the same day when I removed a bunch of awards from Chahal's bio as PR spam. ∯WBG^converse 07:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• No comment on the block, but clearly an inferior option to just have asked WBG to not edit any of the articles. I will remove the block (as Okra stated any administrator can) as of now with the precondition that Winged Blades of Godric make no more edits to the any articles related to Gurbaksh Chahal, this is not an unblock condition but violating this voluntary restriction will definitely make it worse when (not if) this goes to ArbCom. A pre-emptive block should not be made per alleged white-washing, either this should be investigated first and approved by the community or it must come from ArbCom, not the other way around. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock, but I don't see the need to escalate this to an Arbcom case. I can see DFO's perspective in applying a partial block in a fast-moving situation but it strikes me as a bit of a panic move, although I think DFO recognized that possibility and thus commendably noted multiple times that any admin can unblock or modify the block. Unblocking is the right move because there is no risk of disruption to the article that we need a block to prevent. I commend WBG on a very level-headed response and explanation. I'm not seeing a problem with the edits put forward here, so I don't really see a need for a voluntary restriction on WBG's part, and the accusation of proxying doesn't make sense to me. If I wanted an editor to proxy for me, probably the worst way to go about it would be to make a sock and post instructions on the public talk page of an editor who was calling for me to be blocked. This seems to me to be one of those, "everybody go back to building an encyclopedia" situations. – Levivich 08:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  This thread is more about investigating wrongdoing in WBG's part than about the block (note that WBG did not state anything about the block itself). It is usually best when an editor stays away from the areas of dispute they have been blocked for, I cannot see any good come of WBG editing these articles other than to further Chisme's evidence, which I do not see as scant, but not as blockworthy either (yet). --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades of Godric:Thanks for ani response and apologies for the trouble. Unblocked. Thanks and apologies to everyone in this thread. Hopefully, y'all can get this topic (Chahal) sifted. Gonna take some tylenol and return to bed. Next time I take a Wikibreak, I won't respond to messages on my talk. We'll all be better off. @QEDK: Deepfriedokra. Deepfriedokra is the name. :)-- Deepfriedokra   11:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Winged Blades of Godric I'm entirely uninvolved in this, and have always had a high regard for you as an editor. Your comment above addresses many of the concerns, but it doesn't touch on the messages in your talk page history that have been characterised as 'instructions'. Would you care to comment on them? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Chahal (or AGFing, someone who pretends to be him) and his socks have been long trying to recruit editors by mailing them content-instructions, threats absent their implementation and all that. This is not exactly a secret. There have been attempted outings of involved editors and double-crossing, as well. The part. message referred to was a slight variant of a miscellaneous set of demands that have been often posted on the article-t/p (and has been since fwd-ed to appropriate forums). I have also noted of its existence when I accepted Draft:Rubina Bajwa over the corresponding t/p (for reasons of transparency) and had pointed Chisme to the same, at Chahal's t/p (when queried by him, days back); CC has since noted of my reply. But Chisme (for some unknown reasons) chose to remain silent and now mention that I had evaded his queries, whose timing might be concerning, given others have already raised a multitude of issues about his own editing of a BLP. ∯WBG^converse 11:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, thanks, I think that makes it clearer for those who aren't familiar with the situation. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify, only the blocking admin has characterised those messages as "instructions". And the blocking admin has also noted that If RS can be found to support the awards, or other content favorable to Mr Chahal, it would be best to have it. So yes, WBG has commented on those so-called instructions. Not that he had to: this entire thread is nonsense. ——SN54129 11:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I sorta understand why there's so much concern. It's clear that the article has a long and ongoing history of paid editing. While fixing something in the lead, I noticed another problem and posted about it on the talk page. I assume in part because what I suggested was favourable to Chahal, this meant a completely "new" editor posted on my talk page (and then followed this up with 10 minor edits). I reported them to SPI and socking was confirmed. However, I see no reason to think WBoG is doing anything other than trying to improve the article. As always editors may disagree with their desired changes, this can be discussed and consensus reached by non paid editors. We shouldn't let an understandable disdain of the shenanigans of paid editors stop us from using normal processes to improve the article. And yes, sometimes this will be in ways that Chahal probably likes, but that doesn't matter to us. (The stupidity of paid editing is demonstrated by the fact that I was, AFAIK, the first one to raise the point that we were saying something that wasn't really correct according to the sources.) Remember also this is a BLP, and we have to be fair to all living people we write about, including Chahal. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I am puzzled by edits like this one by TheSandDoctor. The principle, that reverted content might need to be discussed, is fine, but why that edit needed to be reverted other than to get a verified fact out of the first sentence of a paragraph, that is not clear to me. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:TheSandDoctor should use the talk page more often. Read=for the first time. ——SN54129 14:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Drmies, Serial Number 54129. I reverted that edit for a couple of reasons:

1. Crystallizedcarbon invited reversion in their edit summary if in disagreement
2. I have been reviewing the talk page throughout and am aware that no adequate consensus has been garnered for these changes, which is something Chisme has misrepresented and I warned them about.
3. While the edit Drmies linked did remove references from the lead (which is fine per WP:LEAD), Ctrl + F searching for the URLs in the body determined that they were completely removed from the article outright, which I took to probably be unintended.
4. Crystallizedcarbon restored a version that was mostly from Chisme. Given that Chisme has been unable to keep a neutral point of view in regards to this article (and admitted it), has an apparent lack of understanding of WP:RS in that sources do not need to be English, and was not specific (point #3 in diff) that they did not go past the paywall (assuming AGF) as discovered by Coffee, I found it concerning to restore to an edit by them until it was properly discussed on the talk page. As for why I have not edited there much or the article (aside from three reverts directing to talk page, two source additions and minor copyediting) was because I have been trying to mostly stay out of this and be a neutral administrator.

I hope that this helps explain my rationale and alleviate any concern or puzzlement. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello @TheSandDoctor: From your answer I think that you may have confused this edit that Drmies was talking about with the revert of my counterproposal as a response to WBG bold edit, in which as you said I asked to be reverted if anyone disagreed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• The chances of WBG proxying for PunjabCinema07 are approximately 0%. Guy (help!) 19:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• I've interacted with WBG in a variety of areas. I haven't always agreed with them, but have overall appreciated their efforts to improve the encyclopedia. My experience with them leads me to believe that any sort of UPE activity on their part is highly unlikely. I do think that WBG was attempting to balance the article per the sources. On a side note, I find the title of this ANI report to be extremely inappropriate and a violation of WP:NPA. I would recommend that the title of this ANI report be modified as appropriate, and as WBG is now apparently unblocked by the blocking administrator, that this report be closed, and that Chisme be chided commensurately. It's unfortunate that WBG's clean block log was tarnished by this. I also feel that, while I disagree when DFO's actions (the partial block was wholly unnecessary, IMO), they were acting in good faith and a trip to ArbCom is not appropriate here. Waggie (talk) 03:58, 16 February 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

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.

---

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

Hi there, I need help. This user has returned back as an IP user and that user mentioned my username when I want nothing to do with the user. Please help. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What user returned back? El_C 06:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The user who was previously UltraSGuy. If you observed the conversations, they are very similar in nature. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 06:43, 16 February 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:Crawl of the wild's overly detailed interest in child porn

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:Crawl of the wild has created a biography of a child pornographer at Kenneth John Freeman. They are including rather unnecessary details about child pornography and the victim in the case. I removed it earlier, but Crawl of the wild has added it back, now sourced to the website of a Dutch pedophile. A checkuser (especially one with the same rights on Meta) might want to look at the recent history of Crawl space. Bitter Oil (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What secondary sources take an interest in, Wikipedia takes an interest in as well. Crawl of the wild (talk) 06:22, 16 February 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.

SPA promoting Youtube channel

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.

---

M-Spanky (talk · contribs)

Has been placing links and screenshots for a Youtube channel featuring 3D art in articles. ~ R.T.G 11:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 16 February 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:Psychologist Guy

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

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

• Editor has been involved in heavy editing of Carnivore diet (now all but edit gore) which is now a redirect to Monotrophic diet.
• They added the section on the carnivore diet to Monotrophic diet, referring to it as a "fad diet": [2]
• Articles created by the editor include more positive worded ones such as Richard Dean (curate) ("an Anglican minister and early animal rights writer"), Humphrey Primatt ("an English clergyman and animal rights writer"), Robert Cook (eccentric) ("an Irish eccentric farmer and early veganism activist"), Audrey Eyton ("an English animal welfare campaigner, journalist and writer. She is best known for creating the F-Plan diet." - oddly enough not a fad diet), Louis Rimbault ("promoter of simple living and veganism"), William H. Galvani ("a civil engineer, vegetarianism activist and writer"), Wilmer Ingalls Gordon ("an American osteopathic physician and vegetarianism activist"), Edward Hare ("a vegetarianism activist" in the lead), Josiah Oldfield ("promoter of fruitarianism"), Charles W. Forward ("a British animal rights activist and historian of vegetarianism"), etc.
• Editor has also been involved in such articles as Animal welfare, Lacto vegetarianism, Vegetarian Society, etc.
• Editor has interests on their sandbox page which include "Animal rights by country or territory", "Animal protectionism", "Animal welfare", "Veganism", "Anarchism and animal rights", "Animal-free agriculture", etc.

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

Related: Off-wiki canvassing by User:User2083146168 / User:BecomeFree:

• Vegans have deleted the carnivore diet Wikipedia. 46
• Vegans attacked and deleted the carnivore diet article on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia Article Creation for Carnivore Diet
• MARXIST-VEGANISTS CENSOR FREEDOM LOVING CARNIVORE DIET WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE
• Vegans attacked and deleted the carnivore diet article on Wikipedia (/r/ketoscience)
• Wikidpedia
• Carnivore diet deleted by vegans on Wikipedia

Sources that discuss the carnivore diet movement and its main proponents:

• They mock vegans and eat 4lb of steak a day: meet 'carnivore dieters'
• Here's what you should know about the latest carnivore trend.
• What I Learned from a Month on the Carnivore Diet
• Rational Wiki: Carnivore diet

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

And just to add to the "weird connections" file, [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne74nw/inside-the-world-of-the-bitcoin-carnivores Inside the World of the 'Bitcoin Carnivores':

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

Guy Macon, is this the new Rule 34? If it exists, there is crypto of it? Guy (help!) 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr Vernon was recruited by these carnivore diet cranks to harass me and get me banned, although he will never admit that in writing it is easy to prove. Vernon's last activity was 25 November 2018. He came back out of nowhere to edit Wikipedia again on 6 February 2020 to file a failed edit-warring request against me and a ridiculous SPI, accusing me of being Zefr. The 6 February 2020 was the same date the above Reddit threads went up advertising my Wikipedia account. Indeed, his very first edits in nearly two years of silence were to post about me. Odd, right? Before that nobody new my Wikipedia account or took interest in any of my edits. I am a nobody, yet overnight on the 6 February became some anti-carnivore celebrity on Reddit. Sad.

Vernon has copied the above criticisms onto several admin boards, every time it has failed but he does not give up. He filed a failed SPI case against me accusing me of being a well respected user who has been on this website for ten years, a failed edit warring request and a failed criticism of me at the Neutral point of view noticeboard, before that he had put the same criticism of me at the conflict of interest noticeboard. This is continued harassment, four filings? He was recruited by carnivore diet cranks off-site to harass me, the idea is to get me banned and he will not stop until he gets this. He has been on Wikipedia less than a week, his last activity before that was from 2018. He came back onto Wikipedia, the same day nonsense was posted about me on Reddit by a banned sock-puppet. His complaints about my account are not being done in good faith and he fails to understand what NPOV is.

I have been harassed on and off site by these carnivore diet cranks, funnily enough the vegans have also attacked me for criticizing John A. Mcdougall. I am not a vegan. I have written articles on animal rights people and vegans from a historical perspective, but those are not the only people I have created (I recently created an article on a historical individual, Arnaldo Cantani who recommend a meat diet for diabetes). Those are all deceased historical people and I have not just added vegetarians, I have added all kinds. I am not writing articles to promote these people from any POV. My edits are in accord to neutral policy on Wikipedia. Anyone can check my edits. I have criticized food fads, including veganism. I created the list of food faddists which includes many vegans. Check my contributions to the John A. McDougall article for example, and the talk-page. I have no conflict of interest, yes I did join the Wikiproject Animal rights which reads "The aim of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia's coverage is not informed by those strong feelings, but by disinterested, neutral, and reliable research." The articles I create are always supported by academic sources. I do not create articles for living people. I am not trying to promote any ideology. I have been attacked by carnivore dieters and vegans and these filing of Vernon are getting tiresome. Lastly Vernon seems to have a poor understanding about nutrition or science. He seems to think it is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy to call the carnivore diet a fad diet. This is despite the fact it is a fad diet that has been heavily criticized by dieticians and physicians, as potentially dangerous to health. We do not give equal weight to pseudoscientific diets on Wikipedia. There is scientific evidence to support vegetarianism and many systematic reviews report its health benefits, any dietician would agree. But if you look I have not made any modern health claims about vegetarianism, I only add the history of people who proposed it to Wikipedia which is non-controversial. Vernon's claims are totally unfounded about me and I request that this be closed like the others. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Fun and games at Race and intelligence

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

Current discussion this sitch. Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Do_we_like_these_new_changes? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Most recent consensus on whether or not a chainsaw should be taken to the article (answer no). Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Let's_go_back_to_a_previous_version Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Several editors, including myself, have removed a number of primary-sourced statements from the article. This has been met with a series of strange comments which seem to be based on a nonexistent "Consensus Required" restriction:
  • Peregrine Fisher: "revert, please seek consensus for major changes"[3] (discussed at user talk)
  • AndewNguyen: "get consensus before changes please, see talk page"[4] (discussed at user talk)
  • 2600:1004:b11a:7b56:3cc6:3b68:b761:eab6: "You evidently won't allow your changes to be undone unless other editors can point out what's wrong with each one of them, but I think you know very well that this is an impossible demand.[5]

These objections seem to boil down to "you didn't seek consensus before editing" and "we can't keep up with the pace of your edits", which are not valid reasons to revert. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

My revert is based on WP:BRD, as explained on my talk page just now. Since you seem like an experienced editor, I don't understand why you don't seem familiar with this. Imagine if someone went to the page of Trump or Obama, and then started deleting large chunks of well-sourced material. This would immediately get reverted with a comment to go to the discussion page. Any important page with a lot of attention to it will require some discussion before any major changes are implemented, so one can profitably skip the BR part of the cycle, and go immediately to the D part. I think you are aware of this, so I don't know what to say. --AndewNguyen (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

How do you justify the blanking of the entire section about mental chronometry? Nearly every secondary source that discusses race and intelligence, including the Hunt and Mackintosh textbooks, includes a discussion about comparisons of MC test results.

If you were just removing individual primary sources, the rest of us wouldn't be objecting, but that isn't what's happening here. What we're dealing with is the blanking of entire paragraphs or sections, that have been in the article for most of the time that the article has existed, and demanding a consensus before they can be added back. 2600:1004:B11A:7B56:3CC6:3B68:B761:EAB6 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The small subsection was based around claims made by Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, and rebuttal from Richard Nisbett. There might be content worthy of the article about mental chronometry, but it wasn't that particular content. Feel free to propose new content regarding that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• I believe that some sanctions against the dynamic IP editor are warranted at this point. They write in the related AfD: I’m writing this from anonymous IP precisely to avoid the kind of “white supremacy” smears exhibited above [6]. Using a dynamic IP to edit in a contentious topic area seems inappropriate since the constantly changing address helps them evade scrutiny by making an entire editing history extremely difficult to trace. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

That other IP isn't me. Please compare the geolocations; we're hundreds of miles apart. 2600:1004:B11A:7B56:3CC6:3B68:B761:EAB6 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The point about avoiding scrutiny with an untraceable edit history remains. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope everyone looking at this knows that the article has a bad history with socks. Some are well-known and caught pretty quickly, but not all. We have at least one open SPI, but the range is big and they've belatedly figured out how to stick to WP:CIVILPOV, so... As for the rest, it's clear to me that some editors are knowingly treating IP editing as a loophole, and are treating the technical details of their ISPs as a form of elevated privilege. Oh, and there are also the Arbcom blocked (or previously blocked) accounts involved... Until the community is willing to start making tough calls and supporting serious change, the topic will remain an embarrassment to the project. (Non-administrator comment) Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the talk page could be an option, Category:Wikipedia_semi-protected_talk_pages shows that this has been done occasionally in the past. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It was done on the fascism talk page, which suffered from pretty constant disruption as well. Nonsense edit requests, forum posting, crying about bias and so on. Looks like it is working quite well there if you look at the talk page history. A lot less volume at least, as to be expected of course. Just to give an example where semi-protection of an article talk page is used. Up to you lot what to do about it obviously. 2003:D6:270E:83AE:A5B0:13A4:AEFE:6F34 (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• While we're at it, could somebody uninvolved please close/collapse this section? It's one long accusation of bad faith and is off-topic for article talk. –dlthewave ☎ 13:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Dlthewave: that section does not appear to exist. El_C 03:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Grayfell Guy Macon collapsed the section and changed the title. Here's the permalink for posterity. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It was actually Guy Macon, but I ain't offended. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

GameMaven using Wikipedia to promote his books: WP:NOTHERE

GameMaven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – account is being used only for promotional purposes. This editor's only participation appears to be attempts to get mentions of the strategy guides he has authored added to numerous video game articles with links to the Amazon.com page to purchase them.[7], [8]. [9], [10], [11]. He made it clear he is the author here after being warned about WP:COI.

After being told he's not supposed to do that, he's hit the talk pages [12], [13] which is relatively good, but unfortunately this editor hasn't made any edit other than to promote his strategy guides or argue for their inclusion in articles. I have to conclude WP:NOTHERE. Toddst1 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

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

---

Despite repeated warnings on their talk page (that they constantly remove here, here, here, here), explanatory edit summaries from myself and others (here, here, here, here) and personal pleas here and here User:FadedRadicals continues adding unsourced info, especially genre's to articles as can be seen here, here, here, here. When not performing those disruptive edits they can be found replacing sourced information with the unsourced variety as can be seen here, here, replacing notes that say not to add unsourced genre's with unsourced genre's or adding sources to genre's that make no mention of claimed genre's. On top of all that they have yet to communicate in any form on their talk page regarding these issues. Please could an admin cast an eye, thanks. Robvanvee 12:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Multiple warnings removed from TP without comment, unsourced edits, no other communication, and this has been going on for months. Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite. Robvanvee 13:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Harassment of editors by User DBigXray

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

---

Editors involved-

• DBigXray (talk · contribs)
• Soman (talk · contribs)
• Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs)

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

Soman- There seems to be some dispute in AFD between these two parties. Xray templated[14] Soman for Personal attacks per this AFD[15]. Soman made these entries here[16] and here[17] to that AFD. It can not be construed in any way as a personal attack. They threatened to take Soman here.

I disputed there being any personal attacks and asked Xray for differentials at both their and Soman's talk page. He has evaded these requests multiple times. See here[18] and here[19].

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

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

I am not evading anything, I have been travelling for the last 4 days [20], ...William seems to be imposing some sort of unmentioned deadline to give him all the diffs of attacks, and when I asked him to clarify the deadline [21]. he threatened to drag me to ANI [22] and then promptly posted here [23], without even waiting for my response [24]. I will respond on the meat of the matter later, but just wanted to clarify on the accusation of evasion.  DBigXrayᗙ 13:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note that Xray made over 40 edits in the last 24 hours[25] and after my first request for differentials....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Jokes

No EEng, I believe this is what they were looking for. GirthSummit (blether) 14:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC) No EEng Girth Summit, it is the Differential amplifier being referred cuz clearly there is a lot of amplification DBigXrayᗙ Well if it's differentials you want... :$\partial \left({\frac {u}{v}}\right)={\frac {\partial (u)\,v-u\,\partial (v)}{v^{2}}}$ EEng 14:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC) EEng, a divisive one though. Could you find one for unity? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I believe we’ve struck a particularly rich vein of low-grade math/science puns. EEng 15:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Harassment of DBigXray by User Soman

• Soman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• [26] User had been alerted about the Discretionary sanctions on the topic area.
• Please see his comments on recent Afd [27].
• [28] *Keep, this is slightly ridiculous.
• [29] Spams the AfD with 78 links and then says,
• [30]Why don't you spend a few minutes extra and review the posted links? You seem to have little problem in wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs
• [31] I posted an NPA template on his talk page for the above WP:ADHOM comment.
• [32] Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate.
• [33] Templated again for this WP:ADHOM
• [34] he replied to the above template stating "Look, I've been along long enough here to detect empty postures. If you have an example of a personal attack, please bring it up in the relevant forum. I stand by the comments I made in the BJYM AfD, which were directed at your actions and behaviour and not your persona or person per se."
• [35] Inappropriate canvassing at a user's talk page about an article on AfD.
• [36] ... If you have concerns over the contents of the article, edit. AfD is not the place to address content issues.
• [37] Inappropriate canvassing at WP:INDIA with accusations against AfD noms stating There is a number of ongoing AfDs that break all logic and a wider community involvement would be of interest. A number of articles on entities ... are being nominated for deletion supposedly based on WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which is really weird ... Regardless of how one feels about political events in India today, arguing that organizations ... are non-notable defines common sense.
• [38] After successfully mobilizing Carrite to vote keep in the previous AfD, he made another inappropriate canvassing for another AfD
• [39] On Talk:Priashevshchina (which is on AfD) he attacks the AfD Nominator stating, DBigXray, whose googling skills aren't particularily impressive, has tagged four reference in this article.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, those dif's certainly seem snippy and rude. Do we give new users a bye on WP:CIVIL on WP:AGF?-- Deepfriedokra 13:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone gets a bye on WP:CIVIL. The reason Wikipedia is in the mess it's currently in with regards to civility is its lack of consistent enforcement. The other shoe needs to drop.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra and WaltCip I have said all I had to say on this thread. It is over to admins and ANI to decide on the issue now.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to respond in the table below;

Comment from DBigXray [40]	Comment from my side	re from DBX
*[41] User had been alerted about the Discretionary sanctions on the topic area.	Honestly, I found the assumption of bad faith by posting the DS notice on my talk as, well, an assumption of bad faith.
*Please see his comments on recent Afd [42].	Notably, DBigXray began his AfD nomination with the accusation (against me, article creator): "Article had been created using party website with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers" [43]	[44] I realized after nominating that it was the recent updates that were to be blamed for WP:PROMO and not the creator and I had already struck off my comment before Soman (creater) commented there. Soman seems to have deliberately hidden this fact.
*[45] *Keep, this is slightly ridiculous.	Yes? Tagging BJYM, the youth wing of one of the largest political parties in the world, for deletion due to supposed lack of notability, is ridicolous. 'Slightly' was added for sake of civility in the conversation
*[46] Spams the AfD with 78 links and then says,	Sorry, but here DBigXray was clearly the one who contributed to the deterioration of civility. He requested proof for notability, I posted a number of links, and when receiving them he refused to respond in mature way, and instead rebuffed the evidence of notability altogether.
* [47]Why don't you spend a few minutes extra and review the posted links? You seem to have little problem in wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs	Whereby DBigXray answers: "What you did above is nothing but blatant trolling of this AfD. Posting 75 links and asking others to click all of them is not something one expects from someone with good intentions. I looked at the first 5 and they are shit. Based on scores of deletion notices on your user talk page. is obvious that you have trouble understanding our WP:Notability criterias specially WP:ORGCRIT." (emphasis mine). Whilst the debates here aren't terribly uncivil, this clearly shows that DBigXray is hardly innocent in the this discussion.	Posting 78 links in an AfD is a text book example of trolling the AfD.
* [48] I posted an NPA template on his talk page for the above WP:ADHOM comment.	Again, the posting of NPA warning was hardly helpful for the debate climate.
*[49] Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate.	Considering the editing pattern of DBigXray and his associate S. M. Nazmus Shakib over the past days, I have no doubt that WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies. I cannot find any other sensible explanation why BJYM would have been tagged for deletion.	I am a regular at AfDs. I am not related to S. M. Nazmus Shakib in any way and I take strong exceptions to this baseless accusation of connivance and a blatant violation of WP:ASPERSION.
*[50] Templated again for this WP:ADHOM	Again, issuing warning templates, saying "this is your final warning" etc, is hardly the hallmark of a mature editor
*[51] he replied to the above template stating "Look, I've been along long enough here to detect empty postures. If you have an example of a personal attack, please bring it up in the relevant forum. I stand by the comments I made in the BJYM AfD, which were directed at your actions and behaviour and not your persona or person per se."
*[52] Inappropriate canvassing at a user's talk page about an article on AfD.	This hardly qualifies as inappropriate canvassing. Carrite is an experienced, high-quality editor, with interest in history.
*[53] ... If you have concerns over the contents of the article, edit. AfD is not the place to address content issues.	AfD is not for clean-up. This is clear as per policy, and is a point often clarified in AfDs that complain about low-quality articles.
*[54] Inappropriate canvassing at WP:INDIA with accusations against AfD noms stating There is a number of ongoing AfDs that break all logic and a wider community involvement would be of interest. A number of articles on entities ... are being nominated for deletion supposedly based on WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which is really weird ... Regardless of how one feels about political events in India today, arguing that organizations ... are non-notable defines common sense.	Inviting broader participation is hardly inappropriate canvassing. And the underlining problem with POV issues of the AfD nominators remain, in my opinion.
*[55] After successfully mobilizing Carrite to vote keep in the previous AfD, he made another inappropriate canvassing for another AfD	See above
*[56] On Talk:Priashevshchina (which is on AfD) he attacks the AfD Nominator stating, DBigXray, whose googling skills aren't particularily impressive, has tagged four reference in this article.	Sorry, but tagging 4 out of 5 references in one go, on an article that he himself nominated for AfD, doesn't exactly indicate the ability to verify sources.

For me, the bigger issue, which I feel was an expression of WP:HOUND was the fact that DBigXray tagged 4 other articles created by me for AfD (edit diff on talk page [57]) in one go, seemingly without respecting WP:BEFORE. I'm not going to elaborate on the merits of each article here, but I fail to believe that he came across these 4 articles by coincidence. All 4 AfDs followed accusation of personal attack. I find this behaviour disturbing and unconstructive. --Soman (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

I have made 2 comments in the table above. The rest is quite easy to understand so I dont feel the need to respond to them. Lepricavark, They were given 2 warnings, on NPA, you can call it with whatever names one would prefer to. They have been editing here for more than 16 years, and if they still decide to disregard first WP:NPA warning, I dont think a second warning was really needed, but I gave it anyway. Now we are here, so hopefully this will be addressed and no more warnings needed. I have already given enough diffs where this user despite being warned about NPA continued attacking others on AfD. Accordingly my line in the warning where I said, "since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the content and not attacking others" is appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 19:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's how I see it. You can either nominate four of an editor's created articles for deletion or you can issue that editor a final warning for incivility. Doing both is very ill-advised, especially since you are not an admin. Your line in the warning may seem appropriate to you, but it was an unfavorable personal comment uttered during the course of a dispute. In that sense, it's not so different from the comments made by Soman to which you took offense. Lepricavark (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, I don't agree with any of your opinions you shared in the last comment above. I would leave it at that. DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I don't see any point in leaving this subthread open. Neither your nor Soman has done anything to warrant further action, although I do hope you will reconsider your tactics as they do come across as heavy-handed IMO. Could Soman have handled this a bit more graciously? Absolutely, but there's no need for sanctions or any sort of formal warning. Lepricavark (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, That is again your opinion with which I disagree. I have given clear evidence of issues here. Being in content dispute does not give you licence to breach civility and attack/harass the other editor. Soman's replies above shows that the problem still exists and needs a resolution at ANI. DBigXrayᗙ 05:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, if someone gave me a civility warning, took four of my created articles to AfD, and then gave me another civility warning, I would feel like I was the one being harassed. Remember that after Soman's first so-called personal attack (accusing you of bad faith), you responded with an accusation of trolling. You also said the following: Based on scores of deletion notices on your user talk page. is obvious that you have trouble understanding our WP:Notability criterias specially WP:ORGCRIT [58]. At the time that comment was posted, there where a grand total of four deletion notices on Soman's talk [59], two of which were for files and thus had nothing to do with ORGCRIT. So much for the scores of deletion notices that served as the basis for your personal comment about Soman. As for Soman's second personal attack, it was bit more blatant and might have merited a remonstrance from an uninvolved administrator, but you couldn't have expected that a final warning from you would be well-received. I'm sure you still disagree with my opinion, but at this stage it's not you that I'm trying to convince. Lepricavark (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

if someone gave me a civility warning, took four of my created articles to AfD, and then gave me another civility warning, I would feel like I was the one being harassed - I wholeheartedly concur. There seems to be a vendetta here. starship.paint (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, Please point me to the thread where I have been banned to nominate any article (that I assess as non notable) created by Soman to AfD asking community feedback on those articles ? Soman does not WP:OWN those article. Those articles belong to me as much as it belongs to him or Jimbo.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray - [60] - I have warned DBigXray for harassment and battleground behaviors. Any admin should block if the behavior continues. - you were unhappy with Soman, and took a look at his created articles to propose AfDs. That's at best battleground behavior, if not harassment. Soman had to rescue five of his articles at the same time from AfD. Yet you persist in thinking you can do no wrong. starship.paint (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, That line no where states that I am banned from AfD. "Battleground behavior" is your own opinion here and not a fact. I have repeatedly said that it is not the case. I asked you to present the thread where I was prohibited from nominating articles to AfD. IF you are unable to find one then stop claiming that nominating article is some sort of offence. No it is not. I assessed them as non notable and asked community feedback, on their notability. If you think there are glaring problems with my AfD noms, then point it out. As I gave evidence above, Soman employed WP:ADHOM and inappropriate WP:CANVASSING openly on Wikipedia through their user talk pages, Since there are evidence (diffs) of open canvassing, that I presented above, one cannot deny the possibility that more canvassing had been done. I remember nominating 4, not sure why you are calling it 5. DBigXrayᗙ 08:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

overall I would like to remind everyone that The WP:ADHOMs and personal attacks came first without any sort of provocation from my side. Nominating the AfD does not in any way justifies further continuing with these personal attacks and insults. Clearly attempts of distractions are being made by Starship to take focus off the offence of personal attacks towards non issues of nominating AfD. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm taking Deepfriedokra's advice on conciseness. WP:BLUDGEON above and below. (the 5th AfD was BJYM's) starship.paint (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

BJYM was 20 days back. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Harassment of DBigXray by Yappy2bhere

• Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• [61] User had been alerted about the Discretionary sanctions on the topic area.
• This user was involved with me in a minor content dispute over copy editing a text, where something was added that was not supported by the source. I raised the matter on article talk [62] and accordingly a std template on WP:OR [63] and a std DS alert on WP:ARBIPA (which covers all Indian articles) was given [64].
• [65] He responded to the template stating Don't waste your time, son -- you're not in the right, you're not an admin, and you either don't understand WP policy or cynically contort it to achieve your own ends. Whether it's stupidity or audacity, you'll need more than chutzpah and a template to bully me.
• [66] on the talk page thread he responded calling me a "A diller" ( defined here as "The word 'diller' is a Yorkshire term for a boy who is dim-witted and stupid ")
• [67] I posted an NPA template for the above comment.
• [68] doubled down and continued his personal attacks on me on his user talk telling me You're a WP:BULLY with a big axe to grind. Take care that it doesn't fall on you, friend.
• [69] Calls me a boy, stating "Don't cry wolf, boy. You've not been attacked, neither there nor at AfD."
• [70] fed up with his personal attacks, I warned that continued attacks on me will be reported at admin boards.

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

I'm not seeing any kind of problem in DBigXray's behaviour toward Yappy2bhere. Putting a DS notice on someone's talk page is standard practice, it is not an attempt to bully them. Yappy2bhere's response was condescending and unambiguously rude - if anyone's behaviour needs examining, its theirs, not XRay's. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Concur with Girth Summit. I think Soman and Yappy2bhere need to address these concerns before editing further. I think the next incivil edit should certainly result in a block. Not averse to blocking now.-- Deepfriedokra 16:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Soman has reponded. I think we should give Yappy a chance to respond to Xray's side of the story before any sort of block is meted out. Lepricavark (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Wait we must. DBigXrayᗙ

• yes, wait we must. No problem in waiting to hear back. But I would like to note that looking at their sparse contribution history, and the fact that they did not edit in last 5 days, there is a good chance that we might need to wait for 5 months to hear back again from them.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit and Deepfriedokra: - do you see any kind of problem in this comment by DBigXray: [71] Yappy2bhere, keep yapping. That's the full edit. Definitions for yapping: barking / yelping / talk noisily / talk foolishly. The way I see it, the incivility is not one-sided. starship.paint (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, under normal circumstances, I'd see that as an innocuous joke (a play on the editor's username - a bit like me telling you to keep on painting). Given that an atmosphere had already developed, I'd say that it probably wasn't ideal, but look at the comments that preceded it - Yappy2bhere is condescendingly mocking his choice of words, aggressively telling him he's guilty of fabrication, and making the 'a diller, a dollar' remark. Even if the incivility isn't entirely one-sided, it certainly isn't evenly balanced. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Googling yapping gives "talk at length in an irritating manner." And obviously you have to see its context to decide on the meaning. It was a response to this [72] comment by Yappy that was zero on content and all about accusations. DBigXrayᗙ 09:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Girth Summit, while I do not see Yappy2bhere's approach as optimal, I see some reason to be aggrieved and frustrated. The actual cause of the dispute between DBigXray and Yappy2bhere is due to DBigXray making this edit, resulting in the text: According to Poonam Mahajan BJYM hopes to play a major role in taking Narendra Modi Government's policies to the grassroots level, with the edit summary per source. Unfortunately, that's not what the source said: Poonam Mahajan presided over the workshop. She said the BJYM will carry out campaigns at the grassroots level and on the social media. <end of article> DBigXray added an inaccuracy leading to Yappy2bhere's accusation of fabrication.
  • DBigXray then tries to explain his edit, and gives a questionable statement: It was there before I arrived. I merely tried copy editing it. So please do not blame me. First, if he was copy editing, which on here means correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout, why did he need to write per source - that seems to be ensuring WP:V is followed, instead of a copy edit. Second, his copy edit changed the meaning of the statement, from the original BJYM ... now playing a major role to Mahajan ... BJYM hopes to play a major role.
  • The icing on the cake is that after DBigXray adds inaccurate information, he goes on to warn Yappy2behere that no original research or novel syntheses is allowed. Surely, you can see how that would not have been well received. starship.paint (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Starship.paint, I dont remember if I had ever interacted with you, and I am puzzled why you are fabricating lies falsehoods against me. Though, ANI does not discusses content dispute but here you are accusing me of adding inaccurate information. To rebut this falsehood I would need to quote the source and my edits. The article before I arrived stated this in Wikipedia's voice

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

    The source never mentioned frontal and actually said this

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

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

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

    Yappy reverted me and restored the unsourced frontal part, made the content back as fact stated in Wikipedia's voice and accused me of misrepresentation of source. It was removed with an appropriate edit summary [73] and a template on OR. Since this was a content dispute, sensing an edit war, I then moved the entire line to the talk page for getting a consensus version following WP:DR with a neutral tone comment where I was attacked again [74] and called a diller ("dim wit and stupid".) DBigXrayᗙ 08:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    DBigXray, I realise that having this thread open is likely stressful, but please don't start using phrases like 'fabricating lies against me' - it won't help your case. By all means put your side of the situation, but adding to the heat will not help us arrive at a solution. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    They are lies and have been called out appropriately. I am fine with striking it off and replacing with falsehoods. You still get the idea. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    DBigXray a lie is a deliberate falsehood, and is an outright accusation of bad faith - it doesn't allow for the possibility that the other person has the wrong end of the stick, or that there has been some miscommunication or something that they've overlooked. TBH I don't think that 'falsehood' is much better, I think that your case would be better served by trying to bring down the heat rather than crank it up. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Girth Summit, this is indeed an open display of bad faith on his part instead of AGF. If someone has the guts to fabricate lies against me to throw some muck on me, on an open and public noticeboard, I reserve the right of response to call out what it is. Ask Starship to strike of the false accusation and I will strike off mine. DBigXrayᗙ 08:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Starship.paint I don't have time right now to read through the edit history and the sourcing closely, but on the face of it I can't really see what was so wrong with XRay's edit that it should attract the level of scorn that it did. In the diff you provided above, the initial version was vaguely written and ungrammatical - at least XRay's version of it was written in decent English. If there was a shift in meaning, which meant that XRay's edit had moved our content further away from the sourcing, I don't see why that couldn't have been raised in a civil manner. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    • Girth Summit - Yappy2behere twice raised the concerns without incivility Misrepresents the cited source [75] and "hopes to play a major role"? Nowhere does the article say that [76], albeit in edit summaries an revert war. DBigXray also reverts, this fragment is correct but it misses the point The source nowhere says "frontal" org ... Do not add WP:OR, while making an inaccurate statement that is her statement. Yappy2behere attempts to fix the situation, [77], but probably introduced a different inaccuracy, in my view. DBigXray then deletes the entire sentence despite Yappy2behere's efforts. Essentially, we have an edit war where both sides feel aggrieved and wronged. starship.paint (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

      it is ok to have content dispute, it is ok to make mistakes, it is not ok to call someone dimwit in the discussion that was started to resolve the dispute. is this simple expectation so hard to understand ? DBigXrayᗙ 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Harassment of DBigXray by Starship.paint

Starship.paint, if so then I am still puzzled why you are going to lengths in painting me as a villain here (may be you are hiding something). What are you actually inferring here ? Are you saying the content that was before my edit was correct ? are you claiming that Yappys revert where he restored the inaccurate content in wikipedia's voice was appropriate ? Are you claiming that my edits left the article in a bad shape ? if one had issues on content there is a way and place to discuss it , where i started a thread and instead of a wP:CIVIL discussion on the issues, I was called a "dimwit" and stupid and what not. but that is all irrelevant for you. I used the word "yapping" there (which means "talk at length in an irritating manner.") and for that you deemed fit to give me a level 3 warning on Personal attack including a threat for blocking immediately complete with a well phrased finishing line that said "Not so fun when you're on the receiving end, huh? , and of course nothing [78] to the user who actually attacked me calling me all sorts of insulting names. You claim that you are neutral and uninvolved here but in fact as I showed above you are clearly biased against me. You are (deliberately) closing your eyes to the main issue here and are aggressively harping over a "trivial" content dispute, ( which you were not even a party to). And this is the reason why I am questioning your motives in coming to my talk page and then on this ANI and throwing muck on me. I would advise you not to advice me and force your personal opinions on me in a condescending manner. You may not like templates, doesn't mean you will go around asking others to not do it bcuz you hate it. Go start an RFC get consensus and I will be glad to follow it. The templates are here for a reason and should be used whenever and wherever necessary. If you feel I wrongly templated someone point it out and I will discuss. You have no right to ask me not to template someone. DBigXrayᗙ 09:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, while you probably did not intend for this to happen, your actions, as well as Soman and Yappy's, have perpetuated this conflict. You control your actions - by all means, continue templating other long-term editors, but know that templating can come off as heavy-handed, abrasive, dismissive, and even threatening, which may worsen conflicts - I templated you in an attempt to make this very point apparent to you. The thing is, even after William and I called you out, you don't seem capable of admitting error in this situation. You also utterly rejected Lepricavark's criticism above. That's as villainous as it gets for you. The content before your edit was wrong. Yappy's revert was half-right, half-wrong. Your edits on the article were partly right and partly wrong, but you can't seem to see or acknowledge the part that is wrong.starship.paint (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I never asked anyone to call me dimwit or attack me (and other noms) over AfD and content disputes. They chose to do it and despite warning continued repeating it. But you sir are here for victim blaming using contorted and False equivalence. your methods were useless in resolving the situation in any way and you are here on this ANI to add fuel to a fire. I have pointed out above why and how I consider you non neutral and that is all I have to say to you.DBigXrayᗙ 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, my methods failed in making you see the light. Therefore, that must have been a mistake of mine. My apologies to you, DBigXray. Finally, I hope that you will ask yourself, is this a massive conspiracy against you including me, William, Lepricavark, or is it possible that you have made a mistake? Good day to you. starship.paint (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

you too. DBigXrayᗙ 10:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I am requesting that an admin takes a look at this inappropriate harassment by User:Starship.paint done on my user talk (explained above with diffs diff) and comment on it. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC) updated on 06:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  To clarify, when you refer to inappropriate harassment that is explained by diffs (multiple, according to you), are you to referring to the singular diff of Starship.paint issuing an NPA warning template on your talk page? Or are there other diffs as well (in spite of the fact that Starship.paint has only edited your talk page once this year)? I would like to think that you wouldn't call for admin scrutiny against Starship.paint over a single warning after an admin said several hour ago that you "probably ought not to template people quite so readily." That same admin saw nothing requiring sanctions here, so you can't possibly believe that admins are going to do anything to Starship.paint over a single warning. You really need to acknowledge that you aren't 100% in the right here. You've been digging in your heels and refusing to listen, so I don't really see why you keep asking for more people to weigh in. Lepricavark (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Carrite

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

FWIW, there is no personal axe to grind here. Having a content dispute with others does not entitle anyone to badmouth and attack others on AfD and article talk pages. There are accepted ways to address disputes, and surprise, surprise, "calling insulting names" and WP:ADHOM are not one of them. Being an "outstanding encyclopedist" (whatever that means) does not mean you will get a pass and escape after making such personal attacks. DBigXrayᗙ 11:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, where did I call you 'insulting names'? --Soman (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

listed at #Harassment of DBigXray by User Soman--DBigXrayᗙ 13:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Au contraire, there are ZERO instances of name-calling in your collection of diffs. Lepricavark (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

here are the insults, thrown on me (diffs at #Harassment of DBigXray by User Soman), "this is slightly ridiculous.", "Why don't you spend a few minutes extra and review the posted (seventy five) links? You seem to have little problem in wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs", "The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate.", "Look, I've been along long enough here to detect empty postures. If you have an example of a personal attack, please bring it up in the relevant forum. I stand by the comments I made in the BJYM AfD, which were directed at your actions and behaviour and not your persona or person per se.", "There is a number of ongoing AfDs that break all logic and a wider community involvement would be of interest. A number of articles on entities ... are being nominated for deletion supposedly based on WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which is really weird ... Regardless of how one feels about political events in India today, arguing that organizations ... are non-notable defines common sense.", "DBigXray, whose googling skills aren't particularily impressive, has tagged four reference in this article."--DBigXrayᗙ 06:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

As I already said, there's no name-calling there. Those remarks were certainly rude and I won't defend them (although it is slightly ridiculous that you think "this is slightly ridiculous" counts as an insult), but you shouldn't claim that there was name-calling by Soman when there wasn't. Do I think Soman needs to work harder at being polite and assuming good faith? Yes, and I hope they will take this feedback on board. Lepricavark (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I never used the word "namecalling" I used "insulting names" (consider it insulting phrases if you want) . Among the long list of examples, you choosing the weakest example and then commenting over it does not make the entire list any less insulting than they already are. DBigXrayᗙ 16:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If you meant 'insulting phrases', you should have said that. And if you don't want me to pick on a weak example, don't use it. Nor did I attempt to use one example to invalidate the entire list. You're ignoring the part where I said that the remarks were rude and that I wouldn't defend them. I also called on Soman to work harder at being polite and assuming good faith. Lepricavark (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

well, I just said 'insulting phrases', be happy. I will use all examples of personal attacks against me. I am not here to waterdown the issue. I am ignoring nothing. The entire summary of your comment on this ANI thread (as I see it ) is that conduct of others is rude while DBX's is sanctionable. This inference is quite the opposite of what the diffs presented in this thread say. But you can keep doing what you are doing here. DBigXrayᗙ 16:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll try once more. The reason I floated the idea of a sanction for you is that you have repeatedly doubled-down and refused to hear any feedback that wasn't fully favorable to you. When this thread was first opened, you were not in sanction territory. Realistically, you probably still aren't in danger of any kind of sanction. But since we are in the business of summarizing one another's comments, you seem to be making the case that unless something (in this case, templating) is strictly prohibited by the rules, it's fine for you to do it regardless of whether it's a good idea. And if you're still trying to make the case that This is slightly ridiculous is a personal attack, then I give up. Lepricavark (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There is an entire list of personal attacks and not just one example. Templating with WP:NPA for its violation is not sanctionable, it is not even an offence. Whereas, using personal attack frequently is a sanctionable offence. DBigXrayᗙ 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Mr. Vernon

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

Comment by S. M. Nazmus Shakib

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

Though no diff was added but S. M. Nazmus Shakib seems to be referring to this AfD where Soman added 78 links. And this AfD nominated by S. M. Nazmus Shakib where Soman attacked him saying, Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: I have forgotten to put diff here. Sorry for this. And thanks to DBigXray for putting diffs. These diffs are put by him are correct.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. DBigXrayᗙ 06:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the recent editing patterns, it certainly appears that S. M. Nazmus Shakib and DBigXray are well in sync in deletion discussions on the Sangh Parivar. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BJYM Karnataka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Rashtriya Manch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Party, Sikkim, K. G. Marar, etc.. Notably, DBigXray even goes to the extent of deleting 'keep' votes from one of S. M. Nazmus Shakib's deletion nominations ([79]). Now, I'm not saying that the two users had coordinated their deletionist drive, but there is a pattern of behaviour in which both seem happy to validate each other's pro-deletion argument and refuse to listen to opposing views. If 'associate' as too negative connection connotation, I'd be happy with replacing it with 'buddy' or 'fellow traveller'. --Soman (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Soman, I had already answered about these baseless acusations in the table above. I note that you continue your WP:ASPERSIONS without any evidence. The diff you added already links Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#User_attacking_AFD_nom in the edit summary for context.

@Bishonen:, You had asked on that ANI to "Go ahead and revert, Blame me if you get flak. Well, I reverted them and now I am getting the flak above from yet another editor, who had been attacking others, simply due to his disagreement on AfD. Just thought that you deserved to know.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, DBigXray's removals of XeroxKleenex's personal attacks in AfDs are on me, and I'm happy to take responsibility for them. See [80] for context. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC).

off topic

In case you weren't aware of this, it would have been possible to use Template:rpa to remove the personal attack while leaving the keep !vote and the non-offensive portion of the rationale in place. Lepricavark (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC) This is offtopic. I am perfectly aware, but you should read the actual ANI thread (from archive that I linked), especially the part where I state that they have made all these comments on AfD in a matter of few seconds. I am sure User:Bishonen knows that there is a template for RPA and I would leave this decision of reverting on their admin discretion. Again this is offtopic, and you should discuss this on Bishonen's talk page if you want to continue bickering over this. DBigXrayᗙ 07:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC) I doubt Bishonen wants this to spill over onto her talk page. Lepricavark (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC) Lepricavark, Then ask her where she wants to discuss it . This is off topic to this discussion and I would appreciate that you don't elongate this already long discussion, with irrelevant things. DBigXrayᗙ 14:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC) I didn't want to discuss it at all. Lepricavark (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@admins, The diff Soman added clearly refers the ANI thread in the edit summary. I hope you are all watching and reading this nonsense and I sincerely hope an appropriate action will be taken on User:Soman for throwing these kinds of WP:ASPERSION on fellow AfD contributors, simply because he disagrees with their opinion. This bigotry must not be allowed to go on unchecked. DBigXrayᗙ 11:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As it was mentioned that validate each other's pro-deletion argument and refuse to listen to opposing views. Can I get some prove from @Soman: that I refuse to listen to opposing views. And I want to say just K or D votes are not enough to judge a person/persons. And in AfD I see comments like vendetta and WP:IDONTLIKE were made against me. Its totally false allegation that I refuse to listen to opposing views.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Look, I don't pretend to say that I know your role in Wikipedia particularly well, my impression stems from 8 AfDs over the past days, in which we've had opposing views in each one. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but I don't get the impression that you elaborate your rationales for deletion particularly deeply. It also seems to me that you, along with DBigXray, routinely refuse to recognize any reference added by an editor with an opposing view, and go through a lot of mental gymnastics to disqualify any reference that could prevent a deletion. I.e. deletion for the sake of deletion. --Soman (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Its very large now. I have to say about @Soman: in short words that he/she should not make allegations against any person without giving any prove and/or according to his/her personal point of view. And this is a serious allegation without any prove.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Note to admins

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

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

WilliamJE, did I take your name? In case it was not clear to you, I wasn't referring to you DBigXrayᗙ 21:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Xray, I suggest you back off = maybe apologize too = then take a rest from WP. In light of what Razer brought up, this thread could turn very ugly for you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, no, and no and no. You don't need to worry about it. DBigXrayᗙ 21:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, You brought this thread to ANI claiming i wrongly templated them, inspite of me telling you that that the templating was appropriate. Now that you have your diffrential, how about you apologizing me for wrongly accusing me of wrongful templating ? DBigXrayᗙ 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray has been warned enough times before

DBigXray has been warned enough times involving the very same issues that have been described above. Some examples include an ANI from November 2018: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#DBigXray where DBigXray was warned over same incidents of harassment. Then he was warned by an admin on his talk page on December 29 2019 from Bishonen,[81] that he would get topic banned if disruption continues. Other ANIs from last year include:[82][83][84]

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

Without any provocation I get called insulting names like dimwit, bully and what not and when I post warning templates on those personal attacks, I get dragged on to ANI where you appear and propose no less than an entire Topic ban. {slow claps}. I must note that you and your coterie have been trying to pull this off multiple times in the past and clearly you are not stopping and you consider this thread just another opportunity. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Razer2115, Just as I noted in the section above, you are here after a 2 weeks break simply to settle your old scores with me. DBigXrayᗙ 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

about the layout of the hueg table

What... what... what's that hueg table for? I mean that very narrow table above, I think posted by Soman, six screens long from top to bottom on my 27-inch monitor — say 170 cm, the average height of an adult American male — with very little information sparsely deployed over it and accompanied by an endless wasteland of whitespace running down to the right of it? It would probably have taken ten or fifteen lines of text to give the actual information in the table. Plus the mysterious connections between the cells could have been made a lot clearer in text. Please use text on ANI. Ordinary text. Not tables. Not interpretive dance. Sheesh. And now tell me it's all my own fault for not reading ANI on a phone or something. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC). I want interpretive dance! El_C 21:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, on my screen it looked quite ok. But point taken, I'll stay away from using tables in the future WP:ANI discussions for now. Soman (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC). Table of Harassment Bishonen, El C, I believe that huge table is called the "Table of harassment", the one where people are tied and umm, you know.. harassed. What is the point of spending time in creating a Table of harassment, if the reader does not feel truly harassed? You won't get the feeling of hellish harassment with the boring ordinary text nor with fancy dances. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC) User:RickinBaltimore, Bishonen isn't calling it a typo so I guess, you will have to abandon your sanity and continue being nuts--DBigXrayᗙ 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Excuse my refactoring ... but I agree with 'Shonen. Putting a narrow (500px) table with a quadruple indented left margin alongside a floating image is disruptive and discourteous to anybody working on a small screen or with larger than normal zoom levels (e.g. old folk like me). I've demonstrated how to fix the table - perhaps Soman will want to revert me and fix it themselves. All it needs now is for them to move the floating image away from the table in a place they are satisfied with, please. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Somebody should just chuck the floating image. It's far less relevant to our purposes here than the table. Lepricavark (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving on

Earlier, I said I didn't have time to read through all the article histories and sources, etc - I was literally about to go and do some actual IRL job stuff. Since then, every time I've looked back at this thread, the reading list has got longer :(. For what it's worth, here is my take home summary - I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed anything...

• DBigXray probably ought not to template people quite so readily. The ideal outcome for any content dispute is to have a civil conversation - templated 'No OR' warnings for a long-standing editor probably aren't helpful, and giving a templated warning immediately prior to giving a DS Sanctions notice probably makes the DS notice feel like an extra layer of warning - that's not what they're for. I'd advise XRay just talk to the person politely, and explain their point of view.
• Yappy2bhere definitely ought to realise that addressing people by words like 'son' and 'boy' is unacceptably condescending (especially given the potential racial overtones of the word 'boy'). If DBigXray's contributions have been a bit pointy, Yappy's have been downright rude, and they ought to be warned that that style of discourse is not acceptable, even if someone has just given you an unnecessary template.
• Soman needs to realise that the only effective arguments at AfD are those supporting or refuting the notability of the subject of the article. There is never any need to question the motivations of the nominator, or of delete voters - simply say why you believe the subject is notable, and leave it at that. I realise that AfD is a often a cesspool of incivility, and Soman may well be following the example of many others in that arena - but disagreeing with someone is never an excuse for questioning their motives.

Have I missed anything? Probably. On balance, I don't think there's anything requiring sanctions here - rather, everyone needs to think about how they can better interact with other editors, especially those they disagree with. My remaining concern is that Yappy2behere has not shown up here to account for their words - they're not obliged to, of course, and I recognise that their editing is very sporadic, so they may well be unaware of this thread. Nevertheless, of all those involved here, I see their conduct as perhaps the closest to crossing the line, and I think that at least a formal warning for incivility would be appropriate. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit: - I concur with what you said above. You did miss something though - it wasn't brought up by me, but by Lepricavark: if someone gave me a civility warning, took four of my created articles to AfD, and then gave me another civility warning, I would feel like I was the one being harassed. Here is a user contribution search of DBigXray on Soman's talk page, which took about 2 minutes to load for me. It tells the following story. starship.paint (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Past situation, in 6 years, DBigXray has taken 2 of Soman's articles to AfD [85] [86]. This isn't a common thing.
• Current situation, late January 2020 [87]: DBigXray takes 1 of Soman's articles to AfD. They have a dispute there. DBigXray warns Soman, then in 6 hours takes 4 of Soman's articles to AfD. DBigXray does not nominate any other article by other editors to AfD on 3 February (UTC) [88], so this is clearly targeting Soman.
• In light of Razer2115's provision of information that in November 2018 [89], that an admin closed an ANI thread that warned DBigXray for harassment and battleground behaviors. Any admin should block if the behavior continues - I propose a second warning for harassment and battleground behaviors to DBigXray, in light of the time elapsed since that incident. starship.paint (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Struck in light of bludgeoning, lack of remorse and lack of responsibility taken. starship.paint (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by DBigXray

• User:Girth Summit you did not explicitly state, that you have read and investigated the entire case, along with the diffs. Please state it explicitly. From your comment I get an impression, that you have not. As I noted above, the expectation is that an admin, without prejudice, investigates this case in entirety and comes out with some conclusion and resolution that will resolve the issues pointed here. Indeed there are several problems and missing points that have not been addressed in your comment above and I will mention them in points below.
• GS says "'probably ought not to template people quite so readily" why not ? Please point me to a policy that states this ? Are you enforcing or suggesting some kind of template ban on me ? This thread was brought to ANI by the OP, claiming that I had given inappropriate templates, and templating them inappropriately was harassment. I have already explained above along with the diffs, that none of the templates given by me were inappropriate and all the templates were appropriately posted in their std form. If So then why should I avoid posting templates ? I do often use a personalized message (instead of templates) addressing the concern (if I find it necessary). This was a situation that in my judgement, merited a std template and if this same exact same case ever came in front of me in future, then I will repeat the same template again. It is not pointed what is wrong with this template and I don't see any reason why I am being asked to avoid templates, without an RfC to this effect. Are you claiming that the "No OR" template was inappropriate, if so then I expect a clarification, if no, then please mention it explicitly. WP:ACDS alert templates are not warnings, it specifically mentions this in its text and if someone sees this template as some kind of warning then it is their problem and not mine. WP:ACDS "demands" that the template is given in the same format that I have and no tweaking is acceptable by ACDS. If someone has issues with the templates, no one is stopping them to delete them from their user talk, responding to them with insulting name calling is unacceptable and an offence that needs to be penalized. Instead of doing the expected, point fingers on me and asking to avoid templates, is problematic because there are editor on this thread who I am sure will return in a few days to ANI claiming, "In the last ANI thread DBX was asked to avoid templates and use 'personalized messages' and look at these diffs, he has given more than 50 templates since then, how dare he, he "MUST BE BANNED INDEFINITELY" from Wikipedia."
• The elephant in the room and the "Real offence" here is "Personal Attacks" meted out to me at the AfDs, User talk and article talk. Accordingly I had given appropriate and "Standard" WP:NPA templates. And now suddenly the offenders and (some others above) have turned the tables on me and are claiming that NPA templates and DS alerts that I gave are the real issue here and that me giving them is harassment of these users. This is a clear example of whataboutery and False equivalence. The real issue of insults and personal attacks, is not even an actionable offence for them and they are baying for my blood for templating them. Quite clearly this is Victim blaming and it is unfortunate that User:Girth Summit appears to have ignored this.
• As I mentioned with diffs on #Harassment of DBigXray by Yappy2bhere in response to standard templates, I got called insulting names such as "son, you're not in the right", "you don't understand WP policy" "you cynically contort it to achieve your own ends." you are "stupid", "audacious", "you need more than chutzpah", you are "bullying me", You are "A diller" ("The word 'diller' is a Yorkshire term for a boy who is dim-witted and stupid "), "You're a BULLY with a big axe to grind", "Don't cry wolf, boy". What Exactly did I do to deserve these personal attacks ? Are these not offences ? And note that I did not respond to them in kind, although I am capable of responding to them with some very well thought out words. User:Girth Summit claims that "DBigXray's contributions have been a bit pointy" please point out what pointy thing are you referring to. I have clarified above that I never attacked yappy2behere and it is wrong to claim a False equivalence between his attacks and mine.
• Soman has been editing here for 16 years, and yet he is struggling with WP:CIVILITY. He had been warned twice by me and yet he continued attacking me on AfDs and ANI with WP:ADHOM, (see diffs). This is completely unacceptable behavior and something that needs some kind of resolution to make sure that this is not repeated. 2 Warnings have clearly failed to achieve that end thus far. "AfD has been a cesspool of incivility", yes it is, and it is so, because we have more than a few incompetent and insecure admins, who are scared to issue warnings and blocks, for breach of civility and personal attacks, just as we are seeing in this case here. This situation is only going to get worse going forward, since other AfD contributors, get encouraged by inaction of admins. Other afd contributors think that these breach of WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA is acceptable at AfD, and is something that they can get away with without issues. No it is not, these are offences and repeating them despite multiple warnings need to be addressed appropriately, or else the vicious cycle will continue.
• There are multiple other concerns pointed here, that are still unaddressed. Soman's WP:ASPERSION of connivance, needs to be addressed, he has been going on and on about it with falsehoods, and yet no admin has commented on this bigotry.
• Inappropriate canvassing by Soman, also needs to be addressed.
• Finally although I was the one attacked, I did not bring this case to ANI but someone did, and I along with others have spent considerable amount of volunteer time and efforts on this thread. Something actionable has to come out of this thread that improves and solves the issues pointed here. It is still lacking.DBigXrayᗙ 06:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1,000 words without admitting any fault. Even when you took 4 of Soman's articles to AfD in 6 hours right after a dispute with Soman, taking no other articles to AfD in that time ... apparently that is whataboutism, while you are the real victim, we are engaging in victim blaming, and at the same time, shame on you incompetent and insecure admins at AfD?! starship.paint (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint I am trying to ignore your relentless attacks on me, but you just wont shut up. Before moving forward Please point me to the thread where I have been banned to nominate any article (that I assess as non notable) created by Soman to AfD ? Soman does not WP:OWN those article. Those articles belong to me as much as it belongs to him or Jimbo. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose blocks for all concerned for giving me a headache.' All these words, and no mention of conciseness. PS, I thought the table was nice. Now where's the bloody tylenol?-- Deepfriedokra 07:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra I propose a nice head massage and a strip of tylenol, all you need is to come to my city. PS, you should see the table in its original form (before it was tamed by Rexxs) to be able to appreciate Bishonen comment. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray This thread has become massively unwieldy, I'm struggling to keep track of it - every time I look at it there seem to be several more pages of text, and a bunch of new diffs (which may or may not already have been linked to) - so no, I cannot claim to have read through everything exhaustively. I didn't want to go into too much detail above about the issues I see with how you've behaved, but since you've asked me to expand on them, I will do.

I said you ought not to template people so readily because I think that you ought not to template people so readily - I'm not invoking any policy here, I'm not saying that you must not template anyone, and I'm certainly not applying any sanctions to you - I'd like you to try to exercise better judgement when entering into what should be effective, collegiate communication. A templated message is a quick way to bring certain policies to someone's attention - they're quick and easy to apply, and useful if you genuinely think that the person doesn't know this stuff already. As a means of communication between experienced editors though, they're almost never helpful - all they achieve is to piss the other person off. I template vandals and spam merchants, but I very rarely template editors with significant experience, and when I do, I always leave a personal note explaining why I've done it. If you are engaged in a content dispute with someone, I would strongly recommend that you actually talk to them, in plain English, about your concerns. Example: "I can see what you're saying, but I'm a bit concerned that the way you've worded that is string into OR territory. How about we put it like this...". I put it to you that an approach like that is far more likely to end in an amicable resolution than giving them a template about OR. Sure, it takes a bit longer to type, but it's time well-spent in the long run.

That's what I meant about being pointy - I think that excessive templating is a bit pointy. However, I don't believe that I am drawing a false equivalence - I was actually contrasting your behaviour with that of Yappy. I believe that I was pretty clear that, if your templates were a bit pointy, their response was excessively rude and uncivil. One could also argue that nominating four articles authored by a single editor in quick succession is pointy - I would be spitting feathers if someone did that to four articles I'd written. Sure, none of us own our articles, but we take pride in them. Surely you can see that would elicit an emotional response?

I would also urge you to look back at the things you have said about others in this thread. You've been quick to accuse people of lying, of bigotry, of administrative cowardice - I suggested earlier that it would be good for you to cool it here, and I still think that would be a good idea.

Again - I'm expanding on this because you asked me to. I do not think that your behaviour is the worst discussed in this thread, and I am not proposing or supporting any sanctions against you, but I do think that there are areas where you could do some self-reflection. I hope that's not offensive to hear, I certainly don't mean it to be. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thanks for confirming that that you have not investigated the entire case. This thread has become lengthy but I have frequently seen much longer threads on ANI and those on arbcom are whole another level in terms of length. I do hope you or another admin finds time to do it sooner. As I noted above, I do use personalized comments but it is simply not possible to use it all the time. The point still remains that posting a template is not an offence responding with insults to the template is one. This along with unprovoked personal attacks on the talk page and AfDs are the central issues of this long thread that remains to be addressed . DBigXrayᗙ 14:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply from Soman

• I recognize that my tone in debates can come off as sarcastic or snippy. Whilst this may be unconstructive at times, I don't think it constitutes a breach of WP:CIVILITY. That said, noted that in the debates leading up to the ANI thread some of my comments weren't helpful. (For example, I stated that DBigXray had poor googling skills on Talk:Priashevshchina, after he added 4 'verification failed' tags in the Priashevshchina article on details that were easily verified [90]. )
• At the same time, the usage of terms as 'trolling', 'bigotry', 'falsehoods', 'offenders' (used by DBigXray in relation to me), is in my textbook much stronger statements than a snippy comment over someone's google skills.
• " Soman does not WP:OWN those article."... yet somehow you managed to target 4 quite disparate articles, all initially created by me, in one go? I think many of us has difficulty to believe that your decision to send warning templates plus 4 AfD nominations in one go would be completely unrelated to the debate in the BJYM AfD.
• Point taken on not debating editors motivations within the AfDs themselves. In retrospect, I should have brought DBigXray and S. M. Nazmus Shakib's deletion drive on Sangh Parivar-related subject to ANI rather than debating their motivations within the AfDs.
• Moving on, for me there are essentially two problems here. One is the motivations and one is the lack of real dialogue;
• I do, and I think this is the apt platform to express this, strong question the motives of DBigXray in the Sangh Parivar-related AfDs. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha he writes: "A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers" ('created' later changed to 'updated overtime'). As DBigXray is familiar with Indian context, I'm absolutely sure DBigXray knows that BJYM is notable well beyond the minimum threshold of Wikipedia and that there would be a scope to rewrite the article with more sources and complying with NPOV. Likewise, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, he states that the article had been created for PROMO purposes. I must say, that I can't say I fully understand his motives, whether its mainly a political POV issue or if the deletion process in itself is some sort of a weird power game.
• In terms of the interaction with other editors in the AfDs, I'm quite frustrated with DBigXray's lack of respect towards other editors. He begins either the deletion nomination or the first delete vote with sweeping statements about ORGCRIT, PROMO, etc.., but when other editors provide arguments to the contrary he bluntly refuses to acknowledge any other input than his own. Notably no source or reference is acceptable to him. In the case of BKS, the article has now been expanded, including references on how the organization managed to impact state-level policy making in the 1980s. It seems that once DBigXray has taken the position to nominate/vote an article for deletion, he will seek to 'win' the deletion process regardless of the merits of the sources and articles presented.
• I'm not sure what the path forward is, but for now I would leave it at asking DBigXray to respect WP:BEFORE and show greater humility towards the arguments of other editors in deletion processes. --Soman (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In regards to my comment above, I note now that in the Priashevshchina AfD [91], DBigXray did actually partially retract one of his comment on one source in response to comment by Spokoyni. --Soman (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Your response is basically more of your accusations against me so I will have to respond.

1. Without any provocation you used the words such as "ridiculous", "wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs", hater, lacking common sense, lacking googling skills". That is not sarcastic but downright insulting personal attacks and as per wiki policy of WP:NPA and repeating them despite warning is an offence.
2. Posting 78 links in an AfD is textbook example of 'trolling', Accusing 2 different editors of connivance just because those editors had a difference of opinion with you in an AfD is text book example of 'bigotry' and wP:ASPERSION, Saying something without basis is 'falsehoods', folks violating Wiki policy are called 'offenders'
3. All 4 articles were Political newspapers by political parties. I assessed them as non notable and asked community feedback, that is not an offence by any wikipedia policy.
4. Almost all of those article were deleted and should not have been created in the first place, you clearly don't see creating them in violation of WP:N as a problem, but you see them deleting as a problem. This is a problem in you.
5. These are again more accusations of Bad faith simply because you disagreed with the AfD. Several of those articles have already been deleted by the community after AfDs. Are you claiming that the Wikipedia community that deleted those articles is anti BJP ?
6. If you are not familiar with our WP:N policies, "then you should go read them instead of blaming me for your lack of knowledge.
7. Again you are wrongfully accusing (without evidence) me of not following WP:BEFORE, You are the one who made unprovoked attacks on me and Shakib and other AfD contributors and yet you are asking me to show humility ? I find this very ironical.
8. These comments by Soman above are further evidence which proves that this thread needs a formal conclusion and closure and leaving it like this is not going to help the ongoing situation --DBigXrayᗙ 11:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1. I've never used the term hater.
2. The evidence of lack of respect of WP:BEFORE is in the edit history, where at least twice you issued unfounded accusations of WP:PROMO in AfDs.
3. I didn't say you lack common sense, I implied that the AfD drive lacked common sense. Apologies if that wasn't expressed well on my behalf.
4. ...""then you should go read them instead of blaming me for your lack of knowledge.", this I think underscores the difficulty here. I cannot criticize your googling skills, but you are free to comment on my supposed 'lack of knowledge'. You repeatedly expect others to adhere to standards that you yourself ignore
5. "All 4 articles were Political newspapers by political parties. I assessed them as non notable and asked community feedback, that is not an offence by any wikipedia policy." That's not the question. The question is the process on your behalf, in selecting the 4 articles? None of them have any connection (except Golos Pravdy/Trud, Zemlia i More), apart from sharing the same creator. None of them were previously tagged for notability concerns or anything similar. Are you, on the record, saying that on February 3, 06.33 am UTC when you nominated Trud, Zemlia i More for deletion, 16 minutes after having posted a NPA notice on my talk page, that you were unaware/indifferent to the fact that the article had been created by me? I'm not saying that it is statistically impossible that among 6,000,000 articles on English wikipedia you encountered Trud, Zemlia i More on random just in the middle of the BJYM AfD dispute, but I don't find it very probably. If you could at least be a bit more transparent and open to a minimum of self-criticism, the process would be much more smooth for all involved parties. --Soman (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Yes, you did not say "hater" instead on the AFD you had said "...The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate."
2. The article had WP:PROMO issues in most cases it was the creator while in some articles updaters caused it, WP:BEFORE was done. DBigXrayᗙ 16:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Nice way to reformulate 'dislike' into 'hate'. And, as a role of thumb, if there is a problem with PROMO/POV material in an article, we try to edit the article and improve it, not go for deletion. --Soman (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1. that is an unacceptable WP:ADHOM in whatever way you look at it. But you had continued attacking the AfD contributor inspite of being repeatedly reminded.
2. The articles were nominated as they had issues with notability which was the primary concern. That they had other issues as well does not mean that notability wasn't an issue. DBigXrayᗙ 04:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions for User DBigXray

I feel some action needs to be taken against this editor. His recent behavior warrants it and he was warned[92] in the past. So do you support a website ban, topic ban, block, another warning, or no action at all....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I earlier proposed a second warning, but I will strike that, because since then, the continued WP:BLUDGEON-ing is too much. DBigXRay has made 41 comments here already, and the 42nd is surely coming. I'm tired, someone else propose something. starship.paint (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

...William you brought the case here on false premises that the templates were inappropriate. You were proved wrong and now you have moved on to this. Let an admin handle this case and decide accordingly. Both of you have already shown your immense love for me on this very thread and you are not neutral by any long shot. Let a neutral admin handle this and propose anything after going through the case. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, you are not a neutral admin to decide on the sanctions or propose one. let an admin do this. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1) The templates were inappropriate, as an admin has indicated above (if you want admin input, don't ignore it when you get it). 2) One need not be an admin, neutral or otherwise, to propose sanctions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, Can you point me to the line or the diff where an admin said that the templates were inappropriate. It is strange that I have missed it. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's the one where an admin said you probably ought not to template people quite so readily. If you wish to argue that the admin in question didn't explicitly call your actions "inappropriate", I will respond that he certainly didn't say they were right either. In other words, WilliamJE has not been proven wrong about the templates. Several of us have agreed with him, although you have seen fit to disregard our advice for reasons that are known only to you. Lepricavark (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit Please see the comment above, do you agree with such an inference of your comment as Lepricavark is making above ? that my templating was inappropriate ? To me it appears that Girth Summit is saying that I ought to make personalized messages instead of templates, as personalized messages have better result than template. And IMHO this is not the same as inappropriate. In any case User:Girth Summit must confirm this as a reply below, if he considers my templates inappropriate. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, I don't think that this is a binary situation, where something is either appropriate (and therefore fine), or inappropriate (and therefore sanctionable). I told you what I thought on my talk page, but since you've asked me to comment here, I think that some of your use of templates has been unnecessary and probably counter productive. What proportion of your use of templates is unnecessary and counterproductive is not something I have done a survey of, but some of it clearly is. I am sure that it is difficult to be self-reflective when there are people calling for you to be sanctioned, but I think you would be doing yourself a big favour if you took a bit of time to think about this before replying - you are digging a hole for yourself with some of your comments here in this thread. I'll repeat, for the benefit of those calling for XRay to be sanctioned, that I do not believe their use of templates is the worst thing shown in the diffs presented above, and my views on the correct course of action have not changed since I commented earlier in the 'Moving on' section. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your points are well-taken and I don't actually expect that any sort of sanction will be enacted against Xray. However, I will note that Xray had plentiful opportunities for self-reflection long before any of us began to discuss sanctions for them; in fact, it is their continuing refusal to self-reflect that prompted my suggestion below. Lepricavark (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• In this very discussion, I stayed silent on DBigXray adding [93] a section header Harassment of DBigXray by Starship.paint only after I had stopped responding in that thread.
• Now, DBigXray continues similar behaviour, by removing [94] a section header Proposed sanctions for User DBigXray added by WilliamJE. starship.paint (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've been reticent to propose any sort of sanction against DBigXray, but in light of both the above discussion and this spill over to User talk:Girth Summit, perhaps we might consider a restriction against issuing templated NPA warnings. Xray is in IDHT territory with regard to the repeated criticism of their warnings and it seems nothing sort of a formalized restriction will be efficacious. After all, Xray keeps saying 'point me to x discussion that says I can't do x', so I guess that means he is unwilling to adjust his behavior unless he is forced to do so. We're not in block or ban territory, although the refusal to take any negative feedback on board is worrying and I think it has become clear to the rest of us why so few admins have been willing to weigh in here. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The IDHT that you seem to be referring here is DBX is refusing to not give templates. If you had read my replies you would have found that I dont give templates on all 100% the issues that I find during my watchlist patrolling. Obviously there are situations where a 1 line message works better than a template. And so If someone is asking me to do something that I already do, then how is it a change ? This was a case where I used a template, Girth Summit believes that a personalized message would have been more effective. In his reply above, he never said that my templating was inappropriate. I would have readily apologized had my templating been inappropriate, but it was not. I was attacked without any provocations on AfDs and for that I gave the templates and for that I am not going to apologize. Enough evidence was given above on the behavior of these 2 editors and yet we only have a thread for sanctions on DBX, where Lepricavark, WilliamJE and starship.paint are baying for the blood. But it is kind of expected since they were doing it right from the time this thread was started. Just a cursory look at their signature in this entire thread shows that they have been continuously speaking against me, completely ignoring the offences by others. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am in no way baying for blood, nor have I completely ignored the offense of other editors. I originally became involved in this thread because I wanted to make sure that Soman's edits were properly placed within the surrounding context, not because I had any kind of axe to grind with you. However, I have been frustrated at every turn by your refusal to bend at all on any point. If you think sanctions should be proposed against other editors, you are free to do so yourself. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If you aren't baying for my blood, then why are you even commenting in this subsection ? No, I am not going to propose any sanctions. Unlike you three, I am not here to get editors, I don't agree with, banned/blocked. I am here, only to make sure that their personal attacks, and unprovoked name calling, at the AfDs are brought to a complete stop. The NPA warnings did not help and the attacks continued so I am glad that it was raised here. How they stop those attacks is upto the reviewing and closing admins, they are far more experienced than me and I trust their admin discretion in being able to handle this case appropriately. DBigXrayᗙ 16:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that you just personally attacked me, right? Lepricavark (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

He also stole the cookie you personally taunted me with while you both bayed for my blood here last month. Then he used it to bribe me into throwing the fight. Then you all killed me. The part of me that enjoyed historical anniversaries, anyway. The point is, we're all to blame for something, and working together, we can silence anyone for anything. Community standards are amazingly flexible that way. No hard feelings, though, I deserved to die for mildly annoying DBX. I can admit it in hindsight. I propose we Delete Tiger Squad as a friendly reminder to follow the mainstream. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid this isn't about you, aside from the parallel of chronic IDHT that resulted in a very minor issue being escalated into a much bigger problem. Lepricavark (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I only mentioned myself for context. It's mainly a complaint about DBX baying for the blood of an editor who disagreed with him about whether Tiger Squad deserves to exist here. Didn't want to start a new subsection just to recommend a fitting (IMHO) punishment that would double as BLP content cleanup. That article's bad news, regardless of our feelings on the allegedly involved parties. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support': (Girth Summit @ moving on): (NB: Involved editor): Basically try to avoid templating when in discussions at AfD. I'd also give a suggestion to try to comment at most once a day at AfD and at most 3 times per relist. That is a target not a requirement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

More evidence of Personal attack by Yappy2bhere

where Yappy2bhere stated, Really? You comb through my edit history looking for dirt, whine that you haven't found it, then accuse me of hounding you? You're one sick puppy [95] diff found by SharʿabSalam▼DBigXrayᗙ 13:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, another non-admin comment is probably the last thing you want to see, but here it is anyway. This being a volunteer project, not even an admin is obligated to investigate editor complaints, not least when one admin has been generous enough to do so already and failed to satisfy the parties. This thread has gotten so messy due mainly to a myriad of repetitive comments (including yours) that I wouldn't bet on any admin delving into this just because you ask. Some editors you think should be sanctioned, some editors think you should be sanctioned. In all, everyone probably could have conducted themselves better and a subset should have conducted themselves better, but none of it rises to the level of warranting sanctions, especially since sanctions are preventative, not punitive. There is no ongoing disruption, I don't think, except in this very discussion from which everyone had better slowly back off at this point. That leaves Yappy2bhere who is the only one whose conduct rises to a level worthy of ANI. But they have not edited for a week. Again, GirthSummit has already indicated that a formal warning on civility would be appropriate. Since we don't block to punish, they would have to return to editing and continue the pattern of behaviour, then you could begin a concise new section summarising the issue with diffs you presented here, the analysis by GS that endorsed a formal warning, more old diffs you found after that, and the diffs of new instances of the editor persisting upon their return despite this discussion here. If this discussion wasn't such a mess, and looked at the conduct of single editor, Yappy2bhere, it's possible it would have yielded an outcome you'd be satisfied with. That not having been the case, and per the rest of my observations herein, I don't think continuing to add comments here is likely to make admins want any more to go through the mountain of text that is this section. At this point, the single diff at an admin's talk page that Sharab/you has/ve left is your better chance than this lo...o...ong section here; that diff is coincidentally the worst one anyway, IMO. I advise that you stop responding here until a new uninvolved editor/admin queries you about something. The subsection above this one is probably concerning to you, but the only way that is gonna go anywhere is if you don't take a break from all this and end up making an unfortunate edit or two. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, your are wrong in the beginning itself. Please read my last comment [96], I am not here to get folks sanctioned. I want these personal attacks and insults to stop. DBigXrayᗙ 16:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not responding about anything else you said above, since every single point worth responding to, has already been responded by me in the threads above and I see no reason to repeat them again. DBigXrayᗙ 07:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Djm-leighpark

I am a non-neutral contributor to this thread. It will no doubt strike people that I am present on some of the pages referenced in this thread. I have been following it for some days, given a few talk pages of users/articles related to this thread are on my watchlist. It will likely not surprise DBigXray that I currently finding them a pain in the backside with continued badgering after nearly entry. Unfortunately this particular spat is but one of a number on AfD's related to the subcontinent of India ongoing recently with users beyond this ANI thread at this time and I have concerns various sides (country/region/politcal/religion) taking potshots at each other with what I would regard as attempts to get articles deleted, articles tag shamed, users tag shamed, users blocked and use of socks also involved (I am not accusing DBigXray here ... well perhaps I am a little and I have examples that can be thrown at me as I am not angelic ... the general problems are beyond that and this simply by impression from taking 3 steps back). I intend to add some specific comments at intervals ... on the road with less capable device at the moment and I likely won't be pointing to policies/guidelines as much as I'd like. I am aware several admins are watching this like the Gods from Olympus, perhaps wryly smiling, but also concerned about the effect on the project. AfD's lie as one of the key sources of issues here. They result is article deletion which is a serious matter, and once done results in a loss of history. I have perhaps concerns actors with COI's, perhaps even government sponsored, may initiate AfD's to censor information; perhaps that is why I dont like to see media outlets removed and political parties removed. Yes there is a risk minorities get over coverage; but we should be able to have partisans within articles without deletion. (This is a general statement I have no belief or evidence here say DBigXray is involved). Afd's are devisive ... especially "borderline" ones. They are wasteful of time and energy. The system can easily be swamped. They can be easily swamped. Nom's can easily get away with skimped WP:BEFORE, one indicator is a sending long standing articles relatively to AfD when not previously tagged for problems (recently introduced is a separate issue). While the above is a more general ramble I'll deal with some specific points raised in this ANI below.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• with regards to Yappy2bhere: I believe there is a possibility my edit [97] on an article myself and Yappy2behere previously were at odds on the merge of 28 April 2018 may have led to out spat on Stop Funding Fake News and may have following my contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha and decided to engage on Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha. (I present this as a possible explanation of how Yappy2bhere got here out of the blue as it may ease some peoples wonderings).Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Regarding: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and alerts. My talk page carries Template:Ds/aware/blp/ipa/tpm/tt indicating I claim awareness of these sanctions. Per Template:Ds/alert this alerts for blp and ipa should not be issued in this circumstance and a warning should have occured as a reminder not to it it, however thus alerts were given on [98]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• WP:CITEBOMB. I wish people would read and apply WP:THREE rather than WP:CITEBOMB. If all else fails quality not quanity. Please think of most closers and admins who won't try to beyond 3 before giving up. Full cite embellishment is really useful, the provenance of the source should be proudly displayed. For foreign language particularly important and ensure trans-title is set, most cite parameter fields filled in and quote provided if necessary. I am also of the opinion the same principle applies to ANI/diffs. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

End of comments. Could probably do more but have rambled enough and I need to read the Daily Mail as I can't use it here.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment on the revenge by Djm-leighpark Djm-leighpark calling themselves non-neutral is an understatement when just 2 days back, they had openly avowed to " take revenge on anyone they consider a friend of DBigXray". diff and the full quote "DBigXray: Assume for the moment that I am finding you a pain and I determine that I will take revenge on any that are friends of yours. I might then decide to make things awkward for CASSIOPEIA. In that case leading me here would do CASSIOPEIA no favours. Now while that would be incredibly wrong of me there are some on here who might do that. I don't think I can explain it more clearly than that. Thankyou. - Djm-leighpark"
• I must note that there has been no spat between Djm and me recently and the only interaction that I remember with them was on their talk page [99] after they had used WP:ADHOM in an AfD. So it is quite surprising that they are reacting in the manner they are doing.
• I did mention in my #Note to admins above, that folks are using this thread to settle personal scores against me. DBigXrayᗙ 06:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Time to de-escalate things

In my experience big threads like this practically never lead to sanctions being enacted, so I'm going to try something different. I propose a change of venue for a new purpose: mutual understanding and respect.
@DBigXray, Soman, Yappy2bhere, WilliamJE, Lepricavark, Girth Summit, Starship.paint, and Djm-leighpark: I encourage all of you to contribute to MJL's happy civil safespace. I've kicked things off over there with my own original thoughts. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:14, 16 February 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.

Dispute resolution noticeboard broken

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 the place for this I know, but there aren't any active moderators around and at least one discussion (maybe 2, see Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard, doesn't show at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Gender dysphoria. It's obviously a misplaced collapse template but I can't figure out where it would be. Can anyone help? User:Robert McClenon last edited 8 hours ago, maybe he'll be back soon, maybe not. We may need more active moderators, it shouldn't all or mainly all be on the shoulders of just one person, that's too much. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Tips cap. Zaathras (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, User:Doug Weller, and anyone else, we would appreciate any of the regular or not-so-regular editors at this drama board helping out at DRN, either as mediators, or with small brooms for janitorial tasks that don't require the large mop. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: agreed. I would have fixed it if I could have found the problem, but I obviously overlooked it but thanks to User:Zaathras (and my post here) it's fixed. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon and the other volunteers for keeping DRN going! El_C 15:46, 16 February 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:Алексей Густов and linking

Hi there. I have been repeatedly trying to tell Алексей Густов (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) that linking multiple times in an article is not acceptable and they have continued to cite reasons such as it was "added/edited by much more competetive curling-En-Wiki-people than me". Examples of warning, in chronological order are: [100], [101] (I do apologies, this wasn't "disruptive editing" and I shouldn't have used this template), [102], [103], [104].

Please note that I stated that it was their "last chance before I take action" in the final link. The action that prompted me to take this to ANI was the creation of Jørgen Myran which occurred after the final warning was sent. I believe that this user's inability to follow MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:REPEATLINK require action. Also, it appears as if they know they are doing something wrong (they never say that I am wrong, suggesting they have admitted this; they also say "it was my mistake" at [105]), appearing to simply pass it off as other user's fault. I don't understand why a user knows that something they are doing is wrong and yet continue to do it. Either they don't understand/agree or are here in bad faith. I hope it's the former. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This issue is with repeating links in team lists, right? WP:REPEATLINK allows an exception in these cases: "Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader." I mean, we should probably have the debate as to whether an exception should be had for team lists (I think it does aid the reader, especially if a teammate leaves a team and comes back after a few seasons) before we clamp down on users who are just following precedence. Anyway, I've been following the user in question's editing for quite some time, and I don't detect any maliciousness in any of his editing. His English isn't the best, so there's likely just a miscommunication. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Progressive288, Redalert2Fan is not an admin... also please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Progressive288, you don't type the nowiki tags as part of it. You have signed before. You put the four tides WITHOUT the nowiki tags to sign posts.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think we allowed legal threats against Wikipedia here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The comments once again made against me are misinformed, call me crying and include some form of legal threats... I feel I have only been trying to encourage discussion but once again I am insulted again, all this on ANI itself. Further I have provided requested RS at the K9 talk page Redalert2fan (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A link to any legal threat would be helpful. And whoever made a legal threat needs to withdraw it before an admin blocks them.-- Deepfriedokra 16:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the threat is the statement above, " I'll send a letter to Center of Communication of the Turkish Presidency about the public anti-Turkism against the Turkish people and non-based biased claims against Turkey by Wikipedia admins on Wikipedia". 331dot (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

331dot, I would agree that is what Redalert is talking about by legal threat. (One of the more odd ones I have seen tbh)

This is what I was referring to, and to be clear I have no intention to make false claims or be biased against turkey or their government for that matter. Honestly I fail to see why RS information about whether a military vehicle is based on and a variant of another military vehicle constitutes to that, for that matter, as I shared on the K9 talk page even Turkish sources exist that support my claim. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified what I said. The legal threat I was calling out was Progressive288's comment: "Wikipedia will be blocked in Turkey again, I'll send a letter to Center of Communication of the Turkish Presidency about the public anti-Turkism..." And Progressive288's comment, ":DD I see you're crying" is a taunt, and I thought we were supposed to be civil here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

@Cullen328: It 100% sounds like a legal threat to me, so a block is probably overdue here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Progressive288 has not edited since their comments above on February 11. Please notify me if any disruptive behavior resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

IP persistent unsourced edits

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

---

Despite four warnings, and requests for talk page discussion, 2600:1700:8440:42B0:6158:846F:F726:4979 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and several other IPs from the range 2600:1700:8440:42B0::/64, have repeatedly made changes to sourced population figures in People of the Dominican Republic without providing a source, and which blatantly contradict the existing reliable sources: [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111]. The intent seems to be to increase the number of white people and discount the number of black people. I've been reverting them, but I don't want to be seen as edit warring.

At one point they did replace an existing source (CIA World Fact Book) with another source (World Atlas): [112] but the figures are from a 1960 census. They are not the same figures as they've been using in the other edits, which are inconsistent and look to be made-up.

Request for discussion on article talk page: Talk:People of the Dominican Republic#Population ethnicity statistics

User talk page warnings about unsourced changes: [113], [114], [115], [116]

--IamNotU (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I dropped a 31-hour block on the range; let's see if that makes them change their mind and lessens disruption. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully they'll take notice. I'll report back if they keep it up. --IamNotU (talk) 14:20, 15 February 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.

Edit warring and resulting WP:Ethics by Zandxo

User Zandxo was blocked for edit warring in Uchar-hadji article and now rages in insults that "he can't seek consensus with nationalist". Also he accuses me (same link) in distorting the quote when he is the one mixing source with his fantasies. Any Russian-reading admin can verify it. I gave word for word translation to the user on talk page, but he cares not.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You're supposed to inform the editor being discussed, I have done so now. I'm the blocking administrator and I do not think they understand policies, hopefully being off the page will make them less disruptive elsewhere. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I admit I am not familiar with the policies, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia (excuse me if I'm not allowed to answer here), but I would like to point out that I can't seek consensus with Arsenekoumyk. He simply blocks off all my sources and pretends not to understand me. He is a hardcore Kumyk nationalist. I have wrote everything on the talk page to Uchar Hadji. I should not be blocked from editing there (or any articles regarding that topic), it's him who vandalises those with his nationalism. I would please ask you to just look at the talk page and the conversation I have had with him, c.(talk) 19:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

qedk "hardcore Kumyk nationalist" again. could you point me to WP Ethics page please, I couldn't find the page describing that rule?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring is spreading

qedk, Zandxo continued spreading his edit warring. now he deletes the part where Kumyks live in Chechnya four times already. For instance, Braguny village is in Chechnya. he hates it apparently.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

pardon, 3 for now. he insists that it says Chechnya is Kumyk when the phrase is "Kumyks live in Chechnya, Ossetya etc." the editor is very tiring.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

One small village there doesn't make it Kumyk territory, which you claim in it. There are 50 to 100 of Chechen villages in Dagestan, especially as what you claim as "Kumyk land". (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not insist on anything. the phrase says Kumyks live there but you see again smth different, could you please calm down, for God's sake--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

2 more insults

Some kind of other language insult again — link. Also derogatory familiarity meaning "Arsen good boy" here.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

1 more insult

User called me a nickname Arsene de Koumyk [here]. I asked to call me properly — here. He continued this familiarity — link --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And 1 more

[Insult]--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Arsenekoumyk and Zandxo: I'm sorry but I cannot look into this mess right now. In the meantime, can both of you stop editing anything related to this topic, that would be much helpful. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  qedk, seems pretty simple mess to me, mimimum 6 cases of insults, but I agree, the editor managed to distract.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I stopped edditing them and went to the talk threads of said articles looking for the conversation with Arsenekoumyk, but he sadly didn't really react cooperative. --Zandxo (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Feinoa again

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

1. Persistent removal of templates without attempting to discuss
   1. [117] removing tag without any explanation or discussion. After the tags were restored, Feinoa removed them again [118] claiming These tags are not necessary. Discussing on the talk page is sufficient enough. (even though their participation in the talk page discussion was minimal)
   2. Despite being requested to restore the tags, and later warned about disruptive editing, they go ahead and remove templates [119] in another article I was editing with an active discussion (note that once again they did not participate in the discussion). There is no edit summary or explanation for removal.
2. Slow moving edit wars (without no attempt at initiating discussions)
   1. (See the diffs at point 4 in the previous report. This is the same issue ("Malay as a national language")and it has continued in Jan and Feb 2020)
   2. [120] claiming "I think we can make do without this as 4 languages have equal status." Reverted by another editor [121]
   3. [122] Another edit towards similar aims, no edit summary. Reverted by another editor.
3. Ownership issues and edit warring
   1. There are multiple times where they edit/revert without adequate explanation or even attempting to discuss, particularly on Singapore. This is highly disruptive and irritating, given that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Other editors have also explained it to them and requested them to self revert but to no avail.
   2. Bad faith accusations questioning my intent to edit the article and a refusal to collaborate [123]. It is interesting that they say "No one seemed to have had an issue with the original lead except for you. I don't understand why you hadn't brought up your concerns during the GA review." I didn't even know a GA Review was going on (and the honestly I still disagree with the reviewer's decision). Interestingly, the last time a GA Review was happening they said [124] " I just don't understand why unfamiliar editors to this article have suddenly piped in to put the lead under scrutiny only just when it's trying to become a GA". It's becoming clear to me that they would prefer to edit without the contribution and reviews of other editors, which is pretty much opposite to the collaborative idea of Wikipedia

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

Are you going to brush over the fact that you've been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for months? You've on numerous occasions reverted my edits with some really weird reasonings on articles with no direction connection with each other such as - [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130] and [131]. You're clearly doing this intentionally, waiting for me to get annoyed enough to seem like I'm in the wrong before you could make another post on the Administrators' noticeboard to try and get me blocked. I even made a post on your talk page all those months ago to leave me alone, but clearly you didn't. You were still tracking my edits, and would then try to revert those with a good enough excuse for doing so in an attempt to spark up another edit war and then claim innocence and get all patronizing when it gets out of hand, multiple times. Feinoa (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

1. Hong Kong protest related articles - These articles were on my watchlist and I took part in multiple discussions and an RfC regarding these. I remember pointing out this edit of yours where you arbitrarily removed some content without any explanation for which I warned you and explained the issue. I would note that many other editors since then have also pointed out problems with your edits/behaviour on Hong Kong related articles on your talk. As for this edit, it follows the citation and I would note that you were involved in an edit war with other editors regarding this same point.
2. Grab - As explained in the previous ANI you have been involved in removing information and a long running edit war. I note that another editor had reverted you for arbitrarily removing content and warned you on your talk (which you deleted citing "ill founded claims"). I left a note on your talk about Grab as well. I opened a discussion on the talk in on 23 November 2019 as well. Despite all of this, you never responded to any dispute resolution and simply redid the edit again on 31 January 2020.
3. Mukim - You removed content saying the references is dead. I found an archived version and restored the information. I also explained our guidelines regarding WP:PRESERVE to you.
4. Minami-Tori-shima - Same issue. You removed content without any explanation including categories, I reverted. I started a discussion explaining my edits in which you did not take part.
5. Singapore Island I have a bunch of Singapore related article on my watchlist. I admit I reverted your changes based on a mistaken assumption. However I self reverted and restored your changes about 20 minutes later
6. Colony of Singapore Same here. I disagreed with your edit since it was adding unnecessary information and was not an improvement. If you really preferred your version, per WP:BRD you could have opened a discussion and I could have participated.
7. Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak Umm, I edited some content on this article [132]. Then you came and edited after that [133]. So who's Wikihounding now ;) By the way, your first edit on this article was removing a maintenance template without any explanation.

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

• @Feinoa: your edits seem concerning. Would you please explain them? One should not remove maintenance templates if issues remain. Also, when in content disputes, it is important to discuss differences and seek resolution-- WP:BRD.-- Deepfriedokra 05:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Per @Oshwah: in the prior thread linked above, Then, stick to that ultimatum. I think that this will give Feinoa one final chance to stop the behavior (like you said, Feinoa seems to be attempting to edit in good faith - this will be an appropriate next step to take without jumping too far), and if this doesn't succeed and if it continues, he/she knows exactly what is going to happen. So I guess it's time to block. Now as to "sparking an edit war," that's nonsense. You just stop reverting and discuss. WP:BRD. And @Feinoa and DreamLinker: if I may be so bold, I would suggest that neither of you revert the other. Discuss instead, seek an third opinion, 'cause TBH I can see how Feinona might feel hounded.-- Deepfriedokra 13:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand you point. That said, I have tried opening a discussion multiple times without any response, hence I never proceeded to 3O.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I would like just to weigh in that I feel both sides are at fault here. @DreamLinker:, I wouldn't like someone breathing down every edit I do either. While many people edit the same popular articles, especially on topics within the same country or of international interest, I doubt Grab and the two Japanese island pages are within the same common denominator in this case. When I do see an edit by a frequent and reliable editor that I disagree with, my strategy is usually to let the matter rest and allow someone else to revert or improve it instead of doing it myself. DreamLinker, I would concur with the admin's advice to simply back off. For @Feinoa:, I do regard the person as a positive contributor to the Wikipedia, but with a tad of obsessiveness and unnecessary over-protectiveness of content. Feinoa's latest revert at Singapore on the basis of a "stable version", with accusations to DreamLinker as "disruptive" is completely unfounded, especially since consensus was achieved on the Talkpage between two editors. If Feinoa declines to discuss the matter out of (perhaps) legitimate irritation, he or she should too, step back, and respect the BRD process. Seloloving (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As I explained, the changes to those "unrelated" pages were only done in September and are limited to those 3 pages, for which I also offered an explanation on their talk. I have never even looked at their vast majority of edits. The bigger issue here is that Feinoa's edits are clearly not following Wikipedia's guidelines like removing templates, removing citations and refusing to offer any explanation or discussion.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Well, it has been several days and @Feinoa is still unwilling to communicate or answer Deepfriedokra's question, and as they have received warnings in the past over questionable edits in the past, I don't there's much to say here except that the user is unwilling to entertain the idea that the Wiki is a collaboration. The removal of maintenance templates, reverting of @DreamLinker edits without proper cause (other than citing a return to a stable version) and recent reverting of another editor edit without a edit summary, seem to hint at WP:OWN. All three are not demerits in itself, but taken together, hint at a user unwilling to communicate. Seloloving (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

As Deepfriedokra pointed out above, I suggested in the previous ANI that Feinoa be given a detailed final warning on their user talk page regarding the concerns and behavior that were found and listed in that discussion, and hold the user to this ultimatum. Looking at the edit history of Feinoa's user talk page, it appears that this warning wasn't left. Holding someone to an ultimatum or final warning isn't very much possible if no ultimatum is left in the first place... ;-) In most situations, for an administrator to be able to justify applying a block to a user following a discussion and where he/she appears to be editing in good faith but is causing problems and disruptive behavior, the user needs to be sufficiently warned. My definition of "sufficiently warned" in this situation means that they received a message on their user talk page with a detailed description of the issues they're causing (with diffs to edits showing the behaviors and links pointing to relevant policy), a request asking that they stop engaging in the disruptive editing or behavior and that this will serve as a final warning due to repeated attempts in the past to talk to them, and instructions on how to ask for and receive help, properly discuss the issue or dispute at-hand, and resolve things. Edit warring blocks starting at 24 hours and applied at an increasing duration for subsequent violations of policy are fair game to be applied to any user and at any time when such a situation warrants it (assuming that the violation is active and in-progress or occurred recently or only moments ago, and following a 3RR notice and the engagement in edit warring by the user despite the warning), and any administrator, of course, has the freedom and the discretion to take the actions they deem to be necessary and appropriate. However, it is my objective personal opinion and belief that, in this situation, we haven't done enough to try and warn the user, stick to the ultimatum, and put an end to these matters without administrative enforcement first (as I suggested before). Hence, a long-term or indefinite block isn't justifiable yet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe a "final" warning was left earlier as well, along with explanations. These were removed from the talk [134] with the edit summary "vandalism".--DreamLinker (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Death threat

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

---

See [135]. Past 3RR, WP:NOTHERE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

IP blocked. Kids these days. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) The IP account only has made a few edits and it seems such a "threat" for intended to be taken more figuratively than literally. Requesting page protection might be a more effective way of preventing further disruption since the IP appears to be just out for a joy ride and might just disappear once they can no longer edit the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Blocking the obvious offender permits everybody but the vandal to edit. And diffs like the one provided are block-on-sight. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion's statement is correct. I'll add that in my experience page protection requests are usually turned down when there is only one IP causing disruption. MarnetteD|Talk 01:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough with respect to both responses to my post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I've done semi-protection when there's a new account that is trying to do something that they perceive as beneficial, but is misguided and disruptive. In such a case a very short spell of protection can stop the loop without bringing down the banhammer, so we can explain how they might work productively. In this case it's a kid seeing what they can get away with. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Good block. Really in the future you might just want to e-mail the WMF emergency address. Even if you don't personally see it as credible, it's probably better to handle it off the dramaboards for WP:DENY purposes. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE from User:Dmay81

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.

---

Dmay81 (talk · contribs)

I am reporting User:Dmay81 for WP:NOTHERE. This editor has vandalised another user's userpage, vandalised articles, created inappropriate pages many times, has plenty of warnings for removing speedy deletion notices and gave a block threat. I think that some action needs to be taken here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reported that user at WP:AIV because of his persistent disruptive editing patterns. It's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE and as that user has been warned multiple times and some of his edits are blatant vandalism, I believe we can handle it without ANI deliberation. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 10:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Me three. I clicked on the report to AIV twinkle button for Dmay81, but Tymon.r beat me to the punch.--Eostrix (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Eostrix: You're always welcome ;-) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 11:02, 19 February 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.

Misuse and bias of Administrative Powers

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 administrator Doc James is threatening to block me from editing for disagreeing with his reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJV479 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Doc James posted a standard edit-warring notification template on your talk page. That is a warning that your behavior could lead to a block, not a threat by Doc James to directly block you (which would be inappropriate per WP:INVOLVED). Your responsibility is to discuss your proposed edits on the talk page and gain consensus for the proposed change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Given this is clearly an attempt at asking the other parent on your part, I'm personally inclined to block you for disruptive editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) No, Doc James sent you a message that if you continue to edit-war you may be blocked. Please heed that warning. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I believe he was biased because he was the one reverting those edits. I believe finding another solution rather than attempting to bully me out of editing the article would have been more appropriate. MJV479 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@MJV479: Quite the contrary. Doc James was inviting you to discuss the situation at the article's talk page. Further, his caution about edit warring was done to prevent you from inadvertently violating WP:Three revert rule, which is a brightline rule and cn be strictly enforced by admins. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) And he was quite within his rights to revert you. The thing to do then is not to make the edits again but to discuss the issue on the talk page. That is standard practice, not bullying. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I had tried to resolve the dispute in the talk page but he just keeps pushing the same narrative. His "reasons" were assuming a source is wrong because of the date it was published and claiming his source is better. MJV479 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: He was within his rights to revert the edits yes. but instead of attempting to find a dispute resolution he threatened to block me from editing. MJV479 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

MJV479, its a fucking template, read what everyone else is telling you. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@MJV479: As NorthBySouthBaranof has already explained to you above: "Doc James posted a standard edit-warring notification template on your talk page. That is a warning that your behavior could lead to a block, not a threat by Doc James to directly block you (which would be inappropriate per WP:INVOLVED)". Did you not read that? Paul August ☎ 17:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

His reverts were actually just nitpicking my edits and such. You can see that in his edit summaries for Monosodium Glutamate. MJV479 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I have explained my concern with User:MJV479's edit here.[136] Basically they are using a bunch of old/primary sources. Some of the sources do not even mention MSG from what I can see.

They need to use only high quality recent sources and provide EXACT quotes of the text that supports their desired wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(after more edit conflicts) Just ignore the fact that Doc James is an administrator and wait until agreement is reached on the talk page for your edits before reinstating them. The warning that he gave you could have been given by any editor. And, on the underlying issue, science, including medical science, is progressive, so things that were formerly thought to be true have been found by later studies not to be. That is why recently published review papers are the best sources, especially for medical claims. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@MJV479: His criticisms of the sources are good-faith. WP:MEDRS is a messy area. This might be a good time for you to request a third opinion, reach out to a WikiProject for assistance, or just continue the discussion on the talk page, rather than escalating this to multiple administrators' noticeboards. I do not see anything that calls for administrative action, however. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: The source you are referring to that "does not mention msg" is actualy a study on glutamate in general, not just MSG. Also writing articles in "EXACT quotes" is not only ill advised for obvious reasons but it may also go into plaigarism if done poorly. MJV479 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:MJV479 the request was not for you to put the exact quote IN the article but to indicate what by quoting what you are basing your text on.

Exactly, your reference is about glutamate not MSG. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I will revise my edit. If you do not agree with my edit then just go ahead and revert it. (seeming as the admininstrators only see your side of the struggle) So if you disagree, thats fine. it will be my last edit on the topic. Just read what my edit is instead of going ahead and blocking me from editing or whatever, alright? MJV479 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:MJV479 suggest it on the talk page maybe, in the section that it is being discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

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.

---

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

This editor is making disruptive edits on Sergey Kovalev (boxer), Canelo Álvarez and Canelo Álvarez vs. Sergey Kovalev. They have been informed that the fight result is a KO in this edit summary and also on their talk page here. They again changed the result. After reading their talk page and viewing their edit history, I saw they have been warned multiple times, and subsequently blocked, for the exact same kind of disruptive editing (changing the fight result on the same article for a different fight). I left a final warning template here, after which they changed the result again. – ².O.^Boxing 12:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on your description this sounds like it merits a block. In the future, however, if an editor persists in making disruptive/vandalistic edits after a final warning, you should just report him or her to WP:AIV for faster service. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I wasn't quite sure if their actions constitute vandalism or not. – ².O.^Boxing 13:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, typically if there’s a tiered set of warnings for it, repeating after the final/immediate warning makes it actionable by WP:AIV. While “vandalism” is in the title, AIV handles a bit more than just that. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Continuing after final warning and notification of this discussion [137] [138]. I'll stop reverting until the conclusion of this report. – ².O.^Boxing 16:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for one year. Their previous three-month block for edit warring on these same articles had just expired. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 18 February 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 disruptive editing and possible block evasion at Mikozi Network

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

---

The article has been nominated for speedy deletion with a G5 rationale. Multiple accounts are removing that template. Article needs protection, and the likelihood of block evasion is decent. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing needs doing. The article has been deleted twice by two CheckUsers (including me) and all the accounts in the history are blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep. I saw that it was taken care of soon after this report. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:58, 18 February 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.

Ricky Martin inflated sales

Hi,

I've been trying to talk to @آرمین هویدایی: since last year about inflated sales of the singer Ricky Martin in his talk page (link), I already talked to him on the talk page of the singer's article (link) and showed a series of proves that the 85 million albums sold that he insists in put in the article are totally disproportionate to the amount of certifications and performance in charts of the singer's albums and singles, after 4 albums with 5 million sold in the world, he never exceeded the 1 million mark. It happens to Ricky Martin and other artists, the fans come here and increase sales excessively and the media repeats the information without any other criteria. Ricky Martin has about 30 million copies proven by companies that deal with sales such as IFPI, RIAA and AMPROFON, among others here a list that can also be seen in his discography page: (link) even the artist's record company says that he sold 70 million copies worldwide see here, I do not understand the insistence of this user in wanting to increase the number of copies, only because the information appeared in an article from forbes that doesn't work with sales counts like the IFPI. I would like you to help me solve this problem. I wait a reply.--88marcus (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, the thing is آرمین هویدایی is right that Forbes is generally considered reliable, and its typically policy to report figures using reliable third party sources. I'd also like to point out that the record company said 70 million, but this was posted in 2014. Theres a good chance it has increased to 85 million since forbes reported on it in 2017. So i dont think this is particularly inaccurate. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Album sales is a tricky area, especially now that many people choose to count album-equivalent units (which include singles and streams) as album sold, which is strictly speaking not true since "album units" is pure album sales + tracks sales + streams. Note that the number from Sony Music site predates the change in methodology, therefore it is possible the new sales figure may be album units rather than actual sales. I don't believe Ricky Martin sold 15 million albums since 2017 (he is no longer the big selling artist he was), but I have seen massive jumps in sales figures when album-equivalent units are counted for other artists. Many websites including Forbes do give artificially inflate sales figures, often just repeating possibly unreliable sales information given by publicists who blur the difference between units and album sold. Personally I would have preferred websites that use SoundScan figures, but there isn't the equivalence for world-wide sales figures, so we are basically stuck. I do understand why people want to remove such inflated figures (and I think 88marcus is correct in this regard, technically at least if we are talking about pure album sales), but with the steep decline in actual album sales and the increase in streams, it might be a losing battle. Hzh (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiman5676: Thank you for your explaining. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus, Wikiman5676, Hzh, and آرمین هویدایی: while articles by Forbes staff are considered generally reliable (see WP:FORBES), articles by Forbes.com contributors are considered both generally unreliable and self-published. Just search for "Forbes.com contributors" on WP:RSP for more details. The source in question was indeed written by a Forbes.com contributer and did not appear in the print edition of Forbes. Is the author reliable independent of Forbes.com? Maybe, but if their numbers are wildly off from a variety of reliable sources, then probably not. Woodroar (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue extends beyond Forbes, and reported sales figures have long been a problem even with reliable sources. The reason being that there are many ways sales figures can be inflated, for example using album shipped rather album sold, bundling of concert ticket and merch sales with album sales (sometimes free albums are counted as album sales), and now using album units instead of actual album sales. There isn't really an official body that counts worldwide sales, so news outlets generally rely on numbers by publicists or record companies who inflate sales figures. Billboard still makes a distinction between album units and actual sales, but increasing number of websites (reliable or not) no longer do it since actual album sales have dropped significantly. As I said, 88marcus is probably right, but it might also be a losing battle. Hzh (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Woodroar: There are many other references that telling this too, for example Entertainment Weekly which as I saw is a reliable source in Entertaiment topics (which probably includes music!): https://ew.com/tv/2017/04/13/rupauls-drag-race-renewed-season-10-vh1/ or USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2015/02/10/ricky-martin-world-tour-concert-phoenix/23177461/ I can find many websites which are telling the number 85 million albums, it's not only Forbes. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Forbes also said 85 million albums not 85 million records which means, album, singles, DVDs/Blu-rays all together. Martin has 30 million certified records not 30 million certified albums, the Forbes statement give the impression that he sold 85 million albums and lot more with singles and DVD, which is unlikely. 70 million recors seems already inflated, it's twice the Martin's certifications. This sources from Yahoo also says 70 million records and it's from 2019 link--88marcus (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It could be that Forbes misunderstood "records" to mean "albums", or it could be that they meant "album units". Do we have a clear idea of how many of his "sales" might be in units? Hzh (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: As you probably know, label records must pay to update the certifications and obviously many sales certifications have not been updated or even received. (If you want I can give you simple "obvious" examples.) Ok we can find sources of 70 million records, 70 million albums & 85 million albums. And we both know it! But the fact is that "70 millions" was for years ago and certainly should be updated. I think we should use the word "equivalent" for that 85 million album sales. I hope everyone would agree on this. It won't be inflated anymore and it's not false. He had such a big streaming hits (Vente Pa' Ca, La Mordidita, etc.) And including album equivalent sales this data would be accurate. Why should we use only pure sales on this article? We can just explain it to readers and this way we are using a newer datas.آرمین هویدایی (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think he is a big-seller nowadays, so trying to boost his sales artificially isn't helpful. We don't really know what Forbes means, if the author had made a mistake, although I'm fairly certain that the number is unlikely to be the number of pure albums sold. Hzh (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

85 million albums is not reliable and inflated. Martin's last album sold around 300,000 worldwide and has 225,000 with certified sales which include streamings. His certifications after 2014 also included streamings and it's all updated, together all singles/songs he released after 2014 has around 1,4 million certified copies. The claim (2019) over 70 million records is ideal to cover all the sales after 2014.--88marcus (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, @Woodroar: has a good point. Apologies, I didnt notice that that was a contributor. We would need another reliable source if you want to put 85 million, if not stick to the 70 million. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiman5676: I've found actually, USA Today I checked it and as I saw USA Today is generally reliable and it doesn't have any problems. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not only Forbes that you are calling it a mistake. Here you can see: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2015/02/10/ricky-martin-world-tour-concert-phoenix/23177461/ USA Today is also a generally reliable source. I've also sent Entertainment weekly. These sources are reliable based on wikipedia rules. And they didn't even say "equivalent", it's written as "85 million albums" you are calling it as inflated only because of not updated certifications? آرمین هویدایی (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, many websites don't make a distinction between actual album sales and album-equivalent units, which isn't helpful to us. It is unlikely that he has sold so many albums. Since there isn't an official body that releases worldwide sales figure, it could be argued that since such figures likely originated from publicists for the artist or record labels, worldwide sales figure may be considered WP:PROMO and therefore unreliable. Hzh (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Those sites can't say nothing about sales they doesn't work with that like companies such IFPI, RIAA, AMPROFON... See Thriller album by Michael Jackson as example, there are many sites that claim it sold 100 million copies, 150 million copies and so on, but it's included here in Wikipedia as having sold over 66 million copies since the certifications are around 45 million copies. Sites that doesn't work with that only copy from other sites and record companies sites and mostly from Wikipedia itself. 70 million records is given by a record company and it's already inflated, it is twice the number of certified sales by Martin to date also including his streaming performance. 85 million records is way inflated and 85 million albums worst, we can't say 85 million equivalents because there's no place with such claim and we don't know how to make a calculation for that.--88marcus (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, even numbers from certification sites like RIAA are problematic, see for example the certification for Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) by the Eagles (you can read a discussion in there), certified 38x platinum for 38 million, overtaking Michael Jackson's Thriller. Album sales figures are problematic, and 85 million albums sold is likely untrue and just a bit of puffery from publicists, although I would accept it if the number comes from Billboard (therefore if آرمین هویدایی can find a source from Billboard it would be fine). Hzh (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

We can't write articles based on "what we think is accurate", we should obey wikipedia rules and as Wikiman5676 said its typically policy to report figures using reliable third party sources. The sites that I sent are reliable based on wikipedia rules and what Woodroar said. How do you call this inflated? By guess and what you think?! I think USA Today is more reliable and we are able to use that information.

Comment: Unfortunately all English sources reporting Martin's sales of 70/75/80/85 million records/albums are primary sources from Wikipedia vandalism. Doesn't matther how reliable are the sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines, this is what I call a "woozle effect" in music sales. Attached with Wikipedia's vandalism we can see the method of fans and record's companies inflating figures (We can see "general" examples of this like Michael Jackson's overall sales or his album Thriller). We don't need to judge all cases but evaluate each separte case. For this particular case we can see all of these examples from article's history. For example, a quick view from October 2019 version saying 70 million (+ 85 million in total) without any reference or this other one using a reference of HuffPost which confirm "70 million" but also with the similar statement used in Wikipedia's article: "95 platinum records" etc. Contrary, in Spanish wikipedia we don't see too much vandalism in his article about sales (but it had same problems) and from today, lead in article used 60 million records. We can see "reliable sources" (not old at all) using that amount like this or this. Even, I know 60 million is a "old" figure, like since 2006 or 2009 but is thanks to the Wikipedia's vandalim again. We have older sources (at least in Spanish) with 50 million "records" like this from 2009. 50 million record is not old at all specially if he released just 2-3 albums and primarly in Spanish since then. My two cents: with this background and multiple versions of "truth" we can use 50 or 60 million (70M too high at all based in his available certifications)- --Chrishonduras (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Chrishonduras: 50/60 million records sold is the ideal. USA today also said Thriller sold 100 million copies worldwide and it's not used here, as I said before certifications is the most reliable and we have to use it to make the article more accurate.--88marcus (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐 Are you kidding?????!!!!!!! First of all you can check that wikipedia didn't mention anything about his sales before about 1~2 years ago, it wasn't anything about his sales in 2015 or 2017. Second, if you are talking about "records" his songs in this decade has sold more than 10 or 20 million copies obviously, "Vente Pa' Ca" was such a big latin hit. You can check the charts and compare it to "Fiebre". Fiebre which is much less famous than Vente Pa' Ca has certified for 1 million copies in the US. From the streams and views to digital sales, it's obvious that Vente Pa' Ca and La Mordidita has sold much more than it. So if you are talking about 60 million records of eleven years ago, at least 70 million would be ok for now 😐 Third, I told you a hundred times that certifications needs the label record to pay for the updates. Vente Pa' Ca and Fiebre was a simple example. You should be blind to think that as Fiebre has sold 1 millions, Vente Pa' Ca hadn't even sold 30k to receive a latin gold 😐😐 why are you insisting on the certifications! Forth, so no source is reliable and only what you think is seems to be accurate can be written in wikipedia. It's literally vandalism. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Even sales figures such as 85 million records (not albums) for Ricky Martin would be absolutely inflated, let alone 85 million albums. Martin's worldwide available certified album sales stand at 22 million units, while his entire certified records sales stand at 30.5 million. It's true that sometimes certification process takes longer than expected since either labels or parent record companies should submit proof of sales along with a fee, but surely 60 + million albums in this case have not gone uncertified. Only small fraction of records sales go uncertified. Record companies often use the number of Gold and Platinum awards received by their artists for promotional purposes, so there is no reason why they wouldn't be encouraged to pay the fee and get their records certified. And no, we should not blindly state all across wikipedia what news outlets report including sales figures. Wikipedia does not forbid fact checking. The statement about the 85 million albums should not be used anywhere on wikipedia as it's clearly incorrect. His records sales should only be supported by sources that put his records sales at/about 60 million records such as this. If wiki community doesn't reach a consensus of any kind on this matter, perhaps Martin's records sales should be left out, and not mentioned altogether.--Harout72 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

First Assume good faith with statements like that "only what you think is seems to be accurate can be written in wikipedia. It's literally vandalism". Due an edit-conflicts I just lost some links about proofs. Anyway, you may consider that we have more articles linked with record sales that suffers vandalism. After all as I said we have many "truth" here about his record sales. Because you can see one part saying 60 million, other 70 and so on and all with similar range of years. Also, remember that certifications give us an idea about sales of an artist. And I understand your point, but even If i'm fan of some-artist and one "reliable source" said a certain amount I don't will put inmediately. Before I can consider discuss in the talk page etc etc. For WP:NOTTRUTH 50/60 million can even applies. After all, I can accept 70M, but not 80-85, that's not a majority. --Chrishonduras (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras: Ok, 70m , but I think our friend's suggestion about not mentioning his sales is also a good idea. Now that we don't have any source that everyone agree on it, we can just do that. It's not necessery to mention his sales. As it wasn't for years. What do you think about it? آرمین هویدایی (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, we have to included the 60 million claim, only you are complaining about the sales and insisted and keep the 85 million album claim. Many lies you said:

• "First of all you can check that wikipedia didn't mention anything about his sales before about 1~2 years ago" fake, sales are there since 2006 link
• "his songs in this decade has sold more than 10 or 20 million copies obviously," he has less than 2 million certified sales and charted only in countries which are little markets and you get a platinum certificate for 10,000 copies sold.
• "Vente Pa' Ca" was such a big latin hit." Vente Pa' Ca" was not a big hit in US, it doesn't even appeared in Billboard HOT 100 and peaked #48 in the Year end chart of latin singles of Billboard.
• " Another lie: "Fiebre is a spanish language song it was certified platinum by RIIA for 60,000 sold not 1 million like an english song. see here.
• "From the streams and views to digital sales, it's obvious that Vente Pa' Ca and La Mordidita has sold much more than it." Actually not and you don't have source for such claim, in the streaming era 1,500 streamings means 1 copy of the album, if an album has 750 million streamings it actually sold 500,000 copies.--88marcus (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: No problem with the certs of Eagles at all, both Thriller and Eagle's album were certified through the years and now Eagles has the most certified album and best selling album in US, Thriller is the best selling worldwide.--88marcus (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: Check RIAA again and it's clearly written 1 million for Fiebre, it didn't recieved Latin platinum, it's the original platinum. And I said records, not albums. 1500 streams equals one album, but for single sales, 150 streams equals 1 single sale. Vente Pa' Ca itself has 1.6B views in youtube and 400m streams in spotify so 2 billion streams only in these two platforms. Also there are other platforms and pure sales. La Mordidita also has 1.1 billion views on youtube and etc. The least acceptable thing is 70m. You were just ok with that a few hours ago and now I said ok, even the one who first mentioned of 60m is ok, but you still disagree! I don't understand why do you try to discuss more. We are discussing on it for a year. I'm really exhusted. Whatever I say, you are still against. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@آرمین هویدایی: No, you're wrong. Below the Certified units there's: 0,06 million. Those streamings you said of Vente pa'ca are worldwide not US and it was certified for that in Mexico, Spain... Consensus means generally accepted opinion, you're the only that disagree here. I'll include the 60 million in Martin's article right now.--88marcus (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned in 2017 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Martin&oldid=812463098 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Martin&oldid=792825338 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Martin&oldid=782213972

@88marcus: I told "Check RIAA again and it's clearly written 1 million for Fiebre, it didn't recieved Latin platinum, it's the original platinum." Can't you read this? It's not only the language of the song. RIAA has certified it with the original platinum. Despacito, Bailando, and Taki Taki were also certified by original platinums not latin. And about Vente Pa' Ca streams, I didn't say in the US, we are talking about worldwide sales not US only! And neither did I say 2B streams=13.3m sales (as of 150 streams=1 song sale) I said whole his records this decade can at least make that 60m records to 70m records. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: I don't understand you, if you only wanted to decrease the sales and do whatever you want, why did you came here? Why did we discuss? If finally we are not going to agree on sth, why did you discuss at all? آرمین هویدایی (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

50/60 million looks fine for me based in previous research, comments and Wikipedia's guidelines at least for now. I mean with 70M it was just like a "last option", but preferably not include it after agree with Harout's research (edit-conflict and I didn't saw his message). Also agree with his statement "If wiki community doesn't reach a consensus of any kind on this matter, perhaps Martin's records sales should be left out, and not mentioned altogether" just in case we don't reach a consensus. --Chrishonduras (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras: Ok so let's do that, but please convince Marcus 88. I don't want to discuss anymore and don't want a drama. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you doing? Why don't you answer me? If you wanted to do this, why did you take our time and discuss, if you're trying to do whatever you want and don't agree, I will do the same. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on a previous edit here, 88marcus said "we have to included the 60 million claim" and he already change it in the article since. For me it's ok as I said before 50/60M. Cheers, --Chrishonduras (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@آرمین هویدایی: I'm trying to show to you that I am right about his sales, if I only wanted to do what I want I'd only change his sales there, this will be a form of vandalism, I tried to discussed to you since last year, you don't care to certified sales, you don't care to the fact that if we count his album sales we're not even near to the 85 million albums you claimed, you seems only like to include the sales of yur favorite artist as the maximum possible. We're not here for that.--88marcus (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras: No we don't have to, as I said it wasn't mentioned at all in 2017. Literally I myself added this section last year! You can check it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/879426043 He also said I'm lying and you can see that explain that I didn't lie. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@آرمین هویدایی: If you change the sales after a consensus here you can be banned for vandalism, only you insist in the 85 million claim.--88marcus (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: Ok we discussed and we should first agree on sth. Ok, I have the source and I can change it to 85 million albums, and you too. You can change to 60 or whatever. But we are here to solve our problme. I said ok, I will agree to 70m that you were telling just whole last year! But suddenly you said No, 60!! Again I told you that I myself added this part to the article. For sure it's not nessecery. Why try to discuss, we can just ignore it and not mention it. Please Please Please choose between these choices. But if you are trying to only write 60m records and go, I will say 85m albums and the same! We want a final result, not a discussion forever. As you never won't accept 85 million albums and you think it's not correct, I won't accept 60 million records neither. We should agree on sth (70m for example) or totally remove the part. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: Why should I be banned? I think you are the one who is trying to do Vandalism. You said come here to ask adminstrators and when they answered against you, you asked your friends in their personal talk to help you here against me! That's why you are calling me "only you"... And actually "only you" don't agree on removing the part. If we can't agree on sales number, we have to do that. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sanity check. Surely nearly all of the discussion above is about content, so belongs on [an] article talk page[s]. What is anyone asking an administrator to do on this page? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I'm sorry can an adminstrators tell us what should we do when we never agree on sth. I said I myself added that part last year and so obviously we don't have to include the part, when we can't agree on. Am I wrong? I even said ok to what Marcus 88 said a few hours ago, but they changed their idea and Marcus 88 doesn't even accept what was insisting on for a year! I don't understand. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@آرمین هویدایی: I used the 70 million claimed because I couldn't find nothing less at the time and always said the 70 million claimed is already inflated. What's your probleam with the 60 million claim? It's twice the amount of certifications he has and it's a lot for a latin artist. And what about the Fiebre sales? Did you saw in the RIAA site that it's included 0.06 million after click on "More details"? link Adminstrators didn't answered against me, they pointed that Forbes is not reliable to sales and the 70 million claim info (2014) was outdated compared to yours (2017)--88marcus (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep calm. 88marcus you mentioned 60 million figure and I also agree with it. Even آرمین هویدایی accept it after all. Both need to stop threat or raise the voice each other- It's not necessary because discussion should be over after all. --Chrishonduras (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@آرمین هویدایی, Chrishonduras, and 88marcus: Phil Bridger is right that this is not the place to resolve content disputes. I can't see anything here that requires administrative attention. Administrators do not rule on content dispute. This discussion should be held on a suitable talk page most likely Talk:Ricky Martin. Since you can't seem to resolve this among yourselves, look into some form of WP:Dispute resolution. For example, if there is dispute over whether a certain source is reliable for album sales, you could try WP:RSN. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: thanks, but I don't iniciated/argued almost anything in this discussion. I just commented like others users after 88marcus and آرمین هویدایی concerns. For me this is closed. --Chrishonduras (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: thanks, but the problem is solved, we're not discussing about it anymore. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

User keeps calling vandals at those editors not in agreement with their edits

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

---

For the record, Ian 1975 (talk · contribs) keeps calling me and other users ″vandals″ just because they are not in agreement with others' edits. The latest message from them at my talk reaffirms their position regarding this [139]. This message came after I left a post at the user's talk [140]. This, this and this may be of help too. The user's attitude goes against one of the basic purposes of Wikipedia, namely building the encyclopedia in a collaborative environment, and shows a total lack of knowledge of WP:VANDALISM. It has to stop.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Does appear that Editor Ian1975 is quick to assume vandalism, when it's content dispute/good faith editing. Slywriter (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I am Ian1975 and I would like tostate that Jetstreamer has been repeatedly undoing factual entries without explanation or sourcing. Furthermore he is spending way too much time bulling me and other users who are making factual contributions to various Aviation related entries. Jetstreamer kindly stop it and try to be a useful member of Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian 1975 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for personal attacks, including those in his response here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:08, 18 February 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:Calton - complaint about uncivil edit

I would like to complain about User:Calton who seems to have taken some issue with me for additions I made to the Heston Blumenthal article. Another user moved it to a BLP discussion which I'm happy to let finish (and I reverted my own edits pending the outcome of that discussion), but his editing is just rude and uncivil, particularly this case in point here. I can see he has just been warned in an arbitration request asked to engage civilly with others, and yet has gone and done the opposite to me. Bookscale (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, where the reporter is here to try to weaponize this board against an opponent. This bit about being "rude and uncivil" is amusing, considering their reaction to another editor's opposition was to say, "You haven't even read what I posted above, have you?".

In a nutshell, the editor is trying to violate WP:BLP by connecting the Blumenthal to the current business practices of a restaurant that the chef shed all interest in other than the use of his name ten years ago -- a tiny detail that Bookscale forgot to mention and was forced to include.

Finally, @Bookscale:, relying upon Springee's failed attempt to weaponize WP:AE is, at best, ill-advised. Perhaps, instead, Bookscale might provide some actual evidence -- other than a ten-years-past proximity -- justifying his attempt to shoehorn this into a BLP? --Calton | Talk 14:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's forget the content dispute. And return to the incivility. @Bookscale: where's the dif(s)?-- Deepfriedokra —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Bookscale provided a diff, but it didn't seem to involve any incivility: merely disagreement. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridge: Ach so! No beef then; it's a veggieburger.-- Deepfriedokra 02:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I partial blocked Bookscale from Heston Blumenthal for 48 hours for slow motion edit warring --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm only going to comment here because Calton mentioned me by name. Taking Calton to AE was suggested by an admin[[141]] and was an attempt to get them to follow CIVIL and stop edit warring. The AE closed with a reminder to that end[[142]] and I will be satisfied if the issue ends there. Springee (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

User:LaraGingerbread

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 editor in question has made several edits to Murder of Tessa Majors listing the name(s) of individuals who have been named in the media and by law enforcement as suspects [143], [144], [145], etc. After some editing conflicts, she was encouraged to come to the article's talk page to get consensus. Overall consensus was to redact the names per WP:BLPCRIME, with the exception of this specific editor.

The editor then made a series of edits to the article [146] [147], using edit summaries which contained phrases such as "NO SUSPECTS NAMED" and "NO SUSPECTS NAMED SO DON'T UNDO" - showing an understanding that the names should not be in the article and asking that her edits not be reverted. The problem is that they were adding references to articles which contained the name of the accused in the article name, meaning not only the underlying text had the names of the accused, but the names were clearly visible at the bottom of the article in the references section, since it was in the name of the quoted newspaper articles.

I find this problematic behavior on the part of the editor in question, as it's flaunting WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CONSENSUS, and behavior points to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Also user reverted this ANI report. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr. Vernon

Mr. Vernon keeps undoing edits I made to the Tessa Majors page. There is nothing wrong with my edits, as I give important information and do not use any suspects names (though using the names should not be considered inappropriate). He complains that I am using sources that use the suspects names. But ALL of the recently published articles about the case use the suspects names. The only articles with certain important facts use the suspects names. If we don't use those sources, that information cannot be put in Tessa's page. I think that having an informative and accurate article is more important than not naming suspects. Additionally, I wold also like to point out that one suspect is charged as an adult, and, along with the other named suspect, is named in many articles by many sources. Readers WILL NOT know the suspects names by reading the article. However, if they are interested enough to read it, they are probably interested enough to google the case, and will come across the many articles which name the suspects. If you don't want these sources in, then just put new ones in instead of taking important information out of Tessa's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 23:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

How about I take the article names out of the reference tags? If I do tat will you please stop reducing the quality of Tessa's page by taking out important information? I will undo your reversion and redo the reference tags. How about that? LaraGingerbread (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

I will defer to the decision of the admins in this case. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

LaraGingerbread, I hope that you are adhering to Wikipedia's living persons policy (including BLPCRIME) closely, because that is of paramount importance. El_C 00:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I am adhering to it. No suspects are named (even though they are certainly guilty). And I am using the same sources as other users. I am being bullied by users who want to protect thugs more than they want to create informative and accurate articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

they are certainly guilty – I would say someone needs to review BLP again, more closely this time. EEng 02:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

LaraGingerbread, many editors have politely told you about the WP:BLPCRIME yet you kept reverting and editwarring.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No, they weren't. The last two edits I made were completely fine. I used a source another user added and gave relevant info that did not identify attackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 00:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

In LaraGingerbread's defense, they did not add the suspects' names after my revert and message on their page and they did engage in the discussion. Adding sources with with the names in the titles was probably not the best idea but they have agreed to amend that. They clearly are not neutral in regards to this subject based on their own statements but hopefully that can be all resolved through the discussion and consensus process. In a nutshell, this is largely a content dispute. S0091 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with closing this out (I think both Lara and I would need to agree.) I think the point has been made. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:05, 17 February 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.

Ethics breach by Zandxo

User Zandxo was furious in his insults and extremely provocative:

1. "nationalist"
2. "nationalist"
3. "nationalist"
4. some kind of name in his own language
5. diminutive familiarity "Arsene good boy
6. calling me with other nicknames "Arsene de Koumyk"
7. calling me "Arsene de Koumyk" again after I asked to call me my wikipedia nickname

I warned him on his talk page about WP:Ethics and WP:PA — here. He continues insults anyway:

1. WP:NPA again "you're victimizing yourself", "You stated things that are common among Kumyk nationalists"--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• While you raised your concern with them, you did not notify the editor of this ANI case, as it says you must in massive font at the top. I've dropped them a notification on your behalf. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• As a follow-up to the above, there is a prior ANI case from 2 days ago, non-closed, which includes part of this (but also some edit warring issues, for which the object of this accusation was blocked for). Unclear whether this needs to be separate or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"Furious in his insults and extremely provocative" is this some kind of a joke? Lets have a look through those "insults"

1. "nationalist" is no insult and I clarified why I said it, you are spreading Kumyk nationalistic agenda. For example, "here" you are claiming North of Chechnya as part of the Kumyk plateau because (following is a quote of you) "Braguny and Vinogradnoye are Kumyk villages in Chechnya". Second, claiming "Imam Shamils" family being of Kumyk origin, despite this being a controversial topic people have not agreed upon. I edited it to a neutral sentence and clarified that "which according to some sources was of Kumyk descent". 2. see above 3. see above 4. Ghumki means "Kumyk" in Chechen. Also, that wasn't a reply to you, unless you are admitting of using a VPN to distort the image. 5. "krasavchik" means "nice man" and is used in Russian like a "oh, cool". Thats a furious insult for you? 6. Thats literally your name. 7. see above Now to my statement, saying that you are victimising yourself, you did it again. I have not insulted you even once, yet you claim here I did and even worse, "in a furious way". Also, "You stated things that are common among Kumyk nationalists" is true, I explained it above. If all those things are insults, then you have insulted me the worst way. You called me "blind and fanatical, and understated my claims and sources just because I am a Chechen. Isn't this racism? --Zandxo (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought you were still blocked so commented on your talk page before I saw this. The editor's name is Arsenekoumyk. I have no idea where you are getting Arsène de Koumyk. The only place I can find that term on the entire Wikipedia is Talk:Uchar-hadji and this talk page. If you have got it somewhere other than Wikipedia, even from another WMF site, it could be consider WP:Outing for you to bring it here. In any case, wherever you got that from it's a moot point as I mentioned on your talk page. The editor's username is Arsenekoumyk. They've asked you to refer to them as Arsenekoumyk. You should do so. If you continue to call them by other names, especially names they've explicitly asked you not do use, I will support an indef block of you. You should cut it out with the nationalist stuff as well. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I replied to you on my talk page. His name is Arsenekoumyk, and "koumyk" is the French version to write "Kumyk", so I added a "de" infront of his name which makes it to a "Arsène (the correct way to write his name) the Kumyk". Discussing with him really is nerve-racking, which lead to me playing around with his name (not intending to insult him). --Zandxo (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(EC) @Arsenekoumyk: the comment highlighted by Zandxo is concerning. While Zandxo did explicitly mention they were Chechen, I see nothing to indicate "you're from the blindly fanatical, OK then, if you see everything through Chechen prism". You need to cut out on the incivility and personal attacka as well, or you too will be blocked. It doesn't matter if Zandxo has been uncivil or personally attacked you, it's not an excuse for your behaviour. Concentrate on resolving this dispute, seeking help where necessary not on commenting on the other editor. If the other editor's behaviour is a problem, bring it to an appropriate place like here. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne after his multiple provocations and name calling I gathered all my patience not to tell him "go f.. himself". he misinterprets everything he sees, lies in his edits constantly while flooding talk pages with trash talk, then calls me names multiple times, then starts edit warring on multiple pages with litter edits such. but I managed not to address him that way, even though he continued calling me names several times again and saying "it's not an insult". the editor ie inadequate, and also I told him multiple times that any talk to him is gonna be via a mediator, I don't want to engage with that kind of editor ever again.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thats a straight up lie. You calling me like that is from the 13th, today is the 17th, 4 days. I started "calling you names" later on, please provide proof for your claims "he misinterprets everything he sees, lies in his edits constantly while flooding talk pages with trash talk". I provided sources for my edits, translated and clarified what they say. "litter edits" is a lie as well. I ask you to stop such accusations and either seek the conversation with me (your side still not providing proof) or let me edit the Uchar-Hadji article with actual sources. --Zandxo (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

after your disgusting edits, ONLY VIA MEDIATOR. what do you not understand from these words? neutral mediator who will be seeing what you write and how.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not gonna read any more of your trash talk if there are no witnesses! I told you around 5 times. what do you not understand?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

and after we have a mediator we will see who is nationalist or who is not, and how you'll be allowed to sing insults in your every edit!--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I will edit the Uchar-Hadji page tomorrow and add several sources. You can call a mediator who will look through my sources, and then read our conversation on talk. You are straight up refusing to debate with me, I might have called you names but you are not showing yourself as willing to work with me. I can't seek consense when you are blocking off anything that doesn't fit in your beliefs. And please restrain yourself from labeling my input as "trash talk". Thank you. --Zandxo (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Zandxo you should have thought about it before trash talking. you'll edit whatever you want when there is a mediator who will approve it, until then you can go and say "nationalist" looking into mirror thousand times, here on one is willing to hear your debased insults any more.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Arsenekoumyk what you call "trash talk" has started quiet late, I have debated you normally prior to that. Everything is written down on the talk page to Uchar Hadji. Also, I asked you to stop calling it "trash talk", you have insulted me by now way more than I have "insulted" you. Nil Einne are you in the position to become the mediator for this matter? If yes, could you please have a look over "here" and read the conversation I had with Arsenekoumyk. --Zandxo (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

why didn't you start with this discussion? goes against your continuous lies?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Because I am new to editing on Wikipedia? You started the discussion, I provided sources for the edits I did. You kept being stubborn, denied and falsified a translation for it. Also, you are accusing me already in that of being "disruptive" and "going against the sources". You are the one who made that to an "edit war" (which breaks the rules) by asking others to undo my edits. It's always the same IPs, 2 or 3 from Dagestan and 1 from Kazakhstan. --Zandxo (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

you were blocked for edit warring and I was who made that war? wow!! when you find someone from administrators who will bear your edits, I'm happy to discuss your "proposals" via them. goodbye for ever I hope--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked because you were the one who reported me like 10 times. I will re-edit the Uchar-Hadji article tomorrow, provide sources and everything. I don't want you undo it, if you do I will report you. You need to find consensus with me first. Thank you. --Zandxo (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

you will insert your delusions nowhere--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Famous Kumyk historian and author Devlet-Mirza Shikhaliev is "delusional"? Don't worry, I have looked and read through the sources given on the article rn. I will rewrite the article properly tomorrow. --Zandxo (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thats not the only thing he said to me. He accused me of "obviously having an agenda", and "here" he downplays my input as "fantasies". I can't reach consensus with someone who blocks off everything I say. --Zandxo (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The very first discussion comment from Zandxo

this comment shows the very first intention of this flooding editor. from the very first messages - insults.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Where exactly is the insult? I am genuinely confused. Zandxo (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Pursuant to the reported conduct, the refusal to rectify it here, and the ongoing hostility and threatening approach taken by Zandxo, I have reset their existing block of 72 hours to be site wide. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Request to protect or salt article deleted at articles for deletion

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

---

Recently, we had consensus to delete the "Gothic chess" article. However, a disruptive editor has already attempted to restore this deleted article:

• diff 1
• diff 2

That in mind, can we either delete the article again, but this time protect it from being created, or protect for an extended period of time both Gothic chess (non-redirect link) and Gothic Chess? Thank you for your time. Just to clarify (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've protected both of the redirects indefinitely. I see that the editor is also complaining that Gothic chess is closer to Bird's chess than Capablanca chess (which it is), but we don't have an article on Bird's chess, so I've created that as a redirect as well. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. This will hopefully stop the disruptive editing. Just to clarify (talk) 21:40, 19 February 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.

Constant introduction of false information (reposted)

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.

---

• Juansantos123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Microsoft Translator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Google Translate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Extended periodic table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See the previous ANI discussion, after which Special:Contributions/2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64 was blocked for three months. After the IP block ended, the user Juansantos123 has continued more or less the same activity on the same or related pages. In addition to some useful edits, the user continually introduces speculative or outright false information related to translation services and the Hong Kong MTR; all eight of their edits since 5 February have introduced false information. The user has not responded to any of the messages on their talk page, and nor did any of the IPs. Jc86035 (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Notifying ComplexRational and EdJohnston (from the last ANI discussion). Jc86035 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Jc86035 Thank you for the notification. This looks like a duck to me, and if so, has not learned anything from their past blocks and still refuses to communicate. Regardless, I'd go straight for an indefinite block for a history of disruptive editing and CIR. ComplexRational (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This was archived with no action or even further commentary, yet the pattern of problematic editing continues. I am thus reposting in hope of a more thorough review, and stand by my comment from 9 February. ComplexRational (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:13, 17 February 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 disruption to John Schwada (journalist)

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.

---

• John Schwada (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John schwada (talk · contribs)

I requested page protection to stop this; it wasn't sufficient. Now I'm asking that the article be reverted to the last neutral version, and the COI account be blocked. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Final Warning issued. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

User:John schwada might need more than a final warning: diff 1 and diff 2 (I reverted them). Narky Blert (talk) 15:47, 18 February 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.

GergisBaki, and enforcing discretionary sanctions at the Milo Yiannopoulos article

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

---

With this and this edit respectively, GergisBaki (talk · contribs) added "ridicules" and "transgender people" to the Milo Yiannopoulos article. But these aspects are not sourced, and "ridicules" is his personal POV. There isn't even a Transgender section in the article. That was removed, as made clear in this section on the talk page. So the "transgender" part doesn't even summarize the article per WP:Lead. Because of this, I reverted and noted why I on the talk page. The article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions. When one edits (or attempts to edit) the article, the edit notice clearly states, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." I challenged GergisBaki's edit (including taking the matter to the talk page where I pinged him), but he reverted anyway. And when warned on his talk page that he should revert, he ignored it and made this edit today, where he engages in more POV editing by removing "political commentator."

If discretionary sanctions are not going to be enforced on the article, then what's the point of them being in place? Yiannopoulos not being considered (by many) to be a good person doesn't mean that editors should get to repeatedly violate BLP at the article about him. And I get the feeling that editors continue to let BLP violations happen there just because they don't like Yiannopoulos. I already had to get a BLP matter taken care of regarding that article.

There are a number of other issues with GergisBaki's editing (as is clear from his talk page, including this section I started there), but that will take a separate ANI thread on him. Typing up a thread about that will take up a significant amount of my time. So in the meantime, will an admin enforce discretionary sanctions regarding the issue at hand? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Discretionary sanctions may only be enforced if the "awareness criteria" have been satisfied. With some exceptions, this usually means a formal {{alert}} needs to be issued. The user has not breached the page restrictions since being "made aware" via an alert template. If you think they should be actioned for their latter edit, you can make an AE report, however as it stands the edit has not even been contested. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

::Swarm, although I didn't use the discretionary sanctions template to warn GergisBaki, I did warn him (very clearly telling him that "The Milo Yiannopoulos article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions." and pointing him to the "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." aspect). And he reverted anyway. GergisBaki knows what discretionary sanctions are. He's been templated before. GergisBaki simply does not care, and has not reverted even after Doug Weller suggested he should. If I'd alerted him with the discretionary sanctions template, I'm certain that he would have reverted anyway. And if he wouldn't have or one feels that he wouldn't have, then I feel that he has gamed the system because he felt that he could simply go ahead and revert since I hadn't properly templated him. In addition to GergisBaki having been alerted to discretionary sanctions before, one cannot edit that article without seeing the warnings. I've never been templated about the article, but, since I'm aware of the discretionary sanctions that have been put in place, I don't think (regardless of being an experienced editor who knows better) it means that (WP:3RR issues aside) I can revert away until a discretionary sanctions alert is placed on my talk page. And as for a challenge, I challenged the edit -- on verifiability and BLP grounds, not just on discretionary sanctions grounds. I'm not sure if I should revert again or just take this matter to the BLP noticeboard. But since even admins watching the article haven't reverted, I'll take the matter to the BLP noticeboard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I struck my above post because I just remembered that I didn't warn GergisBaki until after his revert. He still has yet to revert his challenged edits since being warned, but this is a BLP issue and I've taken the matter to the BLP noticeboard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:33, 19 February 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:Wallie at Talk:Caroline Flack

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

---

I am reporting this here rather than dealing with it administratively myself, as I have been (minimally) involved in the article. I protected Caroline Flack yesterday as it received a major influx of editors as the news broke that she had died (and then, subsequently, that she had taken her own life). After unsourced additions continued to be made I participated somewhat in the editing to the point where I'm no longer comfortable acting administratively there.

User:Wallie has been highly active on the talk page, and has been quite combative about what they seem to view as inappropriate details in the article (sourced content about a trial Flack was facing for alleged assault against her boyfriend). I just left a warning there now, but I see that other editors have already done the same and the behavior has continued. I also went to leave Wallie a BLP DS alert, but I see Doug Weller did so in June: [148]. They've also been around the encyclopedia for quite some time and really ought to know better.

Some examples of the type of very personalized attacks against other editors there include:

• It is outrageous that the girl is being smeared in this way after her death. The attacks on her character by this sort of comment on Wikipedia and other social media, prior, is what helped cause her death. It seems that evil conquers good in the 20s. [149]
• You are the one who reverted me, and are determined to crucify this girl's memory. You are aiding the work of the tabloids. Much of this conjecture you and they support is clearly biased and causes great pain to her friends and family. You may be able to publish this nasty stuff within the Wikipedia rules, but I certainly question your humanity. [150]
• You are the one being judgmental. You seem to think that some argument she had is relevant, because the tabloids reported it. Anyway, I never questioned "our humanity". It was your humanity I questioned. I think you are nasty to keep up this attack Caroline's honour, wven after she has died. In fact, I find it reprehensible, but I doubt you care anyway. [151]
• The reason is that it not encyclopedic. It is a tabloid generated attack on Caroline's character, and should certainly not be in the article. The fact that you support these attacks, even after she has died speaks volumes for both your personal charatcer and your opinion on Caroline. [152]
• Alex. You obviously didn't like Caroline. You will no doubt continue to trash her memory. [153]
• I am sorry, but this Wikipedia article could very well have contributed to Caroline's death. [154]

Thanks in advance for any uninvolved admin who wishes to review the situation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Wallie from that article talk page for one week due to repeated personal attacks that border on provocations. El_C 00:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've also added the Caroline Flack article itself to the partial block, an article which I mistakenly thought was fully-protected. Basically, Wallie needs a break from this topic in no uncertain terms. El_C 00:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Concur with El_C. Wallie is clearly overwrought.-- Deepfriedokra 02:08, 17 February 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.

Wallie is still being disruptive after the partial block, including now going around talk pages of other users blocked by El_C to... give them support? ([155], [156]) They have also posted ramblings on several users' talk pages related to this issue. I've extended the block to a sitewide one for the duration of the original block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked by Eagles247--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Incivility and Hounding by User:ජපස

Hello, I'll try to be as brief and clear as possible. The situation is a bit messy so I'll probably fail but here is my best shot...bullets in approximate chronological order

First Incident

• I've spent the last week editing pages relating to UFO sightings and Conspiracy Theories. I identified a page Bob Lazar version at the time that was in pitiful condition. We are talking of a conspiracy theorist which is being defined as a "criminal" first and foremost (definitely NOT his claim to fame...)

I started modifying it and trying to source and improve it. I also introduced some innocuous links such as the glaringly missing UFO conspiracy theory

e.g. [157] and [158]

Nothing major certainly... one could disagree with the wording for sure. Nothing a quick edit can't fix especially since most of the content was already on the page.

• Given the topic, several new editors joined in and some discussions arose. I engaged in those discussions with civil results: we achieved some compromises and moved forward working step by step to source and improve the page.

See: Talk:Bob_Lazar#New_Sources where I ask for a second opinion regarding some new sources I was examining.

And: Talk:Bob_Lazar#Los_Alamos_Monitor/Lazar_"Jet_Car"_article_as_a_source

And: Talk:Bob_Lazar#Revert_Spree where I try to ask editors to WP:ROWN (User:Keldoo was new and a bit too revert trigger happy so I explained the 3 revert rule https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keldoo&diff=940614782&oldid=940612574 and we worked together from there on with no issues achieving consensus and posting a small reorganisation of the page content to make it more readable/clear)

• And here comes User:ජපස our hero. Without participating in any of the ongoing discussion he reverts the WHOLE WEEK: REVERT

This multi edit revert claiming POVPUSH is completely indiscriminate. It goes over all discussions trampling all consensus. It's so broad I can't even understand which version he reverts back to. Even useful links are removed.

• Me and other users complain and restore. And one of his aligned friends replicates the blanked revert supporting him. :[159]

• I find a noticeboard Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Bob_Lazar,_Whistleblower? where accusations to me and the other users of spreading WP:FRINGE theories and of being tinfoil hatters abound. This seems the origin point of this merry group of friends. I try to engage in a WP:CIVIL way but am immediately greeted with a nice WP:PA "You are the problem"

My edits were minor in any case, not worth fighting over nothing.

I try to move on.

Second Incident

• I start editing another page in terrible conditions: USS Nimitz UFO incident my first edits

This time I try to prevent any problems by opening a discussion myself on the Fringe_theories/Noticeboard asking for opinions. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident and some editors review and confirm my work. Some of my edits are challenged and we try to discuss them by continuing existing discussions and starting others Talk:USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident until...

• Our hero User:ජපස follows me here too and without participating in any discussion he reverts everything once again: REVERT

Another indiscriminate multi edit revert without engaging in discussion that rolls back on everything blindly.

Simple proof of how indiscriminate the user's reverts were: of the -2,344 characters removed +2,050 belonged to an entire paragraph that he was in favour of and that I and other users were discussing in detail in the talk page. I pointed this out to the user and he promptly restored it saying "This is worthy of inclusion!" [160] He didn't even read what he was reverting....I guess he just had to look for my name in the edit history...

At this point he starts editing the page as he sees fit suppressing all of the other editor's contributions and ensuring that the page will be just as he personally likes it.

• He still doesn't participate in discussion on the talk page but only on the Fringe_theories/Noticeboard where he dismisses a peer review paper from a reputable journal I had presented and that we were discussing because he doesn't agree with it's contents and suggests I should be reported [161]

User report and hounding on surviving pages

• At this point I realise that no amount of discussion will dissuade his uncivil behaviour and decide to report him myself for edit warring behaviour believing it was the correct place to do so [162]

Almost immediately User:Oldstone James reads my report and confirms that this behaviour is a pattern and has happened before to him [163][164]

• I inform the user and wave white flag on the fringe noticeboard [165]

• User starts blatantly WP:HOUNDING my last surviving edits from the week. He reverts covertly all of my other CLEARLY sourced contribution and Admin El_C warns him not to follow me around [166]

REVERT is particularly egregious. I had placed TWO reputable sources (incident was front page NY Times) so why remove it? This is just a list and there are definitely worst sourced cases included. He didn't correctly revert (what a coincidence) so no notification for me and no discussion on the talk page.

EDITS I had added a link here as the last editor but he didn't have the courage to revert it thank god

Those were tiny edits so the absurdity and vindictiveness of his reverts are clearly on display. Not to mention the sneaky manner in which they were done.

• El_C closes my report as "This goes beyond the scope of this noticeboard" and suggests I pursue here if necessary [167]

MY FINAL STATEMENT:

I hope I have accurately described the destructive pattern of behaviour of this editor. Unfortunately his MO rejects any discussion and stifles any WP:CIVIL collaboration with indiscriminate and vindictive reverts. The user has only presented a facade of discussion once I presented my official complaint and relies on the other users on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard to support him squashing the contributions of any new editor in the fringe theories area. I repeatedly pointed out that WP:ROWN would immediately solve all of our problems and that we could work collaboratively together simple editing each other's work but to no avail. I even was asked pointedly if I was aware that WP:ROWN is "just an essay".

I'm sorry it has come to this. I never had to post any kind of report on anyone before in 10 years of participating in various Wiki projects. But User:ජපස, supported by the group over at fringe theories, has lost touch with Wikipedia:Five_pillars and is damaging the project.

I'm sure similar incidents have happened before as this seems like a systematic approach that is applied to pages discussed in the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard (the fact another user confirmed the MO in less than 1 hour is pretty astounding). And I worry it will continue if left unchecked.

Thank you for your time. I hope I was sufficiently clear (it isn't easy). If not just ask for any clarification! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggest WP:CIR block (for Gtoffoletto) Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Could you clarify my incompetence please? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

P.s. you added a random "G" in my text above braking syntax. I have corrected your mistake. Your welcome. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Our hero follows me here too (bold is my emphasis) — please avoid unnecessary innuendo, Gtoffoletto. El_C 15:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Frustration showing sorry. Definitely unnecessary... --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. This is problematic forumshopping by Gtoffoletto, which I warned him against here. There's a bit of a pattern emerging in Gtoffoletto's use of noticeboards: an admin need only hint that another board might be better and he rushes there; but no matter how clearly the same, or another, admin advises him to, say, stay away from an irrelevant noticeboard, as I also did here — "I can tell you for free ... that it would be useless to post this conflict [at AN3]" — he doesn't seem to notice. Nor does he apparently care how many experienced users tell him jps is not hounding him (here for instance is El C trying to explain it).

Another pattern is that this user prides himself on being civil, in contrast to his "unhinged" and "deranged" opponents[168]. Illustrations above: "and here comes our hero", "this merry group of friends", "our hero follows me here too", "one of his aligned friends" (that would be LuckyLouie) etc, above. A striking example of passive aggression is this post on the Fringe noticeboard, where he is apparently proud of his readiness to compromise, as he refers to it as "waving the white flag". I recommend ANI surfers to read what he has to say there about the "gang", consisting I think of jps (who has been admirably mild and encouraging throughout his engagement with Gtoffoletto), and LuckyLouie — a gang that according to him stifles all constructive editing and forces him, Gtoffoletto, to file what I had already told him was a pointless report on the edit warring noticeboard (wasting some more admin time). And Gtofoletto, looking above again, where do you get off complaining like a maenad about being reverted, and then insulting people for not reverting you, also above: "he didn't have the courage to revert it thank god". Eh?

I have blocked Gtofoletto for 31 hours for disruptive editing, in the hope that he will take my advice more seriously if it comes with a block. Please reboot your style when you return from the block, Gtofoletto, because passive aggression and failure to listen to experienced users won't help you to a good experience on the English Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, in fairness, I am the one who told Gtofoletto to submit a "Well-documented" report to AE or AN/I, if they feel they have a valid, verifiable complaint. But if you found that this report was sufficiently below par (rather than forumshopping), I have no immediate objection to the action (short block) you've taken. El_C 17:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's below par, and also it's the straw that broke the camel's back. It's not just the report. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

Okay, Bishonen, fair enough. El_C 17:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Post block statement and clarification

I accept my punishment as I recognise I was out of line several times (as I have stated above and elsewhere to USer:El C and as my edits to the above report prove).

I am clearly frustrated with User:ජපස's behaviour (and at the time was also dealing with a high fever that didn’t really help my temper and coherence of expression). So while I disagree with some of Bishonen’s statements and don’t fully understand some of her arguments in her decision to block me I choose not to argue and apologise to all involved. My first block. So be it. There’s a first time for everything right? :-)

Back to the case in point, (am I correct in thinking my being blocked does not automatically dismiss my case?) I have spent this block reading up on what is going on and to understand how better I could have handled the situation.

It is clear I am facing a much more experienced group of users that has cemented themselves as “model” editors in the eyes of some admins even. Who knows how long this behaviour has been going on.

This experience disparity is why (after she contacted me during one discussion) I have requested help from User:Bishonen twice in the last week on her talk page. However, she misinterpreted my help request as a request for involvement in the editing while what I was asking was for the correct APPROACH in dealing with such a situation. Unfortunately it seems I didn’t explain myself properly and the subsequent misunderstanding ensued. At the time I felt I didn’t have the proper tools to “fight” this destructive behaviour which is extremely sneaky and much easier to overlook than my petty and obvious incivility.

What I have found recently is that the behaviour I described in my report fits exactly the behaviour described here: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (curiously the user has even edited this page in the past).

I would argue it hasn’t been particularly WP:Civil (as I think my report proves) but this short description summaries the situation quite well:

Civil pov-pushers argue politely and in compliance with Wikipedia civility principles, but also with bad faith, which discourages or upsets the other contributors. In a discussion, blame is often assigned to the person who loses their temper, which is even more frustrating for fair contributors trapped in such discussions.

Most of the behaviours indicated in the essay describe exactly what this editor is doing. I would argue that without an admin taking the time to examine the substance of this user’s edits it will be very hard to understand what he is doing. And that subject matter knowledge is probably also required. The way he is dismissing sources that don’t conform with his POV is particularly worrisome as he is is doing so with a facade of “civility” and “compliance with regulations” which is clearly fooling most (but not all).

Will someone take the time to read the report with the necessary attention? I worry the time and attention necessary to properly familiarise with the case is excessive for an admin here and unfortunately this behaviour will continue. The silver lining: the overwhelming amount of reputable sources that are emerging (which the user is bizarrely dismissing in what I believe to be a POV push) relating to some of those cases should make this much easier. We are talking about a first page of the NYTimes story after all. A lot of resonance obviously across all major newspapers, congressional hearings, documentaries, etc.

TO CONCLUDE: I reported that the user engages in multi edit reverts that result in suppression of other user edits in an attempt to evade discussion and POV push. And has been doing so with WP:HOUNDING characteristics towards me. I have presented evidence to the best of my ability but am available for clarifications if necessary. Is this approach to reverting accepted on Wikipedia and as indicated above considered “admirably mild and encouraging”?

I consider this my final appeal and will accept the verdict without presenting any additional evidence unless requested by an admin evaluating the case as I feel "the facts" have been already sufficiently linked above. Thank you for your time. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I recommended that Gtoffoletto advances their position with a well-documented report. The above is, not only too lengthy, more importantly, it has zero documentation, so its usefulness is in question. It does the opposite than to serve Gtoffoletto's interests. El_C 18:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am facing a much more experienced group of users that has cemented themselves as “model” editors in the eyes of some admins even. Who knows how long this behaviour has been going on. That's quite a bold claim to be making, especially without any documentation to back it up. Anyway, if consensus is against your edits for whatever reason, then the onus is on you to persuade editors otherwise in a civil manner. Resorting to innuendo and aspersions is actually a form of tendentious editing. Again, content disputes are to be resolved through dispute resolution, not administrative intervention. El_C 23:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent promotional history at Duke articles

• Duke University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Duke University School of Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Duke–NUS Medical School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would appreciate more eyes on these, and possibly protection for the main article. COI edits from Duke and Singapore IPs. It's also possible that the most promotional content in the school of medicine are copyright violations, as from [169]. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am an IP editor who has never coordinated with other accounts to build the appearance of consensus. I don't know where this person is getting that from. All my edits have credible sources (example: research papers published in Science/Nature or media outlets like the NY Times, WSJ, etc.) It is not my fault that the university in question has been receiving a lot of positive coverage lately. The fact that the coverage is positive doesn't make it less worthy of being highlighted in the article as and where appropriate.

Also, I'd like to refer to this: "When an editor sees a single purpose editor, one initial reaction might be to cry "COI!" or "Paid editing!", taking the issue to noticeboards and other venues. It is often done in violation of assuming good faith." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_cry_COI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.217.221 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BOOSTER is also a good essay. As for my concerns re: multiple accounts with similar objectives:
• 137.132.217.221 (talk · contribs)
• 137.132.215.192 (talk · contribs)
• 119.74.237.226 (talk · contribs)
• 152.3.43.52 (talk · contribs)
• 137.132.215.196 (talk · contribs)
• 137.132.212.213 (talk · contribs)
• Most of these IPs are from the same range in Singapore--from the National University, whose medical school is affiliated with Duke--and all are drawn to Duke articles, including that of the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. If they're not all used by the same editor, then they suggest a longer term effort by multiple COI editors for the same ends. Though I do like "It is not my fault that the university in question has been receiving a lot of positive coverage lately" as a defense. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has also included these talk pages: [170]; [171] and [172]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is related, but I had similar issue at Joseph Heitman (a faculty member at Duke University Medical School) where I created the page and then a series of Duke-located IPs have been making promotional edits (mostly adding mentions of awards and various external links). Ajpolino (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User:142.166.158.233

142.166.158.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This ip address has been continuously disruptive editing and adding WP:OR nonstop despite several final warnings. In addition, the ip address has also failed to communicate on their Talk page. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: can you explain what the problem is with this IP's edits? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This ip address continuously adding WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH on multiple articles again and again such as [173] and [174]. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look at some of this editor's contributions and the thing that strikes be most is that the articles seem to be formatted as tables rather than prose, which makes it more difficult than it should be for anyone to edit them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Was about to report them, and then saw they had a discussion on them here. So now I'm here. Personally, IP is continuously disruptive across The Masked Singer pages, and after multiple warnings, continues to do edits like this, that are completely unnecessary. Yes, I know there is a new episode airing tonight, but we don't need to make a new section with literally nothing in it when it is airing hours later.

Should also be noted that I've had trouble with this exact same IP on The Masked Singer Wiki/FANDOM. I know it's off of Wikipedia, but probably worth noting that I am the founder of the Wiki and I've had to block said IP because after many times and many warnings there, I've resulted many blocks against them, and I wouldn't be surprised if I have to make an indefinite block in the future. On here and Wikia/FANDOM, I've seen 0 signs of communication apart from their continuous disruptive editing habit that doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. I'd definitely agree with YoungForever on the lack of communication and WP:NOTHERE. In addition to both of those, worth noting that the IP has not once used an edit summary to explain any reasonings whatsoever. Magitroopa (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Sm8900's refusal to get it.

Sm8900 (talk · contribs) has gotten into their heads that ... something (see also samey-thing they proposed a few weeks before that one) has to be done about... I don't even know what. The idea is half-conceived, unclear, and has little-to-no support because no one even knows what it is they're putting forward, or what problem they are trying to solve.

Last night, they went on a spamming spree at multiple Wikiprojects (e.g. [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], and that goes on for a while), effectively promoting the idea that 'Town Halls', whatever those are, could/should be implemented. This was for the most part reverted (by me), with a notice to not do that again until the idea has support.

They've also recently self-appointed themselves as the WP:HISTORY co-ordinator, implemented a "Town Hall" at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/History Town Hall, (which is now at MFD), created WP:Town Hall (redirected to WP:Community portal by Moxy (talk · contribs), got told by just about everyone to slow the hell down (User_talk:Sm8900#So sorry, User_talk:Sm8900#Town Hall spamming on WikiProjects), and recently being 'adopted' by another user User_talk:Sm8900#Welcome aboard matey! (@CaptainEek:)

Last night, before going to bed, they have promised to 'refrain' from such edits (User_talk:Sm8900#Town Hall spamming on WikiProjects), but this morning, what do I wake up to? A message on my talk page and more spam notices at WT:PHYS). And I'm not the only one either [180], [181], etc...

This incessant spamming about this underdeveloped/dead-on-arrival idea has got to stop. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

well, as you requested, I created a draft in my own user space. I thought I was complying with your request. Additionally, I thought that voluntarily letting you know about my new draft page, and my request for comment at that draft page, would be a positive step. I was trying to contact you directly, as a gesture of respect and a willingness to adhere to any requests that you might have. I appreciate your note on this. I hope that helps to clarify things. I do appreciate your note and your insights. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

here is the page that I linked to, based on your request to me to retain it simply as a user space draft. as you can see, this is a draft in my own user space. link: User:Sm8900/Community forum and bulletin board re WikiProject. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The request was for you to stop spamming your half-baked idea. The VPR discussion is going on, stick to that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Competence seems to be a real issue.... here they are welcoming a blocked user. There main contributions to our project as of late is to make redirects and user drafts copying talks from other pages. They have been asked to stop this on multiple occasions by many editors but to no avail. Moxy 🍁 14:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

He means well. I like the idea of scaling up a noticeboard to involve more people but the problem is that very few people bother with community pages and a lot of the wikiprojects listed in the council directory are inactive or barely have a few contributors and a lot of those are often not consistent so you're unlikely to get much support Sm8900 from people wanting to regularly put up notices. Focus on the millions of articles we have needing work, breathe some life into one of the US state ones or something which already exist would be my advice. I don't want to comment on the issue any further now, wish you the best of luck Sm8900.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

sounds fine, Dr. Blofeld. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

at this point, I would prefer to discuss one-on-one with any admin who wishes to address this. there is no need to mix in every other one of my edits from the recent past. I copied a talk page just now to a draft page, so that I could refer to it. it was simply a single colloquy, where someone from the Help Desk explained how to do some formatting details. it was not actually a debate, or any type of contention, or even a controversial talk page topic.

is it possible to bring this ANI section to a close? I have already replied to and accepted all of the original points made by the editor who initiated this item. I appreciate your help and understanding. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been brought here because of the disruption across the project. I am aware of 2 this month....may be others Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Restored page or Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#Should we say something about etiquette in moving and page creation?. Slow down.--Moxy 🍁 15:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Slow down" is fine. thanks for replying. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how to describe this situation. I acknowledge that (at least on Wikipedia) Sm8900 is in many ways 'more' intelligent then myself. Thus the reason why I can't figure him/her out or what it is he/she is doing. IMHO, he/she might be over-reaching, with too many balls up in the air. Definitely a positive bloke & quite polite. But also has a tinge of a Patrick McNulty approach. I confess, he/she has left me bewildered. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Though likely not important here. I peeked at Sm8900's edit pie chart & up until around December 2019, he's been virtually non-existent on Wikipedia. It's as though a different individual took over the 'account'. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Behaviourally, something happened in 2019, and I don't see this level of disruptiveness/newbie-ness before then.. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

well, ok, but it is still me over here. I would like an admin to come along and provide some positive resolution. I think GoodDay did make some positive statements in their comment above, which I highly appreciate. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sm8900 has been around for a long time and been a valuable contributor. I'm not sure what their current rash of ideas is about, but they are at least excited about contributing. They are engaged, which is a good thing. They are just perhaps moving faster than Wikipedia can move. I think that they could probably slow down a bit, but with a little guidance they could keep on keeping on. Sm asked for adoption by me recently (which to be honest bewilders me a bit, but I think Sm realized they needed some help and thus reached out for it), which I accepted. I haven't actually had the time to engage much with Sm, its a very busy period IRL, but the adoption was quite recent. I agree that the widespread...spreading of the townhall idea wasn't super helpful, and should stop. But it was done in good faith. I have more thoughts on the matter, but I'm typing this hurriedly before I run out the door, so I'll reply more later. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks, CaptainEek. I think your insights and your overall summary are totally accurate and correct. I appreciate all your insight above, and all your feedback. thanks very much. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, if I have any further ideas, drafts etc, I will be sure to run them past you, and to proceed slowly and deliberately, and make sure I am using one forum to present the idea. if the idea is for an existing resource or talk page, I will be sure to use that page's talk page for any proposals or changes ahead of time. but again, i will proceed slowly. I did not mean to step on any toes. I do welcome the important feedback that I have received here. I will be sure to keep these important points and concerns in mind. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Headbomb: I checked their old contributions and can attest with a high probability that it's the same editor. Sm8900 might be seen as overeager (your use of the term "disruptive" is absolutely misleading), I think they are primarily a mainspace editor and projectspace is new to them, indeed the ones who do a lot of the content work often face a disconnect with the meta aspect of projects, so I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the case here. At the very least, not one time have they been uncivil or intentionally disruptive, so please, let's have the decency to give this editor the benefit of doubt instead of dragging them to ANI. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruption made in good faith is still disruption. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am open to all your feedback, and I value your views. I do appreciate the feedback of everyone here. may I please point out, though, even if "disruption made in good faith is still disruptive," we do attach some importance to the distinction between "good-faith" edits and "disruptive" edits. however, with that said, I am still totally open to and interested in absorbing your feedback, and acknowledging your valid points and concerns. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• My experience has been that this editor responds very politely to criticism but then doesn't take a blind bit of notice of it and carries on behaving like a bull in a china shop. Politeness and apparent good faith are not enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly; WP has been played before. The editor seems very "young" to have been around since 2006. Sleeper sock? Miniapolis 23:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: A sleeper sock who is overeager with virtually no bad-faith editing. And and and, they have been around since 2006 but have appeared in 0 checks among the thousands conducted each year. I rest my case. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have been debating whether not to comment here. In addition to the areas that Moxy referenced, this editor had a somewhat cacophonous entry into User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace, where after having made only a few prior comments on the page, he had a burst of over 120 edits in a three-day period, which other participants in the page found disruptive to the point of describing it as "taking over this workspace discussion". I also find this behavior confusing coming from a fourteen-year editor, and I think that perhaps some serious throttling of his edit rate would benefit him by forcing him to think harder before hitting "publish changes". BD2412 T 01:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm just perplexed by what's changed in Sm8900's contrib history, beginning in December 2019. From 2006 to that date, for the most part he/she was nearly invisible in terms of edit count, then suddenly BOOM. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

They do seem to have had a similar burst of activity in March 2007, but that's quite an interesting quieter stretch. BD2412 T 02:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Going Boom with edit count isn't that odd - no odder than when my technically 8 year old account went boom a little under 2 years ago. Their actions are in no way indicative of a sleeper sock. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I keep running into @SM8900:'s pushing various suggestions in this vein (firstly Spore, now Town Hall) at multiple fora, which is and has been a little wearying. However, they definitely seem to be in good faith, and so I'm inclined to see whether the adoption above can help, coupled with the rap across the knuckles ANI, work, rather than needing to trot out any more drastic a method. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Sm8900 asked me on my talk page to look through this ANI thread and comment. I don't really understand what the Town Hall proposal is all about - management of WikiProjects really isn't something I've ever involved myself with, and I haven't been sufficiently interested to look into it. It seems apparent that they are trying to do something in good faith; it also seems apparent that it's not really garnering much support, and they should probably listen to what people are telling them and slow down, or perhaps just drop the idea and do something else. I'd add a very quiet, non-meant-to-be-threatening note of caution - a bit further up, Sm8900 says that we attach importance to the distinction between good faith and disruptive editing. In fact, per the second paragraph of WP:DE, no such distinction exists - Sm8900 is perhaps confusing this with VANDALISM, which by its definition cannot be done in good faith, but if good faith editing becomes disruptive, it must be stopped. Hopefully this won't turn into that. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your input above. I will definitely discontinue the edits referred to above, now that I realize and understand that they were intrusive. I really appreciate your help with this. thanks. I would be willing to delete any such notices that have not already been deleted. I'm sorry for these edits, which I realize were intrusive. I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, here are some of the previous discussions where Sm8900 was asked to adopt a more deliberate approach with proposals and discussions: WikiProject Council talk page; WikiProject Council talk page; my talk page; Sm8900's talk page; portal guidance workshop. isaacl (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Townhalls? Sounds likeKarmafist -- Deepfriedokra 18:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been brought to my attention that I could be seen as casting aspersions. That is not my intent. Just an observation. But if you were here for Karmafist, it sounds like his ideas. I mean someone one could come up with the same/similar stuff independently. Sorry to bring it up. There was much upheaval and Wiki drama surrounding Karmafist. You had to be there.-- Deepfriedokra 19:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Now canvassing for a new idea User:Sm8900/portal draft. What can we do here?--Moxy 🍁 22:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not done any canvassing at all on this. this is simply a draft in my own user space; I only contacted around three people, who had expressed some support for this idea in some form, and who had previously communicated with me directly about it, including my mentor. I have not and will not canvass any WikiProjects, or any editors associated with them, or anyone else, as I indicated and agreed to above. I have indicated closure for this topic discussion at Village Pump for this. I appreciate your inquiry. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, a bit of advice from me, that you probably won't take, would be to concentrate on editing individual articles for the next few months rather than make any broad suggestions as to how Wikipedia should be run. The reason that Wikipedia has become the world's foremost encyclopedia is that people have created it one article at a time, rather than made any organizational proposals such as you are so fond of. Just get some idea about what Wikipedia is before telling everyone they should be doing things differently. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with you. I am done making broad proposals. the draft above is simply based directly upon a comment that one user made to me. I only contacted one or two people who had provided with actual, direct, explicit written input on some ideas, of their own accord. I am not going to canvass anyone in the community at large. I do agree with you, and that is what I plan to do. that is it. I appreciate your note. --Sm8900 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I was also asked by Sm8900 to drop by and offer some observations. I have been off-wiki for the last three days, but have monitored this thread via mobile phone. It is hard to know how to comment without causing upset. But here goes...

Short version: This editor is well meaning, enthusiastic, acts in good faith, responds politely to criticism, agrees to take feedback on board, but then seems to carry on in the same vein, oblivious to the concerns being raised with them. That's not acceptable. The message that their actions have been unhelpful and disruptive must be a painful one to hear, but seems at last to be getting through.

TL;DR version: Now, I really hate pouring coldwater on anyone's high-functioning enthusiasm - especially when brought here to ANI - but I did feel I needed to do that myself in some of my earlier interactions, both on talk pages [182],[183], behind the scenes at the Teahouse, and at Deceased Wikipedians (diff). I do finally see a rolling back in the last few days from all these great ideas they've come up with, and it is certainly unusual to see a long-standing editor suddenly switch to such intense, almost manic, behind-the-scenes activity and idea-creation which have at times verged on being disruptive. They have certainly been a bit of a time sink for me and others. Whether they choose to offer an explanation as to why they seem to have made this sudden switch must be left up to them, as it would be rude of us to pry. Sm8900 has been bluntly told (by me) to stop copy/pasting past discussion threads and signatures into their own subpages, as this causes great confusion. They have sought some kind of steer/mentorship via CaptainEek at WP:AAU, and I am also willing, should they so wish, to continue being blunt and even a bit rude to them if it helps to avoid them being brought back to ANI again for what some folk here are, not unreasonably, seeing as good-faith but nevertheless disruptive behaviour. They really should also stop making innumerable tiny, incremental edits to pages, and instead attempt to make larger edits and with clear edit summaries. (Their poor use of descriptive edit summaries is unhelpful and needs serious improvement - and this can simply be achieved by setting the Preferences option to 'prompt for an edit summary' prior to publishing changes, and using the Preview button to consider what they're writing, and whether they've said it all or not.) Repeatedly coming back to add little afterthoughts is quite irritating, and a cause of many edit conflicts when trying to resolve issues.    

As an aside, I would invite Sm8900 to look through every single one of their innumerable user subpages and consider whether they should request deletion of most of them. Some seem to be redundant (example), or empty (example), whilst others are copy/pastings of existing help pages (example), or wholly inappropriate copyright violations, whilst others seem to be solitary notes about particular topics, and even hoaxes (example), and I doubt they need most of them. Much of what they're replicating (like this or random thoughts like this) could simply be achieved with links on one single userpage, clearly divided into useful sections, or could even be done off-wiki in a word-processor.

Whilst not suggesting they've done anything wrong (except the copyvios) in creating this plethora of sub-pages, I feel a serious cleanout would also show a willingness to tidy up their act and make the task easier for future editors to get into the mindset of this editor to fathom out what it is they're trying to achieve here, should such issues persist.

Personally, I would like to see them agreeing just to stick to content creation and normal editing for a while, even at WP:WikiProject History where they enthusiastically burst on the scene, and to cease with the 'grand ideas' and problem-solving for a bit. Continually asking for input on the next great idea - no matter how interesting they think it is - is seemingly not going down too well with some.

Summary:Providing the concerns raised by a number of editors here and elsewhere are finally being listened to, understood and acted upon, I feel there's no further action needed at this point, as the message that they're out of kilter with the rest of us is finally seeping through. I'm sure that Sm8900 is now only too aware that any recurrence of their over-enthusiastic rush to unilaterally resolve and sort out every single problem on Wikipedia could well lead to further charges of disruptive, but good-faith, editing and we all know where that could lead to in the end. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes. I think you have made some excellent points above. I will be happy to adopt every single one of them. as you note, I have already begun to scale back most or all of the practices that you refer to above. I will be glad to continue to do so. I am really glads that you took the time to write here. I hope you will feel free to provide me with further feedback on ym talk page, any time you feel the need should arise. I think all your points are highly valid and on-point, and I intend to adopt every single one of them. Again, I am sorry for the edits intially referred to above, which I now realize were intrusive. It was not my intention at all to be intrusive, but I have a much better idea of what the genuine reasons are that an edit can be intrusive, regardless of intent. I feel much more aware now of these vital concerns, and will step back in these areas. I really appreciate your helpful and important insights above. thanks very much. And again, let's stay in touch any time you like, via my talk page. I accept and welcome your insights., thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have now adopted all of the suggestions mentioned above. I greatly appreciate the valuable feedback provided here. I think this was a valuable exchange, and I appreciate it. If anyone has any further points to raise, either positive, negative, or otherwise, I would ask if any further points, comments, input, etc could kindly please be posted on my own talk page. I greatly appreciate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think this can be closed now. Sm8900 seems to have got the message. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Phil. If issues persist, we can always come back here, but nothing needs to be done at this time. I will help watch over Sm and steer them on the right path. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User 199.66.69.88 accusing multiple people as disruptive

199.66.69.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dear admins,

User 199.66.69.88 is repeatedly accusing new name discussion as "disruptive" on Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and have made the discussion a bit unfriendly (or just I felt it) at the least. Could anyone help me understand if this is a good behavior in Wiki-land? I don't know any rule that applied here. But I felt that behavior is inconsistent with WP:AGF?

I hope to address this behavior with this user but since they are unregistered user, I don't know where to go (no user Talk page). If this is not the best place to address such issue, please educate me.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

IP editors do have a Talk page. I have just used a template to welcome this particular one on theirs. You can add to it if you wish at User talk:199.66.69.88. (Talk pages for IP editors can, however, be problematic if they have an ISP that frequently changes their address.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I left a message there User_talk:199.66.69.88#Addressing_issue and let's see how it goes. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 06:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: thank you for your suggestion. The follow up result here is the message I wrote on their user talk page is reverted in Special:Diff/940761104. Does it mean that writing on their talk page was not the right way to address issue?

By the way I explicitly ask the IP editor to disclose their other contributions but that question seems not answered. So I wasn't sure if this reverting revision is considered an act of refusing the discussion on talk page, or the IP editor mistakenly think they have answered all questions. ::: Since the message on the user Talk was explicitly reverted by the user themselves, unless I understand it wrong, I guess ANI is the only place for this discussion to continue on? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I also suspected some disruption from this ip might of used a multiple registered account to vote in RMs in the article. Suddenly this ip know how to look for a ANI properly and properly link a polices. This person waited until the RM had more oppose than support. Regice2020 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020: If I read between your lines correctly, are you suggesting there could be a possible WP:SOCK of this user? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspected it after seeing the ip know how properly link and use ANI like a experienced person that been here before. It was just so sudden. Regice2020 (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have seen many IP editors who are savvy and experienced editor, mostly very friendly and self restraint when dealing with conflict of opinions. But this is the only a few cases that I have seen an IP who only have participated in one topic in most recent history, AND have been being super strong in trying to push people to follow his/her instruction. I guess it's not totally impossible this could be a WP:SOCK. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 07:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment (Feb 15) I mean the evidence is pretty clear and this outrageous behavior to cut off discussion when more oppose gathered basically that fits the ip agenda. This where it all suddenly triggered, pressure admins on another ANI in a sneaky way to have discussion closed after gathering more opposition. Making false assumptions that users who did not side with the ip. 1 Successfully got his way. 2. This behavior was part of the closure of the 2019 coronavirus outbreak Requested move 2 February 2020 <-- This where the behavior started. I may have to notify more users who had their voices cut off because of this. Regice2020 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You characterize some behavior here as "harassment" in your edit summary. Would you mind providing diffs to support the accusation that I have harassed anybody? Otherwise I would appreciate your retraction of that accusation. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOCK aside for now, it's pretty plain that the IP's present behaviour is not holding WP:AGF to task as I see it and it certainly stands out as a stark outlier to the generally civil RM discussions conducted by the rest of the community on that page, made more pronounced by a seeming intent by the individual to WP:BLUD.

Talk:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#2019–20 coronavirus outbreak: In a thread opened by @Wikmoz: with explicit overtures to WP:CIVIL, IP immediately casted the OP's intent as a POV-push attempt "to deride and portray as conspiracy theorists anyone who disagrees with renaming the article." Engaged by the OP in a query to clarify their accusation, the IP replied: "I don’t expect you to admit to wrongdoing in making this thread. I’m just asking that an admin close it as disruptive. There is no intention to seek self-criticism here."

Wikipedia:Move_review#2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak: Portraying a RM close explicitly tabbed "without prejudice" as a mandate to cite WP:IDHT and "sanctions handed out to those disruptive individuals" they assert are continuing "their pattern of disruption." Sleath56 (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my statements that the individuals at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak are engaged in disruption. I specifically request a WP:BOOMERANG for xinbenlv (who opened this thread without notifying me of the discussion, as required), who took it upon himself to falsely tag my posts with a disclaimer that I had only ever participated in discussions regarding the Wuhan coronavirus. As a cursory review of my contributions will show, this is entirely false. I am growing very concerned with xinbenlv's behavior in these discussions and elsewhere, including a blatant anti-anonymous editor animus.

I further request that reviewing administrators consider the behavior of Regice2020, who has called for unregistered editors to be excluded from future requested move discussions in a transparent attempt to exclude me from such discussions. This same person has, without a shred of evidence, accused me of sockpuppetry on this very page! (Knowing the existence of ANI is not suspicious in the least. And calling anything I've done "disruptive" is ridiculous.

Sleath56's behavior is concerning as well. Not knowing the difference between an accusation of "disruption" and one of "vandalism" and coming to this board insisting some intervention be made is bordering on WP:CIR territory.

Other participants at the talk page have indeed been disruptive, though I have always assumed good faith (as has been evidenced by the tone and tenor of their participation) that their disruption was the result of a failure to understand the nature of the community process rather than a deliberate attempt to bludgeon a pro-PRC perspective.

All that said, I believe it may soon be time to seek general sanctions for the entire Wuhan coronavirus topic area. The individuals involved in bludgeoning requested moves and endlessly starting new threads in what very much looks like a WP:FILLIBUSTER have not shown any sign of slowing down despite the timely, patient intervention of multiple experienced editors. This race to ANI is a sign that the efforts to contain the dispute thus far have failed. Please step in and provide some assistance. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

As requested here, I have posted the above on 199.66.69.88's behalf. aboideau^talk 16:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the statement of 199.66.69.88 here, @Aboideau:. I felt a bit hard to even have a normal conversation of 199.66.69.88. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I am not accusing anything of 199.66.69.88, but on a factual basis, if we look at the most recent contributions of 199.66.69.88, from 2/7 - 2/14 Special:Contributions/199.66.69.88 they have over 50 contributions, except 1 edits, all other contributions is on Talk page of the 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus related topic and move requests. So I might have typo, not strictly only, as I wrote in other places The user's only recent contributions are about this topic. It seems over the past several days the only thing this IP is focusing on is asking people to do not start a new title discussion for that particular article. Maybe harrassment might not be the best description of this user's behavior, but I start to feel very concern about how their behavior (calling other people disruptive for even discussing a proper name(not formally go for a RM yet), have influenced the discussion atmosphere in other participants who want to join discussion and form a consensus. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I see a user who still has a thing or two to learn about wikipedia and how to edit effectively with others but I’m not sure I see disruptive behavior here. Perhaps I am misunderstanding but from Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak it seems that they are far from the only editor who objects to the repeated name change attempts. IP users have the same rights as other users and that page is a very popular one ATM, a page warning was appropriate but I don’t think ANI is the venue to solve this problem. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

IPs actually don't have the same rights as other users, which is also pedantically obvious when the IP can't directly respond here on AN/I, because they are inherently unaccountable unless effort is expended for a WP:CHECK. As demonstrated in the IP's response, they prefer to promptly cross-examine rather than address points of order made, which is particularly noted when concerns brought up are of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. It's clear the IP is not a new user, and regardless of whether WP:SOCK is citable, the observable fact stands that their IP status serves as an inherent cushion to their benefit against reciprocal conduct examinations while they liberally cite the conducts of other participants here and beyond. Sleath56 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

We’re running into the issue of WP using rights, permissions, bits and flags interchangeably aren’t we? I apologize for misusing the term of art, I would restate my point but this thread seems to have run its course (and even continued onto another thread) in my absence so it would be of no use to anyone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I would. The charge of deliberate intent in "xinbenlv (who opened this thread without notifying me of the discussion, as required)" is plain to see as an outright fabrication when the very opening statement of this AN/I stands as contrary that the OP expended documented effort to notify the IP. OP also notified them through reply on the pertinent Talk page. I view it as representative of an unhelpful penchant for overblown accusative assumptions which are thereafter utilized as rebuttals. Sleath56 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• 1 "Hi 199.66.69.88, I want to kindly notify you that I bringing this to ANI for your accusation of other people being disruptive for trying to drive title consensus. I can't bing it to your talk page because I can't, so I am just notifying you here... xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)"

This isn’t the required notification procedure. xinbenlv knows full well how to write to a user talk page, and should know (as should you) that merely pinging or burying a comment on a talk page is insufficient. I was not notified as is required. The failure to concede this point speaks to the credibility of the positions you have staked out. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting that their reply, instead of addressing the points of order made, were instead to issue counter charges instead, amusingly against every other participant. As such, I take it that they hold implied consent to the citations I've presented of their behaviour and see them as 'wholly appropriate.' As a result, I see those two citations as demonstrably of WP:AGF not being held to task and an user not invested in correcting their behaviour from further engaging in such manners.

On another note, citing misconstrued WP:CIRs in an AN/I opened on grounds of WP:CIVIL and failing to read the header addendum on its utility in disputes being citable for WP:PA is comedic, and I do consider it a borderline WP:PA. Sleath56 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor 199.66.69.88 is clearly not a newbie given the way he or she cited many policies/guidelines/essays, therefore likely to have been around for quite a while. I didn't like the way the editor is trying to disrupt or stop other people discussing issues by urging closure of these discussions, but I don't think what he or she did is sanctionable just yet. Whether the editor is a sock or not I don't know, and that is the only concern in the !vote of various discussions of the talk pages. Hzh (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no need to address spurious accusations on the terms of such an accuser. By what right should any of you control the direction of this discussion?

Perhaps you find it amusing that I've leveled complaints at the other participants to this thread, but the most basic look at those participants will show that everyone who has participated in this thread (with one exception, against whom I naturally have no complaint) has been a participant in the discussions at the talk page (and specifically those who have so desperately demanded a pagemove). Nobody has had a chance to participate, and as has been the modus operandi of the talk page since the "no consensus" RM, it has been filibustered by those in favor of a pagemove. None of you has given a chance to any ANI participant—administrator or otherwise—to really review this case, which in my experience is par for the course.

At its core, this is a content dispute that those who have brought this complaint seek to cast as a behavioral dispute. Those experienced in ANI dealings will recognize this as a very common stratagem. I urge you to look beyond the claims made above by xinbenlv, Regice2020, and Sleath56, who have not provided a single diff of the claimed misconduct on my part on the talk page. Look at the diffs I've provided. Thank you. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

To have balanced voices heard, I like to notify Wikipedian, @Hurricane Noah:, @Benlisquare: to join this discussion. These two Wikipedian do not agree with my point of view in that they both disagree to have a RM.

has also @Benlisquare: have think raising new title discussion could be disruptive and an ANI-worthy case. I know you have not formally requested any ANI, but since this is a similar discussion, I'd like to make sure you are aware of our debate here. I am willing to be convinced by you or 199.66.69.88 that any conduct of discussing new name could be disruptive.

Oh by the way,

I like to point out among these 3 Wikipedians who have thought even having a new name discussion (not a RM) as "disruptive", two of them, @Benlisquare: and 199.66.69.88, have 3 major similarities I couldn't help noticing:

* 1. they make strong statement asking people to stop discussion immediately, in a very strong toneSpecial:Diff/940211462 and Special:Diff/940711118.

* 2. they are very familiar with policies and have been citing policies inline as links such as Special:Diff/940211462 by Benlisquare and Special:Diff/940692880 by 199.66.69.88.

* 3. evidence shows they both understand Chinese to some level, as showing on Benlisquare's talk page, and 199.66.69.88's first contribution is on Wenliang Li updating the subject's Chinese name markup Special:Diff/939627710.

Instead there is no sign @Hurricane Noah: shares these two similarities. I am not suggesting these facts (or just my opinion) are sufficient to justify a WP:SOCK accusation, and I genuinely think 199.66.69.88's Special:Diff/939627710 is a good edit for Wenliang Li that I want to applaud him/her for, but I think it would be great if 199.66.69.88 could further disclose his/her other contributions, I think this will greatly resolve any minor doubt people may have in WP:SOCK. However, I like to hightly both 199.66.69.88 and Benlisquare have voted the same side as OPPOSE in two separate RMs of the same topic (maybe not a violation of WP:SOCK even proven same people? if so, that's smart). xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I was like thinking where i did see this similar edit before which prompted me to respond to IP. Hopefully this ANI will get to the bottom of this out control issue. Regice2020 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that the reason why I am upset is that RM after RM has been opened and no consensus is able to come from these. It seems people there are unable to cope with the no consensus because they feel it is a factually incorrect title. It is imo disruptive to open another RM for a similar move soon after the previous one is closed just for the sake of continuing a discussion that went nowhere. Everyone needs to take a break from this and come back once the fog has cleared and the name is clearly known in the media. I thought that a month would be a good break for everyone since it takes time for the public to accept a common name. I'm not saying new name discussions/RMs are disruptive in general, just the fact that they are being done with such haste and clear lack of evidence in support of a new name. I would support opening a RM/discussion once there is a name clearly established. Noah^Talk 01:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In regards to your accusations, is there an extensive history between those two users? If not, it likely can't be confirmed if they are the same or not. Participation/voting the same in arguments over and over again would suggest they are the same. If it is just the two times you mentioned, it would be doubtful since the Coronavirus outbreak mainly pertains to China right now. Noah^Talk 01:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The IP mentioned above contacted me on my talkpage as I submitted the above messages in a manner that I take as him wanting me to defend myself for his own wellbeing. I see he sent the exact same thing to the other user mentioned as well. Noah^Talk 02:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

On your page he knows how this very cleanly. What is this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHurricane_Noah&type=revision&diff=940855999&oldid=940216817 Regice2020 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I take everything after the standard ANI message as the IP user trying to influence the discussion, in the manner of soliciting a response instead of just leaving the neutral, standard ANI message. All I can say is that something doesnt seem right about the IP's actions. Noah^Talk 02:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that user was able do that ANI posting on your talk page. The user is not new and must be very experienced under a account(s) of Wikipedia. The part were the ip was disruptive was not acceptable for people who did not side with the ip. Regice2020 (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Hurricane Noah:, your answer convinced me that within a given time frame, probably lock down any RMs would be much more productive than allowing RMs to be re-opened over and over again, and causing a distraction of discussing new names. (I previously voted oppose, but now I think I changed my mind convinced by you) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And I like to make it clear, in contrary to what 199.66.69.88 said in Special:Diff/940855999, I did not suggest any WP:SOCK possibility of you @Hurricane Noah: as in the sentence ..."Instead there is no sign @Hurricane Noah: shares these two similarities. "... xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think that I'm a sock of 199.66.69.88, then feel free to start a SPI and request for a CheckUser lookup. Though, I am a little offended that you'd even remotely think that I'd happily visit a third world country like the United States of America with its murder rate of 5.0 per 100,000, median income of $56,516, and lack of use of the metric system. But then again, I suppose it's completely impossible that different people can share the same opinion about childish behaviour (such as shoehorning RM discussions) being displayed on an article talk page, and it's definitely impossible that somebody could link to Wikipedia policy pages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this is my current dynamic IP, and this is when I'm on my phone. Now the real question is, was I able to hop on a plane from the United States after 03:54 UTC, 14 February 2020 and fly to Australia to make these posts? Tough question, I agree. I certainly am in possession of a personal-use F/A-18 Hornet myself. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Benlisquare:, I apologize if you feel offended of a potential sense of WP:SOCK . In fact if you and 199.66.69.88 are separate users, which I very much like to assume so, you don't have to disclose anything, neither contributions nor IP address, because we can easily see your contributions as public, and we can file for WP:SPI if needed for IP addresses you access. I don't worry about you(benlisquare) at all. You are invited here to address the question: @Benlisquare:, what kind of act on the talk page, in discussing a potential new name, make you think that it's disruptive? I like to be convinced by you and learn to edit Wikipedia with you effectively if any part of our discussion indeed makes it disruptive. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My position is that the best outcome is to avoid a situation at 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak where we end up with the same situation we have at Talk:Kiev, Talk:Sea of Japan, Talk:Liancourt Rocks, and many other back-and-forth cases. Everybody ends up wasting their own time, and we don't end up moving anywhere meaningful; for what benefit does this bring? With this in mind, Rome wasn't built in a day, and we can afford to wait until there is clear literary consensus (not just Wikipedia consensus, but consensus across the board, from newspapers to organisations) of a widely accepted name. This concern has been brought up by many other users, and is not something that I alone came up with.

Even with this concern brought up time and time again, between 2 February and 11 February, we've seen an onslaught of RMs after RMs after RMs. In Australia there is a common idiom, "throw enough shit at the wall, and eventually some of it will stick"; what this means is that if you repeat the same action again and again, you'll eventually reach your goal. The repetitive RMs certainly felt like an attempt at eventually making something stick to the wall, especially given:

One, the timing between the RMs, and

Two, that there was very little difference between the first handful of suggested titles.

While upon first glance it might not seem like much, there have been various instances in the distant past where these tactics have been used over and over again in a disruptive manner. I'm sure that I wouldn't be the only person who sees the repetitive creation of RMs as disruptive behaviour, and that this sentiment is echoed elsewhere as well. When the community cannot come to a consensus to move, starting up another identical discussion four hours later in the hopes of reaching a different outcome is definitely not appropriate, ergo I consider it falling within the realms of WP:TENDENTIOUS. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What I do ask explicitly for 199.66.69.88 is for him/her to disclose his/her other contributions so we can learn his/her pattern. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No. I’m not interested in being further harassed by your gang from that page. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

My thoughts

1. Let's all try to take a step back here. The discussions at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to this point have not always adhered to the standard of civility that we set for our contributors and which apply equally to everyone whether or not they have an account. While I do not think uncivil behavior should be condoned it is understandable under the circumstances that things became a bit heated, and while many of the diffs presented here are hardly creditable, none are exceptionally severe, and as such I do not see a need for any sanctions unless things continue to degrade. If everyone in those discussions agrees to just focus on content from now on there won't be any further problems.
2. If you believe someone is abusing multiple accounts then file a detailed report at WP:SPI backed by diffs and confine your concerns to that forum, lest it appear to others as mere casting of WP:ASPERSIONS. As a clarification in advance I am not saying anyone has intended to cast aspersions, but merely that the possible appearance of impropriety is by itself reason enough to confine such concerns to the appropriate forum. Further discussion here can only serve to add fuel to the fire.
3. There is no policy against long-term IP editing. Some users choose to create an account, and that's fine, some choose not to create an account, and that's fine too. Neither choice should be held against anyone.
4. It is not the purpose of ANI to resolve content disputes. I suggest that if you believe the volume of move requests has become too large then you should initiate a discussion resembling Talk:Kiev#Proposed moratorium on move requests, and abide by whatever consensus emerges from it.

Sorry about bouncing back and forth between two IPs, these are public computers, and with no time-limit I have no more right to evict anyone than they have to evict me so I have to get in whichever chair is open, and that's assuming it has working internet which has not always been the case these past few days. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've maintained that my point of order in this AN/I is the observation that the IP's present behaviour is not WP:AGF-worthy conduct. I disagree with the proposition that discussions on the page were ubiquitously devolved or heated such that the IP's behaviour holds parity with that Talk's standard. My observation is that their behaviour, as said, stands out as a stark outlier to the generally civil RM discussions conducted by the rest of the community on that page, made more pronounced by a seeming intent by the individual to WP:BLUD. This ties to the rather plainly attempted deflection through the IP's claim that the point of order is a content dispute despite the citations of behaviour contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF that they have rejected to respond to that were brought up within this AN/I.
• Points which bring up the IP's unregistered status are not attempted forays into discussion on the merits of long-term IP editing but rather that the user's fundamentally unaccountable status as an IP is now a point of interest when they seem principally interested in conduct cross-examining on conjectural grounds, which in my case amounted to a borderline WP:PA through the use of specious WP:CIR in a AN/I dispute. This is rather than engaging or even rebutting the concerns made by participants here, and when their status inherently inhibits the reciprocity potential for WP:BOOMERANG.
• The deficit is glaring because it doesn't require WP:CHECKUSER, or charges of WP:SOCK, when the IP's conduct demonstrates they are clearly not a new user, nor have they objected to that characterization throughout this, yet while albeit not wholly, principally the weight of their contributions are dedicated to the topic at hand. This is problematic from a bilateral engagement on AN/I standpoint because since the dialogue has devolved to tit-for-tat conduct allegations, they hold a tabula rasa on the appearance of a new user, with the considerations of clemency that pertains on the concerns presented of not meeting WP:AGF, yet the extant evidence points clearly to the contrary. Sleath56 (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed that the IP editor 199.66.69.88 again attempted to have a discussion closed - [184], mischaracterising the nominator's position. That was followed by a closure by someone else, before it was reopened after an objection by the nominator. I think I can now say the editor's action is disruptive when he or she did it so many times. Hzh (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: Let me try to address this as best I can.

1. I didn't state that the discussions were ubiquitously devolved, just not always civil. My words were carefully chosen because they were based off a review of presented diffs from each individual, not from reading every single thread on the originating discussion page. In fact I should have at least done a spread read, because it looks like the recommendation in my 4th point was already discussed and I needn't have been mentioned it. However one of the reasons that diffs are so often requested is because it is irrational to ask everyone who wishes to comment on these threads to review the originating discussions in their entirety.
2. As so often happens a dispute which started over content has become one over conduct. Without saying who if anyone is at fault, the conduct should be discussed here, and the content there.
3. 199.66.69.88 did not initiate the discussion so WP:BOOMERANG isn't really applicable. That merely technical correction aside, IP users are just as accountable for their conduct as user's with accounts, and must be willing to answer for their actions if called to account and accept the consequences for them. If an uninvolved admin finds their conduct sanction-able then they may be sanctioned up to and including blocks. Their may be a narrower argument in there that IPs can't be indeffed, however, based on what I've seen, no one is being indeffed judging from the evidence so far presented. In any case IP users can be banned as happened with WP:BKFIP, so the maximum penalty remains the same.
4. I'm not quite sure I follow your last point so I'll need some help. You seem to be saying that the short amount of history available to judge 199.66.69.88 is an unfair advantage of sorts in this situation. Yet, having a short history to judge off cuts both ways, long-standing respected users who lose their cool over an issue and become disruptive in an area are usually afforded far more leeway than new ones who come in and begin disrupting things immediately. I could kind of see your point about unfairness if we had a case where a laundry list of grievances stretching back years was presented by one side, while the other had no such history to criticize. However as far as I can see, all accusations and counter accusations have been limited thus far to a single dispute so I do not see that as a concern.

If you feel I have missed a crucial point or characterized anything wrongly please let me know, I can be a bit slow sometimes so a bit of clarification never hurts, thank you. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

An extremely fair response and assessment. I endorse your post. I maintain that any disruption I may have caused is purely incidental and harmless. The only thing they might rightly criticize is my immediate move to close one discussion (though I stand by my statement that the anti-name change views were being misrepresented in that table). But I rightly disengaged from that discussion to permit other participation. I have not filibustered that (or any) discussion, and I challenge anybody to give diffs showing misconduct on my part (I note that few if any have been posted despite the claims of OP and his associates).

The other complaint, that my comment at the MRV “misinterpreted” the nominator’s response, is pretty spurious. He said, I now agree that simply reopening the RM will likely not lead anywhere. (diff) By agreeing that relisting or overturning is not the answer, he had conceded that there was no outcome for MRV to reach other than endorsing. The remainder of his comment was dedicated to “other things that could be done” in a future RM, which is entirely outside the purpose of MRV. It’s like talking about page cleanup in an AFD: It belongs on the talk page. And in fact, he promised just that in his edit summary! There was nothing left to review about the RM under discussion. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@74.73.230.72. I appreciate the aspiration of mediation I derived from your reply, but I'll be brief as I felt your response was more directed to the spirit of my reply rather than the substance. The point of this entire ANI as I said is the assertion that the IP's behaviour was precisely notable for not meeting civility because it set itself as an outlier and to my attention through their enthusiastic WP:BLUD. The use of WP:BOOMERANG per my sentence is as a 'tit-for-tat process', as the IP has set the blame (seemingly on nigh everyone but themselves) when they accused both participants here but also others still uninvolved on the Talk, it is indeed applicable. The view on IPs being unaccountable is well established, the point of this discussion is not a wholesale discussion of that philosophy. It's brought up here because I view the sentiment as applicable to the ongoing situation. The point of my last bullet is better argued just restated: "This is problematic from a bilateral engagement on AN/I standpoint because since the dialogue has devolved to tit-for-tat conduct allegations, they hold a tabula rasa on the appearance of a new user, with the considerations of clemency that pertains on the concerns presented of not meeting WP:AGF, yet the extant evidence points clearly to the contrary."

@Sean Heron: as he has been discussed by the IP, yet unpinged by them. Sleath56 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: Well I tried to cover both spirit and substance, perhaps not all that well.

• I set out quite deliberately to keep things at a high-level in my posts so far to get at principles everyone can agree upon before diving into the details. It's probably best to avoid further discussion WRT IP accountability in general at this time, as an unfruitful tangent that will be further complicated by the different meanings that word assumes in context. I think we can agree that in this circumstance 199.66.69.88 has been called upon to account, is doing so, and will be sanctioned if their actions are determined to warrant such. As a member of the Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle part of my mission is ensuring that all IPs are treated fairly and equally, and to call out unfair prejudice and bias against other IP editors when unambiguously stated as such. However, I am not here specifically to shield other IPs from the consequences of their misbehavior either. I have many times in the past requested blocks against users registered and unregistered alike in accordance with the blocking policy, and I will undoubtedly do so in the future.
• I'm a bit reluctant to get into the details here, because I know I won't be able to participate much longer, and it would be inappropriate as such to try to assume a referee role that I know I won't be able to follow through on, however I will with apologies approach some of them in the remainder of this post.
• I think 199.66.69.88 has acknowledged a solid pre-existing knowledge of guidelines and the five pillars, as such they along with all participants can safely be assumed to have been familiar with WP:AGF and WP:AAGF alike, and we can move forward with that in mind. If I am wrong on this account anyone who was not familiar with either the guideline or essay prior to this dispute please correct me on that point. Likewise I don't think there's any need to worry about WP:BITEs, and again please correct me if I'm wrong.
• Finally what specific remedies are being sought here? Based only on the diffs presented thus far, and admitting that I have not read the discussion in any detail, nor have I followed it's continuing development, my initial assessment still holds that ideally if everyone just follows WP:FOC hereforward in these discussions this can all just be water under the bridge. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My original opinion was that while 199.66.69.88 was annoying, his or her actions did not warrant a sanction. However, after seeing examples of the editor's attempts at closing discussions (some of which were successful but another reverted, which I mentioned before), I'm considering such actions to be disruptive, and if such behaviour persists, then something would need to be done.Hzh (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? The MRV closure? The closer never said anything about my characterization of the nom’s comment as influencing the close (which was correct, by the way—he agreed that relisting/reversing was not an outcome he desired, therefore MRV had nothing left to do, and the closer got it 100% correct). The closer should not have reopened the MRV.

As to closing RMs, so what? I did nothing improper. In one case I sought input from an AN thread that was already open, to inform participants that the problem of disruptive “protest RMs” was still ongoing. I don’t appreciate your aspersions. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@74.73.230.72: I appreciate the disclosure and the further clarification of mediator impartiality, though I don't believe I've ever objected to your impartial conduct, nonetheless I retract any statements that you may have construed that way. My view is that the IP's behaviour is a breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL conduct, made pronounced by WP:BLUD, and their reluctance here on this AN/I to provide response to the incidents I've cited further asserts that. This is along with explicit conjectures of their behaviour as without being without fault and "purely incidental and harmless" despite numerous uninvolved editors beyond the participants here, including one whom they called to this AN/I themselves (who stated they were called here inappropriately): ping User:Doc James, ping User:Hurricane Noah holding the case otherwise and this makes me believe the mere existence of this protracted AN/I doesn't hold any merit in stemming future behaviour in this regard. There will be be a further RM discussion in a few days time on the relevant Talk page and I believe the IP should be allowed to participate, but this should be provided they acknowledge not to utilize the same non-WP:AGF behaviour. The remedy to this of a ruling of un-WP:CIVIL behaviour or a warning as closure to this AN/I would suffice as appropriate action in my view. Sleath56 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I note that, yet again, you've not provided a single diff of the alleged misconduct. All you've done is give a single diff of me defending myself, and a diff of someone complaining that I gave him a detailed ANI notice after he was mentioned as a possible sockpuppet. I take issue with the claim that there are numerous uninvolved editors beyond the participants here. Who? Doc James said in one line that he viewed my conduct as somewhat disruptive and never said another thing. Hurricaine Noah is another talk page contributor, and is hardly "not a participant". I don't think there's been a single comment ITT from actual ANI regulars, so forgive me if I don't particularly take your assessment of any "consensus" here to heart.

I reiterate my demand that you actually provide diffs for your claims of misconduct. From all I can tell, this entire thread boils down to one post wherein I described a move-related thread as disruptive after a series of speedy closes of disruptive RMs. Worst case, I'm wrong and it wasn't disruptive. Have I disrupted anything? No. Have I failed to assume good faith? No! Have I done anything for which sanctions normally lie? Absolutely not. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As you say, your behaviour will be held to the determination of AN/I to decide, that's all I will say to that regard. I have listed my points of concern already and I have no interest in repeat ad-nauseam what has already been stated. I indeed did provide citations with diffs, though it's telling of your prompt dismissal of points made by participants here that you neglected to notice them. Additionally, Ctrl+F shows you are the only one to use the word "consensus" in this AN/I apart from the OP statement. Caricaturing extant comments from uninvolved editors as cited as such to allow you to go on a rhetorical tangent about lacking "consensus" is not needed, I've provided the diffs for those comments made, whose merit here stand on their own for AN/I to judge without the necessity of your negationist interpretation of them. Sleath56 (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Everyone the person earlier behind the comments from 74.73.230.72 on this thread has left. Etiquette among our little group is to not ever resume discussion from other IPs on any threads once we are no longer here, so we can't be impersonated. I chose a different computer for this comment to limit confusion, I may use that computer later this week if it's the only one open, sorry but I don't know enough to help out myself, I mostly do RCP. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sleath56 is possibly a paid editor working for the PRC, or maybe just a WP:SPA obsessed with PRC hot button issues. Regardless needs a t-ban, although that will likely do little to prevent from creating another account. Huge ongoing WP:BLUDGEON going on here Talk:2019–20_Hong_Kong_protests#Discussion_Break. @JzG: have a look at this, you tend to patrol the political arena. I guess the IP address edits are also related. Probably need page protection and maybe DS on this article, as much as I find DS annoying. Maybe at least start with high level page protection. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Accusation is inappropriate buried here, should be its own section. Obvious request of WP:BOOMERANG for the out of nowhere WP:CIV breach of WP:PA and WP:ASPERSIONS along with here. Sleath56 (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Xinbenlv's final(probably?) statement

@199.66.69.88:, since you have explicitly refused to provide your other contributions, I respect your stance out of your privacy.

I genuinely believe Wikipedians, including you who I hold different opinions on content or procedure in this subject, are here to contribute to Wikipedia, and do good for it. And sometimes Wikipedians and you and I have strong opinions or react strongly because we both care very much about the Subject. In this aspect, shouldn't we be called friends? I think this is the AGF spirit.

I understand you want to ensure we follow a right way to edit that subject, discuss name, or you want to ensure it's called a right name in your mind. I am very open to be convinced and I'd like to suggest you that if you have used a better tone, instead of saying "stop such disruptive behavior immediately", you could say "hey do you know by initiating such discussion it could cause unintended destruction? And to avoid such, I suggest the disucssion to be closed as soon as possible", etc. In such way, your message could be much better received and your influence is delivered. Wouldn't that be better to amplify your contributed time on Wikipedia?

At this point, I think since I have delivered all my messages and unless new information / opinion is needed from me, I will leave this thread to other participants, admins to furhter disucssion. Other than that, I will try to WP:FOC from now on. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Side note: I give kudos and respect to 74.73.230.72's facilitation of this discussion. I applaud to your efforts in ensuring IP editors are treated fairly, I sincerely agree with this opinion. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

IP completely bias again on a ANI that he not being reported. I have no choice but to fully agree with @Xinbenlv: and users who believe they were harmed for not siding with the IP Regice2020 (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

199.66.69.88 may have connections with Wired Article

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

199.66.69.88 behavior was very unacceptable on 2019 coronavirus outbreak talk page . I suspect that behavior led to creation of this Wired news article were the ip was possibly collecting information and data without our knowledge. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-coronavirus Regice2020 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020: I'm not particularly sure what administrative action you would like to see. There's already a section above about that particular user. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I seek Block or Topic ban. Thank you for bring me tot his attention, but the ANI report is about the users disruptive behavior towards other people on that talk page while this one about the ip planned this behavior outrage, so the wired news article can be created with loads of information collected. Regice2020 (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what you mean, as that's a very serious accusation. I've read the Wired article, and it doesn't present an argument on the topic of RM disputes as far as I've read it. Unless you have evidence based grounds for the charge, this seems like a rather inappropriate WP:CONSPIRACY. Sleath56 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The article also mention the notable @Doc James: and other users. Someone need get this outbreak controlled and get to the bottom of the source. Regice2020 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020: I don't think the IP user was deliberately trying to sabotage Wikipedia's internal discussions to tip off Wired about it. Wired writes a lot of stuff about Wikipedia because I think one of their journalists is an editor here. Plus, that piece highly praised us anyways, so I don't know why you are pursuing this line accusations. Assume good faith. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Doubt the wired piece and this IP are related. The IPs behavior however is somewhat disruptive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is what I’ve been talking about. The harassment coming from Regice2020 and other participants on the Wuhan Coronavirus talk page—baseless accusations of being a sockpuppet, demands I disclose past contributions, false claims that I’ve only edited in this one topic area, running to ANI with conspire theories like this, etc.—has only intensified in the last couple days. No matter what I’ve done, nothing merits this sickening level of bullying and harassment. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Given that I was the first to pointedly object to the conjecture made above, I find this an inappropriate assertion and representative of a tendency by the IP to conflate those who propose opposing views in 'collaborative' monolithic 'hostile' camps, often fringed with accusations of "conspiracy." 12 I find it odd the IP is happy to liberally portray themselves as having received "sickening level of bullying and harassment" (in reply to an accusation rejected by all responding participants) when they're also unwilling to address the observations of WP:BLUD and borderline "bullying" behaviour as I've cited and remain unaddressed above. Sleath56 (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've commented too much already to close this thread myself. I do suggest that nothing good can come of breaking the discussion into ever more pieces, and advise everyone interested to confine their future comments to the thread already opened above. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have moved this thread to be a subthread of the existing thread on the same editor. It's less confusing that way. There's generally no need to have 2 separate threads on the same editor at ANI. I have no objection to closing it since I agree no evidence has been presented of any connection between the IP and the Wired article, but I felt it better not to close and move at the same time.Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup i think this ANI have large amount of info for the report. Can any Admin give some comments below here? Regice2020 (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Please stop bumping this dumpster fire of a thread when it’s abundantly clear nobody on this board wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

^ As seen above, the similar disruptive behavior that used on RM that @Xinbenlv: reported on ANI and once again another attempt to disruptively censor someone. This ANI report are not meaningless. Regice2020 (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf ANI Interference

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

I am here start a ANI against Jtbobwaysf for deliberately interfering with another ANI report for another user. Throwing that ANI off the chart with 1 big edit. Very inappropriate and want Admin to really do something about it. Regice2020 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Users are allowed to comment on threads about others here, and I don't see how anything he did is inappropriate or really outside of the norm other than the allegations of PRC allegiance (which aren't kosher sans strong evidence). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 02:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 is clearly not here. A boomerang is in order. Wp3Strikes (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Question & Reply @Jéské Couriano:

1. Wp3Strikes a Admin or something? the things the user cited was kind disruptive.
2. Jéské Couriano - Jtbobwaysf directing it to @Sleath56:. It was throwing off the ANI inappropriately. Why not create own ANI for that? Regice2020 (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I honestly concur that Regice2020 is either WP:NOTHERE or is a case of WP:CIR. See #199.66.69.88 may have connections with Wired Article, and Regice2020's other posts in the thread to which that's attached (disclosure: I'm the subject of that thread). Here are some select diffs: (edit summary and post) (diffless accusation of socking), (claiming that issuing an ANI notice is evidence of socking), (claiming I opposed a RM in order to generate material for a Wired article), (diffless accusations of canvassing/socking to influence the outcome of a RM), (proposing that IPs shouldn't be allowed to "vote" in RMs), (claiming a particular pagename is tantamount to accusing the people of a particular province of deliberately causing a disease outbreak). I'd also like to draw attention to Regice2020's almost total refusal to use edit summaries. As of right now, in 774 live edits Regice2020 has used edit summaries only 98 times. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Add to that Regice2020’s now-deleted response to this post: Sorry i can see right through this. Competently [sic] WP:BIAS. What? 199.66.69.88 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The 774 figure seems to be misleading. Only 224 of Regice2020's edits were to main space. [185]. 244 were to Wikipedia, but I think most of those were to ANI or similar i.e. effectively talk pages. While editors are still encouraged to leave edit summaries for talk edits, in reality many editors do not. It's rarely considered a big issue if all the editor is doing is leaving a new reply. If the editor is modifying their existing reply, it's probably encouraged more, especially if they are deleting something (so people don't have to wonder why the editor's edit removed bytes) but even then still often not considered that important. On a talk page, only when the editor is doing something other than leaving a new reply or modifying their existing one is it probably expected an editor will leave an edit summary. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s just part of the pattern. Non-use of edit summaries (often omitting even section heading links), strange accusations made without evidence, nonsensical arguments about policy... this is a WP:CIR situation, assuming good faith. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the speedily conducted indef block by @Bbb23:, and I'd support an investigation into the ownership of Wp3Strikes (talk · contribs), a blatant fresh WP:SOCK which laces this entire AN/I thread with suspicion when their only contrib was that statement above. I guess since this has been opened by @Regice2020: on the same editor, I might as well reiterate my obvious request for a WP:BOOMERANG for @Jtbobwaysf: for the out of nowhere WP:CIV breach of WP:PA and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. They've done so above here:1 and also first in a local Talk here: 2.

I've never been a party to such instant lack of WP:AGF in a first conversation with an editor before. The uncivil comment of "I think if you cannot stop this WP:POV pushing you should get a ban"2 is frankly further compounded by their attempts in my view to recruit an admin user publicly on the Talk page (whom in respect, did not rise to the appeal), instead of appropriately opening an AN/I here, who by the tone of their pitch ("have a look at this, you tend to patrol the political arena")1 implied they have prior relationship/contact with is highly inappropriate and seems like WP:CANVASSing for a WP:TAGTEAM to me.

The whole thing seems like it was conducted as a disruptive sideshow for a content dispute as it came out of nowhere with no prior discussion between me with that editor, and when I've requested them to open an WP:ANI for such severe accusations, and they buried the requested accusation in the middle of another protracted and lengthy AN/I rather than a new thread, in my view to avoid WP:BOOMERANG scrutiny for those extreme accusations and sanction aspersions. I've requested they elaborate ("I'm sure you'll be willing to provide an explanation on how this is 'POV-pushing' rather than just stating ipso facto without elaboration.") for when they post at AN/I on their reasons and evidence for such maximal accusations and sanction threats, including 'paid editing,' but they declined to do so in their post here, instead adding further accusations of being a "paid editor working for the PRC" and that when the admins give me a 't-ban,' it'll "likely do little to prevent from creating another account" implying that I'll attempt to WP:EVADE and WP:SOCKPUPPET to skirt it. Sleath56 (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: is not my tag team partner and the user has opposed things i did in the past. It was simply inappropriate for Wp3Strikes, a sock, suddenly defending (Jtbobwaysf) as the first edit after starting this ANI report against Jtbobwaysf for interference. The current focus on why did the sock suddenly defend Jtbobwaysf in the first edit of that account. Who that sock? Regice2020 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: QUESTION Why these WP:Sock have interest in this ANI Interference report??? One targeted this ANI report and one pinged me through talk page as you seen?? Regice2020 (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This. The fact that Regice2020 hasn't drawn at least a trouting from someone with a bluelinked username is only serving to embolden this behavior. Not that it's really doing anything at this point. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Edit to note that the “This.” at the beginning of this post was in reference to a post that has since been removed. I am adding this to clarify that I’m not agreeing with Regice2020. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in memory of an alumnus

Since as far back as April 2015, user Billytruax has repeatedly attempted to add cross country athlete Anthony Melcher to the section for notable alumni on the article for Dixie Hollins High School. After searching for Melcher's name on Google, I found that he was indeed a cross country athlete who graduated from Dixie Hollins, and who passed away in 2011 (see obituary here). I feel sympathy for Melcher's family and friends, and I wish them well. However, per Wikipedia guidelines, notability must be established for persons listed in such a section. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not for memorials. As a result, I have removed Melcher's name from the section on several occasions, and pointed to the aforementioned guidelines in one of my edit summaries. Rather than engaging in discussion, Billytruax has continued to re-add Melcher's name without providing justification for doing so (see here and here). —Matthew - (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I must say that I do find the behavior concerning. Hopefully they'll come here to discuss and this can be straightened out. Waggie (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've left a warning, along with the usual helpful alphabet soup. Their other edits appear to be made in genuine good faith, including the edit war regarding the removal of unconfirmed allegations. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Moxy. behavioral issues, disruptive editing, attacking other editors, WP:NPOV, BRD, BATTLEGROUND. Also user:The Sr Guy.

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.

---

• Main Article: Hungary and its talk page,
• and Moxy's and my talk pages.

• Also, lesser problem user: The Sr Guy
• in same Hungary article, religion section, plus Article: Hungarian Greek Catholic Church

I'm not sure what to do with Moxy. He looked like a good editor, identifying cosmetic problems. I was working on the page, correcting some new and old problems, mainly WP:NPOV and BIAS stuff, and making sure the article data accurately reflected the cited source. Some math was clearly wrong in statistics, mainly. I also notice people deleting valid text for no good reason (including Moxy deleting images with positioning problems instead of just fixing the positioning), so I restored that as well. This article has a history of chronic abuses of BATTLEGROUND with NPOV and OWN and other assorted pushing of agendas. I'm only concerned with factual accuracy with cited reliable sources. I didn't actually know about the behavior history (which got it denied for GA nomination and laughed at by reviewers who were disgusted).

Moxy and I were having a decent discussion, though he seemed a little jumpy. He began to edit war over his claim that the date of the cited source for a census was 2011, when the source (an official Hungarian government agency website) clearly indicated 17 July 2013. I pointed this out more than once, and he finally posted on the talk page but at the same time made another edit change (disruptive). I answered the post, again informing him of the correct data per the cited source. However, he had already made another two edits I hadn't seen yet.

Those two edits were these: all of a sudden he apparently completely flipped out, and spewed what sounded like a threat and a definite ultimatum to me with 4-letter words in the thread on his talk page: DIFF. The second edit, made around the same time: he made a horrible reversion of the article back several dozen edits, obliterating several users' edits including mine and his: DIFF. I reverted that totally disruptive edit. His edit summary there and also elsewhere was beginning to look like gibberish, as if he was stuttering writing. His sentences were full of typos which he vainly tried to correct, like he was typing too fast, and couldn't be bothered to write coherent sentences.

I then put a warning on his talk page about his disruptive editing, his attacks on me with silly ultimatums, and his massive reversion/obliteration: DIFF. I talked about what he had done, and suggested he just take a break, calm down his anger, and come back later so we can work on making the article better together.

He wasn't responsive. He was completely stammering in his posts, threatening ANI or 3RR, and sounding very irrational. His talk page, the article talk page, my talk page, and edit summaries were borderline nonsense. He made yet another disruptive edit reverting my reversion back to his huge disruptive edit from before: DIFF. His edit summary was diverting as well, blathering about ANI or 3RR threats when HE was clearly in the wrong (this I've noticed is a typical tactic by disruptors). Someone else reverted him this time (one of the users whose former edits he mass obliterated).

There's also another disruptor, User:The Sr Guy, who mainly is pushing deliberately inaccurate information (and inaccurate and confrontational edit summaries) for NPOV and BIAS, some of it definitely controversial, contributing to the general BATTLEGROUND mileu of the Hungary article and the related article Hungarian Greek Catholic Church and ALL of his edits are like that and all have been reverted by various people, mostly me recently, or his edits with fake data have been merely corrected. He's specifically editing portions of sections on religion, and skewing statistics with fake and biased data not supported by reliable sources. He jumped in to the threads with Moxy and my warnings and suggestions and seems to take Moxy's side, but I think he's just provocating. I've ignored him (he posts in the middle of my posts, breaking up my post, not good).

The Sr Guy doesn't edit very often, but today he did put back three of his same edits which I already reverted, one in Hungarian Greek Catholic Church and two in Hungary. I reverted them again with a warning to discuss in the talk page, knowing that he won't because his edits are bogus (unless he gets meatpuppets/sympathizers/disruptors). The warning I gave him on his talk page: DIFF

I've filed this complaint rather than escalate further, since Moxy is unable to be communicated with. I'm not sure what to do in this situation. I've never filed a complaint before, so please advise. This takes up more time than I would normally allow, and the Hungary article isn't the main article I work on, I just happened to step into a pit of vipers there, and I don't like wars or user behavior like this from Moxy.

As I write this, Moxy has requested the page to be locked and an Admin has done so, locking it for a week. Fine with me, as all of the troublesome problems have been corrected and Moxy (and The Sr Guy) have been reverted to the way the article was before. Can you extend that protection indefinitely? The page already has insufficient protection and there's really no one who watches over it and I don't want to take on that responsibility, I don't feel right in this whole matter. It's kind of scary.

BTW, Moxy's issue seems to be just the source date for the religion census. Such a simple little thing he's getting all bent over. I don't see any resolution even if he were to discuss in the talk page, since 17/07/2013 is the date of the source and that's that. No getting around it. I think The Sr Guy is more of a problem on that level because he WON'T discuss and his agenda is just a pushy one. Besides, you notice the subject is religion here: one of the two things that causes people to war on this planet (the other being politics), and I stay away from those subjects.

Wait, another diff. As I write, Moxy is posting incomprehensible gibberish in the talk page: DIFF. A series of edits with a huge post or two in the threads: he still can't write comprehensible sentences, and then a giant string of garbage data filling up half the page, and even an image. There's another user in there (the one that reverted Moxy recently) who also has posted something way too large, and these people pinging demanding my attention (they're like children). Moxy just wants more to complain about (like the image he wanted me to put in the infobox so I did). I'm not going to answer any queries to me or anything else until you resolve this. How about lock the talk page too? And how do I stop Moxy from posting on my talk page? (I'm archiving it all.) It's like I've suddenly been appointed the God of the Hungary article, and my minions (or my children) are annoyingly begging me for answers to imaginary problems. I don't want this job! Can you get rid of them all for me? So I can be in peace and do my work. I just want to tell them all to shut the F up, but I'm too polite for that.

LisztianEndeavors (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no way to make other editors stop trying to collaborate with you. You can try dispute resolution, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you present us with the census source? GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Said incomprehensible gibberish clearly shows that the census data is from 2011, and not 2013. For those wanting to confirm, open up [186] and then open up 1.1.7.1. Although it is tagged as 2013, it does not contain any data for 2013. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place for discussions about the Hungary article or any controversies. This is a complaint about two users' behavior. People posting here please take your discussion to the appropriate talk page. I personally am not a guardian of that page, nor even a frequent editor. In fact, my edits are done and I have other articles I regularly attend to. If you need help with problems with the Hungary page, please refer to Talk:Hungary, and I'm sorry but I can't help you here. There are ongoing discussions in that talk page on the subjects you appear to be concerned about. Be aware that the Hungary article is protected, so discussion in its talk page is both necessary and appropriate. This current thread here is about a user complaint which is currently waiting for Admins to address. Thank you for your consideration. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Have no clue why this editor wants to put a year of 2013 for 2011 census. Still waiting on a reply as to why they think it's from 2013 despite the source saying 2011. Hard to move forward when the editor is not able to read the source properly. What can be said?--Moxy 🍁 14:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is this report about? A complaint that editors aren't agreeing with you? GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

TO ADMINS: UPDATE. I am having to continually update this complaint, since Admins are not taking action. Users are harassing me in this ANI complaint now, as you can see. They pretend they can't read the complaint and are insulting. The Sr Guy is still making the same repeated disruptive edits to Religion in Hungary, after already been reverted twice before. Same violations as I've already outlined in my complaint. DIFF1 and DIFF2.

Moxy continues to attack me on Talk:Hungary, but his language skills are so insufficient (his "them" and "they" refers to me). Moxy and others, like GoodDay are confrontationally abusive. They make jokes at my expense. NinjaRobotPirate is another barrel of laughs. Mr rnddude and others like especially Moxy, the main initial subject of this complaint, continually try to discuss imaginary non-issues, that is, intimating a "dispute" where there is none, again directed at me as if they're children trying to get something out of their father, and I'm the father.

This is not what I signed up for, to nursemaid a bunch of immature users causing havoc and being as insulting as some teenagers might (though my own two teenagers don't behave like this). I find it astounding that WP allows this sort of thing to go on unchecked. I'm tired of having to monitor these two articles to revert vandals, trolls, abusive editors, disruptive, destructive, and unconstructive editing, WP:NPOV bias pushing editors who put up fake statistics that show an inability to do simple math, and slanted data designed to further their deceptive agendas. Both these pages need permanent administrative protection, and they need someone responsible to monitor them regularly (not me! I have too much work to do in my project pages), and troublemakers need to be summarily blocked and be done with it. Please respond now with action citing these users I've identified for their disruptions; do something constructive to take care of this situation please. I don't need this abuse and Wikipedia articles especially don't need this abuse either. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked LisztianEndeavors for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think he/she may require a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK let's unlock the page so corrections can be implemented. My reason for protection failed miserably 😣. Funny all this over the wrong date.--Moxy 🍁 01:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Read over the discussion at LE's talkpage. What's he going on about, him & his wife not feeling safe on Wikipedia? This is a head scratcher. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Chuckstreet (talk · contribs) to me. Combination of List of compositions by Franz Liszt and bizarre rants. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

He went from being an old man living alone & scared of the FBI, to a fellow who is married. Entertaining stuff, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 22 February 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.

Maximus the Greek

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.

---

Seeking dispute resolution and asking for independent help; disruptive edits by two users, User:Khirurg and User:Dr.K. I will notify them of the posting at this notice board. Edion Petriti (talk) 17:06, 23 February 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.

Perpetual spamming by Md Moniruzzaman Emon

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.

---

• Md Moniruzzaman Emon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The primary purpose of this user on Wikipedia has been advertising selected TV stations, in particular Ananda TV. The user keeps recreating the Ananda TV article, which has been repeatedly deleted or moved to the repeatedly rejected Draft:Ananda TV. This user also keeps adding a red link to the non-existing article to List of television stations in Bangladesh and List of Bengali-language television channels, despite the big "Attention editors!" warning on both pages ([187], [188]) that says red links are unacceptable. The user has been adding the red link for many months, and has received numerous warnings for it, including two level-4 warnings. Md Moniruzzaman Emon deliberately ignores them and keeps spamming even after the last warnings ([189]). The user is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia.—J. M. (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 22 February 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.

Unprofessional blocking of innocent user

I been falsely blocked because I restore some edits which I thought was productive towards to the article but it was done by someone who was evading their block numerous of times. The edits I done were these:

[190]

[191]

[192]

[193]

[194].

Ohnoitsjamie thought I was a sockpuppet of the user, Alex Neman and blocked me indefinitely, The fact they accused me of such things and blocked a innocent user is very frustrating and unprofessional coming from a user who been here for nearly one and a half decade. Even when he did unblock me, he still wasn't fully convinced I was innocent and stated "Likely false positive".

I understand why you shouldn't restore edits from someone who is blocked because it usually for a good reason, but the edit this user has done were legitimately good and I thought if it was fine if a genuine user added them instead of the blocked user. This is simply a exception since most of the time, the content the user restoring are unconstructive while these I listed simply aren't. Now I got this indef block permanently stuck on my block log and possibly lost a bit of credibility from other users. --Vauxford (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

While trying to avoid editing by proxy, at the same time, reverting errors back into an article is also obviously a problem. This isn't a contradiction that is likely to be resolved, ever. It just needs to be addressed according to the particular circumstances of each individual case. El_C 19:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

El_C He was notified, I done it as soon I was unblocked but he removed it. [195] --Vauxford (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Was already corrected less than a minute later — oh well. El_C 19:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

My bad then. --Vauxford (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A word of advice, Vauxford. Very few people look at your block log, and those that do don't care whether you have been blocked before as long as you are making valuable contributions. There's no loss of credibility at all. Just don't worry about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger It still humiliating to be accused of sockpuppeting, let alone being blocked indefinitely because of a accusation from one admin and then that admin who unblocked me still doesn't buy your alford plea. I have been accused sockpuppeting in the past by certain users even though I wouldn't do such things. --Vauxford (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There's always a danger that someone with an unjustified block in their block log might have it held against them later. "OMG! User:Suchandsuch was blocked for socking in 2014! They're obviously a bad hombre and automatically wrong now!!" Then you've got to explain the error, and the conversation gets derailed. Better to put in a 1 second block with an explanation that the first one was wrong. Reyk _YO! 23:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm a big User:Ohnoitsjamie fan, but I think they got this one pretty wrong. I have certainly blocked an editor I thought was a sock only to discover I was wrong, but you really have to be more apologetic than this, both on the talk page, and in the block log. I'm also concerned that Vauxford was unblocked only on the condition they would not reinstate the edits; what is the policy basis for that? If they want to take ownership of that edit? Unfortunately, Vauxford, policy does not allow block log redactions, but if you'd like, and if Jamie's willing, they can block you for 1 second to annotate the block log to note that the previous block was in error. If they aren't willing, I'd be willing to (after hearing both sides, in case I'm missing something). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that Phil's advice is sound. Speaking only for myself, I never look at another user's block log unless I have a reason to - which usually means that I think I'm going to have to block them, and want to know whether they've been blocked recently which might influence the duration. Floq's suggestion of a brief block to add an explanatory note to the record would probably work well; if you don't fancy that, and anybody ever goes fishing in your block log to try to stir up trouble, feel free to ping me and I'll explain what's wrong with what they're doing in simple language. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam The 1 second block seem to be the best choice, I also think Ohnoitsjamie owe me a apology for this blunder of his. I still don't get why I can't claim ownership of these perfectly good edits which improves and update the article greatly. --Vauxford (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Because of WP:PROXYING, Vauxford. Anyway, from my own experience, there's not only a "decent chance" that Vauxford is not Alex Neman — the chances for that being true actually approaches zero. (Argh, sorry for the double negatives.) El_C 20:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Surely you mean that the chance Vauxford is not Alex Neman approaches 1, not 0. You've gotten lost in the double negatives. EEng 20:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

PROXYING is working at the direction of a banned user. We have no reason to doubt Vauxford when they say that's not the case. What PROXYING does say explicitly is that an established user can take complete responsibility for the content. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Not if it becomes a pattern, it taking place over a considerable time span — then, no. El_C 23:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't verified whether your reinstatement of the IP edits was constructive (I'm not a car expert like you), but policy permits you to do what you did, and if the block was based on a pure technicality without looking at the substance of your edits, it was wrong. In addition, although I may not be a car expert, I am a sock expert, and the evidence was insufficient to block you for socking (on many levels that I won't go into here).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I still want to know whether I'm allow to restore the perfectly fine content and claim it as mine and have Ohnoitsjamie formally apologise and admit his mistake to me and actually acknowledge the fact I am NOT Alex Neman. --Vauxford (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vauxford: For a very simplistic example, if an IP of a sock fixes something like a homonym error, where someone had "I except your proposal" instead of the correct "I accept the proposal" and that IP is reverted because it is a sock, any valid user is welcome to take responsibility of the edit themselves and restore the fix. Amaury • 21:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I would revert them back now but I'm too afraid I might be indef blocked again. Looking at the WP:PROXYING I considered the edits productive and I haven't been told to do this by the blocked user outside of Wikipedia, I have absolutely no contact with this user and I haven't interacted with him once on Wikipedia. --Vauxford (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie's respond to this: [196], [197], [198]. Do admins really act this juvenile? He outright refuse to owe his mistake and thinks indefinitely blocking a user without actually any sort of background check or simple common sense as "trivial". --Vauxford (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My suggestion: If you do want to restore them but are worried, you can leave a note on the talk page essentially reiterating what's in WP:PROXYING: That (1) you are restoring the edits because you believe they are constructive, (2) that you are not doing so at the direction of the blocked or banned editor, and (3) that you are taking personal responsibility for the edits. Then in the edit summary/ies for the edits restoring those edits, you state that you're taking personal responsibility for the edits and link the talk page thread. And if you're still concerned, post on Ohnoitsjamie's user talk letting him know what you're doing. It's a bit belt-and-suspenders, of course, but sometimes you've got to take that approach in this type of situation.

On some level, this just goes with the territory of editing Wikipedia: Sometimes you get mistaken for a sock, etc. Admins aren't expected to be perfect. Yes, it would be a good idea if Ohnoitsjamie apologized, particularly now that others have pointed out the original conclusion was erroneous. But there's no need to let it bother you. Your block log is not going to get blanked. That Floq put a notation in your block log is, from what I've seen, already above-and-beyond what is normally done here. I'm not saying you should be appreciative of your shitty situation, but getting this bothered about it isn't helping anybody, and doesn't make you look good either. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And let me just say one last thing: meatball:DefendEachOther is one of my favorite essays on approaching disputes on Wikis and elsewhere, and I consider required (or at least strongly suggested) reading in your situation. You've already convinced people that Ohnoitsjamie was mistaken, and they're sticking up for you. Let them try to talk to Ohnoitsjamie rather than continuing to complain for now. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've annotated the block log to clearly indicate that based on this discussion, that the block was wrong, and that the unblock conditions were not required, or based on policy, and are recinded. The only thing I'd recommend, @Vauxford:, is that if you decide to re-instate, you do so with a long edit summary that clearly explains why you think it's a good edit, and that clearly notes that you're taking responsibility for the edit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I have every right to express my disgust when I been mistreated, even if it sounds like I'm acting spoiled. I don't mean to be and I know it against policy to delete block logs. I do regret demanding a apology but c'mon, it isn't that hard to say "I'm sorry that I wrongfully blocked you" and it water over the bridge, but because he hasn't done that (I highly doubt he would of done it if I didn't prompt him to) it is just creating aggression between me and this admin and plus, it just makes him come across as childish. This should of NEVER happens if he actually looked through my user page rather then indiscriminately block someone without restraint or second thoughts.

In conclusion, I don't mind walking with the annotation on my block log and I will sort out a edit summary with the said edits above, I just hope Ohnoitsjamie does the right thing now or later, because something like this shouldn't result just with a slap on the wrist. --Vauxford (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the edits with the disclaimer as well as linking to this ANI, hopefully that should do it. --Vauxford (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't see anyone explain the core problem—dealing with long-term abusers (LTAs) is very difficult and very irritating. LTAs thrive on creating drama and it is unfortunate that you have been made part of it. Please let the matter rest and accept that Wikipedia, like everything else, is very imperfect. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks Ohnoitsjamie is required to engage here and explain this block per WP:ADMINACCT? - Levivich (lulz) 04:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, you're not. I'm with you completely. This should be a bigger deal than it currently is. Rather than circle the wagons, I think Ohnoitsjamie needs to be held accountable. A bad block is one thing. A sysop accusing a long-term contributor of socking and going straight to the indef block is a horse of a different color.--WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hm. I don’t know if he’s required to participate under the terms of ADMINACCT, but he darn well should be here. This is really something that would’ve just required a simple mea culpa in his first response to the whole thing. That would’ve been enough for me. People make mistakes. That Vauxford is a long-term contributor isn’t particularly relevant in my view; the problem, and Johnuniq rightly puts it, is the whack-a-mole that LTAs turn administration into. Sometimes there’s collateral damage and in this case it was someone who didn’t just leave. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

He has responded to Vauxford on his talk page, so I think ADMINACCT has been met. He has not apologized but has explained his reasons for not doing so.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you’re being charitable by describing that response as an explanation. I am still unclear as to why 1) the block was made in the first place, 2) the unblock was made with conditions (what was the policy basis for those conditions?), as opposed to without conditions, and 3) there was no apology with the unblock. “I don’t apologize on demand” kind of misses the point: one shouldn’t apologize on demand, but one should apologize-without being asked-when one makes a serious mistake like a bad block. Fundamental question: does Jamie realize he made a mistake? The important thing is that everyone learns from this going forward, but I’m still unclear as to whether Jamie thinks he made a mistake here. Levivich (lulz) 15:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have observed over the past couple days that Ohnoitsjamie has been quite active fighting this very active and persistent sockfarm, but this is just a bit more than a regrettable false positive. Several checkusers have been involved already, and Ohnoitsjamie ought to know that if a sock account had been editing while the sockfarm has been active, we would have detected it. Furthermore, while edits by sockpuppets can be reverted, it's not required, and it's a long-recognized convention that such edits can be restored if a user has a good-faith reason for doing so; we are also required to assume good faith. So this is a few layers of bad block, but there's not much we can actually do about any of it since it's already been reversed. WP:ADMINACCT does not compel apologies, and seeking your pound of flesh is tendentious behaviour.

I propose that Ohnoitsjamie's unblock condition that Vauxford cannot restore the edits is formally vacated, and as a community we explicitly declare that Vauxford is unconditionally unblocked (someone can note that in the block log if they want). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I agree here. No reason to forbid it considering it's not a absolute requirement that sock edits be reverted. No reason to say no to good edits, just make sure that Yauxford understands that their readdition of those edits brings all responsibility for them onto them. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector Looking at the block log, hasn't Floquenbeam essentially already done that?-- P-K3 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support formally vacating Ohnoitsjamie's unblock condition. I fully understand that Vauxford may feel pressure even if it's been pretty well recognized here that it was a bad block to begin with, so I think this is a valuable exercise. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Remove editing restriction The user should not have been blocked at all, and the editing restriction they felt forced to accept under threat of being permanently blocked should be lifted ASAP. Lurking shadow (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I find Jamie's conduct here appalling. Mistaking someone for a sock is a honest mistake but this doesn't get him off the hook. The editor in question has been around here three years and has over 5,000 edits. Some checking should have been done first. Jamie didn't. His unblock with a condition was a bad mistake. Anyone can restore a sock's edits. His refusal to apologize shows to me that Jamie don't think made any mistake. That's the third one he has made in this whole affair. Behavior like this from an administrator is unacceptable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Jamie: Jamie has replied again[199] at his talk page. He is not backing down or taking any form of responsibility for what they did. I have never taken anything to ARBCOM in 13 years here. Always time for a first. His failure to explain himself here is very troubling....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

So he consider what I strongly thought was misconduct as "causing drama", like I'm the fault of all this? I admit this shouldn't of gone further then when I said "I reverted the edits with the disclaimer as well as linking to this ANI, hopefully that should do it.". Seem like other users have different thoughts about this situation, and I wanted to see how it goes without getting myself involved again (not wanting to be tendentious). William suggested that I should take this matter to Arbcom but unless this admin has been acting irrational at several occasions recently, I have no reason to do so, I don't even know where to start setting up something like that, it looks complicated. --Vauxford (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth taking to ArbCom myself, unless there's evidence of a pattern of misconduct and you can plead this as the culmination of such a pattern. While single instances of misconduct can result in a desysop, I don't see this as one of those situations. And unless a lot has changed, ArbCom usually leaves routine admin discipline (tbans, ibans, routine blocks, trouting) to the dramaboards. In particular, at least from my perspective, the real disruptive part of the dispute is over—you're unblocked, there's a pretty clear consensus it was a bad block, it's pretty clear your unblock condition has been vacated, and it doesn't seem like Ohnoitsjamie protests or disputes any of that. He just isn't apologizing. And while I think that's pretty lame on his part, even after his explanation why, I don't see ArbCom twisting his arm on that. Like really, I'd just go back to business at this point. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• i already voided the editing restriction yesterday. Maybe just once don’t turn something that’s been resolved for a day into a whole thing. —Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The initial block was based the Vauxford reinstating a series of edits that a prolific and recently active sockmaster (Alex Neman) had recently made, with no explanation as to why they were being reinstated. Though I saw that it wasn't a new account, but Neman had recently used a "sleeper" from 2017. I unblocked the user after concluding that it was false positive; asking that they agree to not resinstate the edits was based on a lingering concern that the socking user had asked others to reinstate his edits off-wiki (proxying). In hindsight, those restrictions were unnecessary and the unblock should not have been conditional upon them. I agree that those editing restrictions are no longer necessary, and in the future I'll leave it to others more familiar with the sockmaster to handle any future edits by that sock. I loathe drama, and would've been happy to try to further remedy had the complainant engaged with me directly to express their concerns about the conditions of the block and the block log itself, rather than immediately bringing the matter here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Vauxford, whom Jamie wrongfully blocked and wrongfully unblocked with a restriction, had no obligation to approach Jamie in a manner that Jamie finds acceptable. If an admin wrongfully blocks an editor and the editor’s response is “fuck you, asshole”, the admin should still apologize, because it’s the admin who did something wrong. The editor who is complaining about the admin doing something wrong is not doing anything wrong by complaining about the admin’s wrongdoing! I strongly reject the characterization of editors raising this very reasonable concern as seeking a pound of flesh. That said, I also don’t think this is arbcom worthy as long as everyone is on the same page that reinstating a sock’s edits (even a prolific sock) is not a blockable offense. The fundamental point is that PROXYING explicitly allows Vauxford to do what they did (and no, no edit summary declaring “I am taking responsibility for these edits” is required. That is already implied for every edit we make, and it’s ridiculous to expect editors to search histories and figure out who is and who isn’t a sock before making edits.) Levivich (lulz) 04:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Having said above that I don't think Vauxford should worry about this, I find Ohnoitsjamie's attidude to this appalling. Should anyone trusted with administrator rights find it so difficult to admit to a mistake? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, while Alex Neman is definitely a very very active sockpuppeteer, he was blocked for 3RR, for adding too many pictures, and for being generally awful at communicating. However, many of his photos are very important (and continue to be in use) and a large proportion of his edits are completely useful - I don't think it's entirely fair to expect all users to be aware that they risk being blocked for reinstating what seem to be useful edits. Meanwhile, it can be very hard for admins dealing with this kind of user (the Alex Nemans, BullDosers, and EuroVisionNims). I also don't want to become a proxy for Alex Neman by reinstating his useful edits and I don't think anyone else does either. Anyhow.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Deepcruze

Deepcruze is an obvious POV pusher, violating WP:SOAP and is dedicated to promote one-sided views about Dalits. He has been creating essay-like articles such as Dalit businesses, Dalit music as well as WP:HOAX like Dalit Lives Matter (AfD) in very recent times. Wikipedia is not for activism.

He also failed to address the concerns over his paid editing.

I could discuss with the user in question about these long term issues but it is clear from his talk page that he is totally unresponsive to any concerns addressed to him on his talk page or article talk pages, contrary to WP:COMMUNICATE. NavjotSR (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User: Brockhold

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.

---

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

Could an admin take a quick look at this user's talk page and recent edits. [200]

They have been deleting content from this page today and the talk page does rather suggest WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I need to add more here, as thus far no one has commented. I note that this user has continued to edit multiple articles and every edit has been reverted. A lot of the reverts yesterday are by Vif12vf (talk · contribs) who asks in an edit summary that Brockhold stop disrupting articles.[201].

I have looked at the user's edits and they are not clearly malicious. Yet the editor continually makes these small edits that are, in practice, disruptive - leading to many talk page warnings and several final warnings - and the editor does not engage in the article talk pages. This may be a case of WP:CIR, with the editor unaware of how disruptive their edits are. It would be good if the editor could respond here. I did notify them of this thread, but pinging Brockhold (talk · contribs) for comment. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Brockhold has possibly used several IP's in the past, and has never responded to anything. Basically this editor ignores our very excistence! I think some of the IP's have gotten blocked, but somehow this never acctually happened to the main profile! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I left a final warning at User talk:Brockhold#Collaboration. Please ping me if further problems occur. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, looks like the problems might be continuing, looking at their contribs.. Waggie (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Waggie: I looked at that several hours ago and it seemed ok. I would take action if I saw Brockhold make an edit which another editor reverted, with Brockhold substantially repeating the edit without discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

These three edits all reintroduce previously reverted material: [202][203][204]. Again there is no discussion. Thanks Johnuniq.

Confederate States of America in particular shows clear edit warring today: [205] -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted on that article twice today and would like to avoid reverting a third time! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked Brockhold indefinitely. Any admin is welcome to unblock if Brockhold demonstrates a willingness to collaborate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:22, 21 February 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.

50.39.167.96

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

---

There's an IP user here that's been vandalising several pages, all with pretty much the same vandal pattern. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: All edits of that user were made in a short period of time and were pretty much blatant vandalism. Why have you brought this case to ANI instead of reporting that user to AIV after giving him enough warnings? Well, it's very likely that the user won't make any more edits from that IP address, as a lot of IP addresses change every day, so any further discussion is rather aimless. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: BTW, when starting an ANI case you must inform all concerned parties on their talk pages. It applies also to unregistered (IP) editors. You didn't do that. I have done it for you as a courtesy. But as I said before – per WP:DENY – there's been absolutely no need to start this ANI discussion. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay. It's just that I don't think anyone has told me about that before. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:AIV deals with vandals fast, even minutes, but you need to warn them off first.--Chuka Chief (talk) 19:09, 22 February 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.

Need eyes on an AfD

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.

---

We seem to have an issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turing Research with regards to SPAs inappropriately editing/refactoring messages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Preface: I have a declared COI with George Mason University, so I'm not going to touch the deletion discussion. It's pretty blatant that the two keep !voters are undeclared COI, since the usernames match one of the professors in the group and a grad student in the group who published one of the cited blog posts. Both could use a gentle nudge from someone uninvolved in the AfD about proper formatting of deletion discussions and our rules about COI. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing appears to get through to them and we're just going in circles. I've already more than discussed WP:COI with Akumar19. Praxidicae (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. They've got pretty bad selective reading. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, oh, I completely agree that you've done that. "Gentle nudge" was an intentional understatement, what they really need is the application of a cluebat, but it needs to be from someone besides you (preferably someone of the administrative sort). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 21:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I think this is the first time I've actually had to invoke COI on myself. Exciting! ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 21:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The only inappropriate editing or refactoring of a message I see is this. The rest appears to be a failed attempt at figuring out how signing works. (Plus the usual incomprehension of independent reliable sources, but that doesn't merit a trip to ANI.) —Cryptic 21:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Well to be fair Cryptic they both went back and resigned their unsigned sigs with other peoples usernames. See here before I cleaned it all up. Praxidicae (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Given the horrid example of sig formatting they saw, it's not surprising and clearly unintentional that they only managed to get the visible part right. Hence, "a failed attempt at figuring out how signing works". —Cryptic 21:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I would note that an undeclared COI is worthy of administrator attention, especially as they have been pointed at that policy several times already, and seem to be refusing to acknowledge it, as such it's intentional at this point and a clear ToU violation. Waggie (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any need to raise this issue here. The discussion will reach the correct result anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• In case people miss it, Fbatarse and Akumar19 have now been CU blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 21 February 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.

Wego99

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.

---

Wego99 (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts claims on Sheth and Shah (surname) that they are related, without citation or discussion. He has now taken to removing citations without explanation. Please would an uninvolved editor give him suitable advice. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Notified 173.251.14.133 (talk) 12:45, 21 February 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.

OWN-y editor at Chris Noth

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

---

• Chris Noth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Khawue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Chris Noth regarding WP:BLP and fannish-trivia issues at Chris Noth, not a single editor agreed with these edits by User:Khawue and the consensus was that they were inappropriate. Nonetheless, Khawue continues to add portions of this fannish, tabloidy content about the subject's dating life here. He has been WP:OWNing the article, reverting consensus-derived edits not only by me but by another editor here. Despite discussions at Talk:Chris Noth and at his own talk page, and consensus by all other editors at the BLP Noticeboard, he appears to be intransigent about this dating gossip.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You can see this is not true. Reliable sources were used to discussion of significant relationships. This all began with suddenly 20 edits from an IP address on Feb 19 with no discussion. Then I had to repeatedly address false claims that birthdate of Noth's son was unsourced, etc. as you can see in the talk page and also my own talk page as well as aggressive and uncivil blanket statements about me. I tried to explain my approaches but was overwhelmed. I stated a number of times willingness to discuss the issues and the details but they were unwilling. I provided sourced, valid arguments but did not get detailed discussion from the these two editors as a response 65.78.8.103 & ‎2601:188:180:b8e0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63, just mostly reactive statements. I have asked for Admin help on the BLP noticeboard.

-Khawue (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A third editor, User:LakesideMiners, has now removed Khawue's contentious edits.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"the birthdate of Noth's son" does not remotely belong in the article, per WP:BLPPRIVACY regardless of how it is sourced. And neither does tabloid gossip about allegations of abusive relationships. [206] Khawue might do well to spend less time edit-warring gossipy content int biographies, and more time learning about how such biographies are actually written. 109.158.187.247 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You can in the talk page "the birthdate of Noth's son" was placed by 65.78.8.103 who insisted it was a BLP violation not to have a reference to it, and he added the People magazine ref and an Instagram post as refs for it. I've changed it back to January 2008, from the Oprah ref. I did not cite tabloids for abuse allegations. Yes I have reviewed how biographies are written.-Khawue (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Birthdates require citing, and children are a part of biographies. See, for one of countless examples, Kim Kardashian#Health and pregnancies. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, birthdates of non-notable people don't belong in Wikipedia articles, regardless of sourcing. 109.158.187.247 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree with User talk:109.158.187.247. Also, the last reversions were by 65.78.8.103 only. Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Noth&curid=1161307&diff=941971912&oldid=941963442 the reason for Orion's name was not a contentious edit nor was it a BLP and WP:PRIVACY issue, nor was it "excessive detail about the non-subject's pregnancy." There subject cites the pregnancy complication as the reason for his involvement in a high profile fundraiser.

• https://toronto.citynews.ca/2009/05/21/sting-sheryl-crow-chris-noth-in-t-o-for-one-night-live-event/

Chris Noth knows all too well how scary it can be as a parent when things go wrong with your newborn child.

The Sex and the City star and his girlfriend had complications when their son was born 16 months ago...the experience clearly affected the actor and it’s part of the reason he’s taking part in the second annual One Night Live charity event taking place at the Air Canada Centre on Thursday.

The star-studded event features performances by Sheryl Crow, Sting, and the Canadian Tenors. Noth serves as MC for the night, the proceeds of which will go to the Women & Babies Program at Sunnybrook. -Khawue (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• https://toronto.citynews.ca/2009/02/11/sex-and-the-citys-chris-noth-part-of-star-studded-lineup-for-one-night-live/

“You don’t hear too much about pediatrics or this kind of hospital for pre-term babies being on the front list of benefits or for raising money. Having just had a son who’s a year old and having had complications when we were at the very beginning, I know how scary it is for parents. When you’ve got an institution like this that’s impeccable and first rate, it’s something you want to cherish,” Noth explained." -Khawue (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, Noth "credits his partner...for saving their baby boy after she was told the child wouldn't live" is noted in the Contact Music ref and the other refs. Tara's role in the incident is significant. There are things missing from the article like a part on charity work, which could help provide more context and rationale for edits but I have posted links above and also in the talk page and my own talk page on Feb 19 to explain but these were not acknowledged. As I've said, would better to discuss in detail each issue one at a time without blanket personal comments and ignoring of my points for less of this back and forth.-Khawue (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that this edit [207] by Khawue violates WP:3RR. 109.158.187.247 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

And all the edits by 65.78.8.103? [[208]] [[209]] -Khawue (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. Haven't looked. 'Someone else is doing it too' isn't a valid reason to ignore WP:3RR. 109.158.187.247 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's not much to add to 65.78.8.103's report, except to reiterate. The issue may be a simple WP:CIR matter, but it's manifest in a series of willfully obstinate edits and lengthy threads at the article talk page and (now two) noticeboards, which require at least a half hour to sift through. Refuses to get that this is an encyclopedia, not Playbill. So the conclusion is less that this is a competence issue than a determination to steamroll a half dozen editors, not to mention WP:BLP policies and basic WP:NPOV guidelines. One of the more impressive WP:OWNERSHIP examples I've seen in a while. Requesting either a block or topic ban. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page and the notice boards in response to other users also lengthy post and comments on numerous things. I posted here the quotes from the articles as I had just linked to it before on Feb 19 and it was not addressed in the talk page about the birth notability so it seemed that it was accepted but apparently not. I have explained many times that I am fine with working on trimming the details as I have been as I went along. I worked on different parts of the article, every few days so it was patchwork, also had extra details for WP:NPOV. I have not tried to steamroll anyone. I responded to constructive feedback, replied respectfully, tried to refine my understanding and made modifications e.g. on the BLP noticeboard my conversation with Zaereth and continuing today to modify statements about abuse allegation. I specifically asked you for your suggestions about rewording two sentences about the American Buffalo (play) which you misquoted and gave you the correct website with the actual article (I accidentally said broadwayworld.com and you used that to claim WP:PUFFERY) and you refused to engage, suddenly claiming WP:OWN. Zaereth said it was not a WP:BLP issue and I have not violated any WP:BLP. The initial claim that I violated WP:BLP by removing sources about his son's birthdate was false as I noted on the talk page and my talk page since 65.78.8.103 posted on both on Feb 19 with the same claims. The Oprah ref provided January 2008 and was the at the end of second sentence following WP:REPCITE.

As stated, there were a number of rapid edits starting on Feb 19 by 65.78.8.103 instead of discussing each issue so many things go lost and back and forth but just the general assumption that I don't know the policies and ignoring my valid points. Some things like MOS:SAMESURNAME that on Feb 19 I was accused of violated MOS about, I thought I already resolved, but then back and forth today with all the other edits when 65.78.8.103 finally saw the ref with the Noth surname that I already posted on the talkpage on Feb. 19 and seemed to accept it. There has been obstinate refusal to just work out issues one at a time instead just blanket judgements and details get lost.-Khawue (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I was asked to look at the section in the article and did so without seeing what was in the history or on the talk page or here. I am not surprised to find so many people taking issue with the whole Orion thing, for instance. Having read over the talk page, where at least four if not more editors all disagree with Khawue, I can only chime in with those who tried to prune the article. If Khawue continues, they should be made to edit something else--this might be a nice occasion for a partial block, for edit warring, likely BLP violations, trivializing the BLP, and wikilawyering all over the talk page to keep celeb trivia in an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. Much of your changes were quickly reverted. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    • No, I did not revert changes. I provided a simpler source for the full name from OOOM as well as restored the Playbill ref for her full name with Noth surname which was accepted by 65.78.8.103 today after no discussion since February 19 when I posted the sources that disproved his claim that I violated MOS:SAMESURNAME. This was not disputed, nor her employment as a bartender. [210]
    • Then I added that Tara's play, co-produced by Noth, would have it's world premiere at Berkshire Theatre Festival, which was not noted before although it is mentioned in the ref for full name [211]
    • Then I added the reason for moving to Sherman Oaks, L.A. for logical continuity from Theatre section which states preference to live in NY and that he still spends time in NY in a separate sentence with the source: OOOM interview: "Noth still spends a lot of time in New York" and also the SMH article from 2008 [[212]]
    • before there was one sentence about dividing time between LA and NY and reason for living in LA.
    • No, there were not "at least four if not more editors" disagreeing with the Orion birth details. On February 19, 65.78.8.103 false claim that I violated BLP by having the January 2008 unsourced but it was in the Oprah ref the second sentence after it, which they did not see and put their own source with the exact date. I also provided links briefly as to the significance to refute WP:INDISCRIMINATE After that there were no reply until TODAY, 65.78.8.103 removed it with their edits. Then I restored it after 109.158.187.247 disagreed with having the exact date. Later Isaidnoway posted on the talk page about not having any details about minor children to which I replied with my sources explaining significance well as Angelina_Jolie#Children showing an example with the same level of detail. There was no further reply. It was a discussion and I could see both approaches.
    • The MOS:SAMESURNAME issue as I stated above, after February 19 after I replied with my sources to disproved violation of that, there was no reply. So again I thought it was resolved until edits again today but then 65.78.8.103 accepted it.
    • No I did not violate or trivialize BLP. I did not "wikilawyering all over the talk page", I provided the information that I had and my perspective. -Khawue (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    • No it is false that "Much of your changes were quickly reverted." Drmies, this is a false claim again. You can see the 3 things I did above. I added a few things as mentioned above and left the out the details about the children. Drmies removed the Playbill article confirming Tara's use of the Noth surname [[213]] with comment "article doesn't say they're having an affair, and it's unnecessary" not understanding that it was for MOS:SAMESURNAME described above, NOT to say they are having an affair, and said her play "needs more than a workshop for inclusion" [[214]] so I added the world premiere. -Khawue (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

On User:Khawue's talk page I've suggested they agree to take a voluntary break from editing the Chris Noth article or its talk page for a period of seven days. This might allow the various disagreements to settle down and avoid the need for any admin action. It concerns me that Khawue seems to be edit warring and that almost their sole interest since arriving on Wikipedia in January is editing this one article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston Due to limitations, I found it easiest to just focus on the one article which hardly had any references when I started. I did not do it for any advocacy or promotion which is what WP:SPA is concerned about. I have followed NPOV trying to get different perspectives which added details and trimming after I add as well. I have said may times I accept reducing the details. Every few days I would add things after coming upon information from research. I have been online more regularly dispute started since Feb. 19 numerous edits from an IP address where there was false claims about MOS and BLP violations which I posted about on the talk page and my talk page which I felt were "wikilawyering". I posted sources to prove my point on Feb 19 but maybe they were not seen based on edits today although the MOS:SAMESURNAME was eventually accepted by 65.78.8.103 in the edits today even though I already replied with the same reference on Feb 19 on the talk page and thought it was resolved. After Feb. 19 I was just posting in the talk pages and notice boards where discussions were started, focusing on one topic of the article and then early this morning 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 and 65.78.8.103 started numerous edits on the article.

So I have documented what has happened above. There were a lot of communication problems and misunderstandings and false claims. I am not intending to edit war. Back to the recent edits, you can see above, I explained the statement above to Drmies "Much of your changes were quickly reverted." is false. You can see I accepted the lower level of details and did not put my 3 edits back. I would want to discuss these 3 edits with you and Drmies. I want to be able to discuss specifics one at a time instead of blanket statements. It is not true that I put the birth details back against 4 people as explained above. -Khawue (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Khawue: please disclose both your conflict of interest and, per the terms of use, who is paying you for your edits. Many thanks, ——SN54129 06:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Serial Number 54129 ??? I do not have any conflict of interest that I know of and no one is paying me for my edits. cc:EdJohnston -Khawue (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• It's like dealing with some climate denier--we are being trolled. The SPA makes a bunch of edits and inserts all the kinds of stuff we routinely do not insert, using gossipy sources and synthesis, reverts and reverts, clamors all over half a dozen talk pages and noticeboards, and we just let them do it? Drmies (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have warned User:Khawue they may be blocked for edit warring if they make any further edits at Chris Noth during the next seven days unless their changes have received a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• EdJohnston Okay sure. I am not trolling. When I mentioned Drmies above I was explaining the 3 edits which were none of the things he was mentioning. I always used WP:RS and not synthesis, and I acknowledge I wrote too many details and accepted trimming down. As I mentioned above and in talk page I saw Angelina_Jolie#Children as an example of different level of detail, there is discretion about this. I saw reverts as well of things I thought were resolved. I have also shortened sentences e.g. removed references to the West Hollywood condo [[215]]. So that is my perspective, it's not that I wish to re-insert details that were removed.-Khawue (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• EdJohnston I have read other bio pages and seen inclusion of details that Drmies objects to the spouse's occupation when they met, pregnancy complications, allegations, that the person divides their time between two cities, etc. e.g. 65.78.8.103 mentioned Kim_Kardashian#Personal_life which has a subsection on Health and Pregnancies, Paris Robbery, etc. I did not insert "all the kinds of stuff we routinely do not insert". The sources I used were not unusual or "gossipy" compared to other celebrity articles. I think blanket statements and kneejerk reactions were made that have led to a certain bias.-Khawue (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not you want to call it trolling, the badgering is relentless, and moves from one talk page to the next [216]. EdJohnston, I saw this coming days ago in the user's behavior. Nothing short of a block will stop this delightful train. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have warned the editor to drop the topic, and that a block is likely if they don't. JBW (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston JBW I was not badgering Melcous. That day EdJohnston had posted on my talk page a concern that I was edit warring and if I would voluntarily not edit or post on the article talk page for 7 days. Then I saw Melcous did 3 edits, I thanked them, pointed out a few things that I saw in each edit as they came and they thanked me. I asked specifically about four items missing with quotes from a featured article Julianne Moore that were maybe too long and it got lost what I was asking about. It just to show an example that for a role you have a brief description, brief description of the reception and maybe preparation for the role is not unusual (two of the missing items, I gave brief sentences as possible replacements), any awards (one of the missing items). The other item deleted was Noth went to college the following year. I will try to limit size of the quotes. As I replied to you on my talk page, I was not hostile or aggressive or trying to "impose" in any way as I explained to you [217] [218] I think a lot of things are getting lost in these talk page communications. I have done any edits and agreed to get consensus on the article talk page before any edits. I have not posted on the article talk page. Given the situation it I thought it was best to talk directly with Melcous as they were the one making the changes.-Khawue (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• EdJohnston With regards to the dispute with Drmies above "inserts all the kinds of stuff we routinely do not insert" ad the dispute with my last 3 edits and his edits before that (Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies)Kate_Winslet#Personal_life has all the elements the Drmies removed on his own accord, and is much longer e.g. occupation of spouse & where they met, notable past relationship (one sentence), name of the two children
• KW: "Disillusioned by the way the British tabloids portrayed her personal life, Winslet moved to New York.[78]..."In a 2015 interview, she described how much she enjoyed living in the countryside.[163]"
• ->CN: Troubled by the attention he receives in public he moved with his family to the Los Angeles suburb of Sherman Oaks where he found it easier to avoid photographers.(3 interview refs, also said previously preference for NY before he was a parent)
• KW: "The family divided their time in New York with frequent visits to their estate in the Cotswolds in England."
• ->CN: He divides his time between L.A. and New York.(3 refs about it, significant to his work)
• I don't feel I should be seen as "imposing my version" for questioning a deletion someone just chose to do. Or anything I do not is going to be seen as hostile. I just discuss the significance, the precedence, and the options in non-aggressive language. I will try to limit the size of my quotes, I think that is causing the confusion. I have not said anything on the article talk page. I think we should try to address the issues one by one. I understand the importance of being succinct and keeping significance in mind but not all personal info is "trivia" or "gossipy" as seems to be the mindset.
• Again I messaged Melcous about two edits, thanking her. She thanked me, said I could correct grammatical mistakes & general comment that just because info is sourced that it needs to be included. I replied that I understood and asked about the 4 items specifically as explained above. There was a misunderstanding what I was asking I think due to the length of the quotes, so I listed the 4 items in a list without the quotes and she said such details should be on the article talk page. That was the end of that. I just replied, "sure no problem" to assure that I understand.-Khawue (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hello User:Khawue. ANI is not the place for making content proposals, and I believe this thread is finished. If you want to make more suggestions for article content, make them at Talk:Chris Noth. Don't change the article itself unless you can get prior talk page consensus. Just because material is sourced is no guarantee that it should be included. Whether it belongs in the article is up to the agreement of editors. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hello EdJohnston, yes I understand. Yes as stated before I well understand that not all sourced material is to be included. I was addressing the fact that the above elements were deleted on the basis that it was gossip that is not acceptable to Wikipedia, BLP, etc. And I can see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies also contradicts claims made of being "promotional" to include description of roles and reviews. Yes I agreed to get talk page consensus before any change during the 7 days and to learn the available options WP:CON, WP:CCC-Khawue (talk) 04:25, 24 February 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.

Confession I need to make

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.

---

Um...well, I have a bit of stuff I need to get off my chest. I, Miles Edgeworth, have operated another account. I haven't posted on Wikipedia in almost 2 years, and I'm feeling guilty about what I've done. In February 2018, I retired from this account, because I wanted to have a fresh start. I created the User:MusicalKnight account. Why did I do this? Well, to be honest, it was to avoid scrutiny. In direct violation of Wikipedia policy. In the end, I didn't end up editing much with the MusicalKnight account (at least, not until today), and retired for good in November 2018. I started editing again recently, but I feel like I'm trying to hide my past using an alternate account. Back when I made it, I think it was to prevent my previous history (from being a new Wikipedia user) from following me if/when I ever applied for adminship. I regret doing this. I miss the people I used to interact with here. I used to think adminship would be like a trophy, when I was younger. Now I'm an adult, and I realize that it isn't a trophy. Well, this will probably be my last message on here, unless I somehow don't get indeffed for this. I never violated policy on either of my accounts (until now), and was embarrassed about my childish mistakes. Now I have to face the mistakes I made, and the punitive measures that will be imposed upon me. Either way, can someone here provide some clarity? The guilt is killing me. Sincerely, Ciaran M. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 22:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you deserve a barn star for you openness. Folks should forgive you. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, Thank you. Unfortunately, on the internet, your history follows you. I only made that realization a while back, and decided it's best if I revealed what was going on. I'm just a guy who tries to revert vandalism, however, I'm not perfect either. The pressure of being perfect is overwhelming though, and humans make mistakes. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 23:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Miles Edgeworth, if I may ask, what sort of scrutiny were you trying to avoid? I don't see any blocks on either account or anything on User talk:Miles Edgeworth to indicate you were in some sort of trouble that you wanted to get out of. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, this is probably going to sound really weird, but I wanted to essentially have a perfect account. No faults. Why? My younger self saw rights on Wikipedia as a kind of trophy or something like that. So the next step was adminship, however I know how intensive the scrutiny there is (closely analyzing your entire edit history). I know now, that adminship isn't a trophy, and am not focused on achieving that anymore, until I have much more experience. Especially now though, I probably wouldn't stand a chance under the microscope, but I don't care because I'm not seeking that anymore. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 23:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Got it...you made mistakes when you were a new editor (as we all do). I've got to admit it, I found reading your confession a bit painful, because I learned (mumblemumble) decades ago how corrosive the feeling of guilt is and so I could really sympathize with why you felt it necessary to come clean. Well, looking at the edits from both accounts, I can't see where you've ever tried to use two identities in nefarious or misleading ways (or done anything to harm the encyclopedia, for that matter), so I hope the end result is a brisk "don't do it again". We'll see what the admins say... Schazjmd (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, guilt does last. Anyway, I just wanted to seek clarification from the admins about what happened. –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 23:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Uh. I’m not seeing anything that violates policy leaping off the page. I don’t see evasion of scrutiny either. You stopped using this account in 2018 and almost immediately started using the other account... but I don’t see you being embroiled in drama around that time. If you’re not seeking adminship I don’t think you have anything to worry about (and even if you were, I don’t think having FRESHSTARTed would have held you back provided it were disclosed). I admit I could be missing something very obvious, but I think you might be overreacting here. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I probably am overreacting. I have problems with anxiety, so I do tend to overreact. :( –Miles Edgeworth ^Talk 23:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Don’t worry, I understand completely. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Tag the alternate account with {{User alternative account banner}} and you're all set. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would you contact yourself on your sock account, about this ANI report? GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

This is technically a discussion about an editor, so they are technically just following the required instructions. I mean, there is no exceptions listed for when the reported editor is yourself lol –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

And rightly so. I mean, the sock might object to what's being said here. Then things would really get interesting. EEng 02:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I object...that was objectionable! In all seriousness, I was just following Wikipedia policy. MusicalKnight (an alt of Miles Edgeworth) talk 02:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh good lord he really did. That is actually awesome. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

199.66.69.88, what do you mean? Are you implying that I'm accusing another random user of sockpuppetry? MusicalKnight (an alt of Miles Edgeworth) talk 02:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Nah, they're just saying it's sort of funny that you notified yourself of a discussion... about yourself :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Since absolution is being handed out so freely here, I too have a confession: I shot Kennedy. EEng 07:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: But did you shoot the deputy? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I shot the Sharif.

But no, I did not shoot the deputy. EEng 07:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I broke the dam. DMacks (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing from GoodFaithMan

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.

---

GoodFaithMan, despite repeated pleas and warnings on their talk page, continues to make edits that go against the accepted MOS for certain articles, specifically on Nine (Blink-182 album). 7 times to be specific - [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] despite being reverted each time with an explanatory edit summary and a warning/message on their talk page, which, just for February is starting to look like a christmas tree due to the amount of warnings. On top of that, they have yet to make any attempt at communicating with concerned editors leaving messages on their talk page. Here you can see IllaZilla making a personal plea that has blatantly been ignored. The only so called communication that has occurred from GFM are their increasingly insistent edit summaries that are shouted when they are reverted as can be seen here and here. I'd be most grateful if an admin could cast an eye please. Robvanvee 12:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Robvanvee, I agree that this editing is disruptive - they have been reverted by five different users at that page, and keep adding the same content without engaging with any of the arguments people have been making. I'm going to offer them a word of advice and ask that they self-revert their latest addition. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

That would be most appreciated Girth Summit. Robvanvee 14:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Robvanvee,  Done. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Enough. User is still at it Iron Maiden and Fleetwood Mac (1968 album). Taking this to WP:AIV - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Before I saw this, I've just given them a final warning too (and reverted a pile of stuff). One more edit, and that's it. AIV is probably not useful here, as it's not pure vandalism, simply disruptive editing. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Here they are adding more unsourced info, something I recently gave them a final warning for. Robvanvee 15:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Robvanvee 15:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Possible Template:Ds/alert abuse by DBigXray

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

---

Wikipedia Screenshot 1 of Djm's user talk page on phone, not showing any DS aware templates ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ

Screenshot 2 of Djm's user talk page on phone ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ

Screenshot 3 of Djm's user talk page on phone ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ

Screenshot 4 of Djm's user talk page on phone ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ

It will immediately be apparent there are tensions between my and DBigXray at the moment but my I ask the scope of this discussion should be kept with the scope of Template:Ds/alert and Template:Ds/aware. See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, particularly alert.aware. I express concern DBigXray is inappropriately applying the Template:Ds/alert for the deliberate or inadvertent purposes of disruption; or possible to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor.

DBigXray's discretionary sanctions alerts are given on this list: [226]. Not all are inappropriate, however in the following examples at least the tool was quite possibly used escalate a provocation:

• 23 February 2020: WikiAviator : [227]: Associated dispute from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All India Mahila Congress has spilled to [228]
• 7 February 2020: Djm-leighpark (me) : [229]: Application of Ds/Alert blp/ipa despite Ds/aware for these on Old revision of User_talk:Djm-leighpark. There are stringent warnings this should not be done and Special:AbuseFilter/602 or Mediawiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS should have triggered to my best understandings. To my protestations the response was "LoL. Ok." which may have been an acknowledgement the Ds/alerting was incorrect ... it could also be read as "Ho Ho Ho, so what, gotcha".
• 2 February 2020: Soman : [230] : To quote Soman from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1030#Harassment of DBigXray by User Soman: "Honestly, I found the assumption of bad faith by posting the DS notice on my talk as, well, an assumption of bad faith.". DBigXray did not answer this.

I believe the Arbitration Committee was always aware of the risk of Ds/Alert abuse and actions against it need to be robust to avoid Ds/Alert being weaponised. I in particular see the Ds/alert applied to myself on 7 February 2020 as a stonewall abuse infringement and failure to immediately own a mistake had been made as extremely serious ... though of course I am a party in that dispute and perhaps indirect also have relationships to the other incidents. It may be noted other times DBigXray had issued a Ds/alert may well be justified, as may be the case for another issued on 07:35 23 February 2020. — Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal: DBigXray to be sanctioned to not apply Ds/alerts for the period of three months. Reasoning: The restriction has negligible effect on normal editing or discussion but stresses the care people need to take when placing Ds/alerts to ensure they are not used when the likely outcome will be to escalate tension. I have considered a softened alternative of the restriction only being in place when no XfD or content discussion is ongoing but pragmatically that could lead to grey areas. I would suggest that the option of DBigXray accepting a voluntary no-fault ban of setting Ds/alert would be most welcome early on; but should this debate become a procrastinated discussion with a very clear consensus to apply a restriction the community should in that circumstance reject a last-minute no-fault offer. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• Reply by DBigXray I note that DJM did not bring this up on my user talk page before escalating this straight to ANI. I note that they are on an avowed revenge campaign against me [231], [232], [233], [234], [235]. I also note that reminding editors using the standard WP:ACDS alert that they are editing in the topic area under AC-DS is not sanction-able or even an offence. AC-DS requires the template to be given as it is. Editors who think that Those alerts are inflammatory need to say that in an RfC and get the templates removed or banned. As for the Alert on Djm, I did check their DS alert logs which did not show any alert in past 12 months, so I posted the alerts. However I note that it was not necessary since they had DS aware template, but I did not notice their DS Aware banner (that was crowded among other lengthy banners and never showed up on my phone screen, see phone screenshots I have uploaded here) until they SHOUTED about it in their response and I looked at their user talk on my desktop. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. He is aggressive and unreasonable and keeps on insisting my sources are not valid in the AfD discussion. I tried to explain but he said I was in bad light due to repeating to mention sources. I was just too busy to check and I thought that maybe he hadn't seen my sources and I reposted. However, he then threatened that he will publicize this on the AfD discussion. He really did and I publicized the conversation on the AfD page as a response and was just a bit sarcastic but I didn't attack him. He then gave me that alert and I was appalled. I asked him why but he asked me to read the policies. Of course I know the policies. He is insulting my Wiki knowledge. I replied by further asking his motive but he insisted that I read the policies and even implied that I am not civilized and my English is poor. I think that he has to be restricted of using this template to prevent him from further wreaking havoc and disrupting the normal wikilife of other users. Thanks a lot. WikiAviator (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiAviator, it is expected that you provide WP:DIFF as evidence to back up your self concocted 'stories' ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that DBigXray isn't using the DS alert in good faith. In my experience, their work in the contentious ARBIPA topic area often makes DS alerts to be an important function when dealing with fringe content (generally — not to imply that about the above editors whose contributions I am unfamiliar). El_C 13:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

^^^ and also, this is, not unexpectedly, turning into a bashfest against DBXr for anyone he has called out for POV pushing, poorly sourcing contentious material etc. While good faith suggets this is unintentional, it is the expected corollory to bringing an editor active in ARBIPA to ANI. ——SN54129 13:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

And looks like the invitations to this bash fest have already been sent. [236] [237] ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The DS alert contains the sentence, "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." How is that abuse? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

indeed. But they seem to be pissed off with these standard DS Alerts, due to the ongoing content disputes and are inventing excuses to grind their axes, to get back at me--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A WP:BOOMERANG seems more likely than any sanction of DBigXray. The initial complaint is very confused and I can't even parse some of it but from the diff's provided, DBX is using the DS templates exactly how they are documented. They are not sanctions or warnings or anything else that Djm-leighpark is trying to claim they are. An editor who claims they are aware of the nature of DS templates (as Djm's talk page states) should know that and discard any spurious templates they receive. The "I'm aware of DS on these subjects" template is, at very best, a polite request. There is no policy or behavioral norm implicated by the actions complained of. There is a policy violation in spurious ANI reports, however. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The context in which these are sent is important. Specifically the sending of the Ds/alert when I had placed a Ds/aware is a technical no. It is a violation of the enforcement procedure document (as Wikipedia:ACDS aware.alert/aware.dup). While a one off I presume the response Lots of Laughs to that mistake is funny? It is not a direct devaluation of Ds/aware & Ds/alert ? The "A" response to that would have been ... "Sorry I missed your Ds/aware notice .... I see I've upset you please accept my apologies?". Will this turn into a DBigXray, probably looks like it now, but often perhaps this is inevitable as DBigXray often seems to badger in with the first and last word and divert into a bash poor victim DBigXray noresult fest; brilliant technique really. Okay Phil Bridger i'll take a WP:BOOMERANG if you like but perhaps it is a wake up call to how Ds/alerts can be poorly applied leading to escalation. So the admins who like the Gods in Olympus will look down on these matters and chew things. My understanding is I have no real option but to alert WikiAviator/Soman after they've been mentioned as they have. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You SHOUTED and accused an editor who alerted you with std templates of WP:HOUNDING and abuse, for giving the alerts, and you have issues with LOL.

Djm-leighpark, did it occur to you that you can remove those DS Alerts from your page anytime, if you consider it inflammatory and it gets on your nerves ? The fact that you felt the act of alerting a user on ACDS, as something that is worth for a topic ban via ANI, just shows that you really really hate someone. Some kind of boomerang is indeed needed to end this "revenge campaign against DBigXray". ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, My current policy is generally to leave my talk page to auto-archiving; apart from Wikiloves, the incredibly rare barnstar, and sometimes foul language (which I may also sometimes collapse). I did manually archive an issue with an off-wiki email with a possible canvas etc. as one word I had said about with was possibly inappropriate, you are aware of the one as you blasted the guy with a warning on his talk page. I confess to eyeballing down his AfD raises for the day and he may have been trying to alert me to a media article he had up for deletion (because its the sort of thing (media in possibly suppressed country) I might tend to try to rescue. So it was quite possibly not a canvas but a good faith notification that would not have been inappropriate on my talk page. In general I take the stuff on my talk page and it stays. Look DBigXray, you do good work; you know guidelines, and policies, and point out your interpretation of them vigourously; (may sometimes skipping those that are inconvenient to your ends); you seemingly avoid the straight answer and divert; in many respects you are like my missus with trained counselling tricks; you love to play the victim claiming people hate you. You are almost a more troublesome Wikipedia editor than I am; but not quite; but clever enough to deflect peoples from the Ds/alert issue.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Would both of you dial it back? Acroterion (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Since Calling for Topic Bans is in vogue these days, Can I ask Djm be one way WP:IBANned from interacting with me for his ongoing revenge campaign and more importantly for comparing me with his missus. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you could set a positive example? I don't see that you did anything wrong with the template, but this ping-pong reply pattern isn't necessary. Editors do occasionally get belligerent when they receive DS notices, it's best ignored. Acroterion (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion, I already did. If you look at my conduct after his fiery reaction to my DS alerts, you will find that I already ignored him and tried staying away from any of his wiki activities. But based on the diff in my first response, you can see that he is going on and on about me, bad mouthing me everywhere on Wikipedia, and this frivolous ANI report clearly shows he is showing no signs of stopping. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Then let others deal with it. I'm closing this, it's not accomplishing anything. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang. This is a waste of time.--Jorm (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment These templates are useful and serve as reminders. DBigXray is free to put one on my Talk page if it applies to me. This all seems like a misunderstanding of an editor on what this means and what the intent was. It's a reminder and so far there doesn't seem to be evidence of malicious intent. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Avoidance

I have had in passing a stupid thought that the issuing of a DS at the top of relevant AfD's might be an alternative to someone involved halfway down an AfD discussion issuing them. Would need an RFC and more thought but it is stupid thought (wrong forum). Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

We have a community supported guideline to handle folks who get triggered with DS alerts and then drag folks posting DS alerts to ANI. That guideline is called WP:CIR--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:23, 23 February 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.

Mass attack at Indian Idol

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

---

I've requested page protection, but a response there could take a long time. This is a tidal wave of original research, unsourced content, vandalism and accusations. Needs to be protected, then cleaned. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm happy to be proven wrong--EL C has already done it. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Fer sure. No worries. El_C 17:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Harassment

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.

---

NedFausa is harassing me on my multiple pages. I have been accused of "not wanting to give a gay man his proper due" [[238]] now he is on my page calling me a sock and harassing me [[239]]. I have kindly asked to work with him to make Wikipedia a great website for all and still he continues. [[240]] I am asking for intervention as the comments are now multiple personal attacks. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmoates — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I am confident of the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation. That however does not negate the fact that NedFausa has harassed me on multiple pages including my own user talk page. Also, I am surprised that talk is trying to use the Sockpuppet investigation to excuse behavior that is clearly harassment and in bad faith. Hopefully this will all get resolved soon. I have nothing to hide. I don't appreciate the insinuating that I am a homophobe or that I am a sock. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 18:11, 23 February 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.

Repeated vandalism from 174.52.101.239

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 you please block 174.52.101.239. This user edited the Gonzaga Bulldogs men's basketball page and change the name of the page to "Yoeli Childs’ Sons" within the last 12 hours. As you can see on their user talk page, this IP address is known for vandalizing Wikipedia pages, and even changed the name of the Yoeli Childs page to "Gonzaga’s Dad" today as well as seen on their recent contributions, and this type of behavior has been documented since 2018 on this user's talk page. Can you please block this user for at least the next couple months? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgeriverez (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the IP was warned for vandalism today, but there hasn't been anything else since then. If the IP continues to vandalize, see the instructions at WP:VAND. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 23 February 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.

Trying to make a non controversial edit at The Band

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.

---

...And have been reverted twice and give an edit warring warning by FlightTime (talk · contribs). This was my second edit, slightly shorter than the first [241]. Please see my rationale in edit summaries and at the other editor's talk page, which is that the edits are copiously supported by article content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This is just a content dispute, so you should just propose your changes to the article's talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have. I'm astonished that a non-controversial edit would be twice reverted and earn a 3rr warning. This is also about abuse of reversion tools and warning templates, as well as a willful suspension of policy regarding lede content that doesn't require citations when sources are plentiful in the body of the article. This was explained, to no avail. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

And as a content matter, MJL, have a look at the restored version. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I think ANI is premature, but I'm genuinely puzzled by FlightTime's attitude here. Wording changes to the lead don't require citations. User talk:FlightTime#The Band shows unwonted hostility over an edit that should have just passed without comment. What gives? Mackensen (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• You're probably right about my quickness to bring this here, but I'm so tired with trigger finger article scanners who have trouble with an IP making an edit of the least substance. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was an attempt to change the lead. My apologies 2601:188, it would seem this is a conduct dispute. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime: you have over 100,000 edits; out is phenomenally difficult to believe you are not aware of MOS:LEAD which is clear that citations are rarely required in the opening section, as it is merely summarising the contents of the article body.

As for prematurity, well, I'm not sure where one can else go, once one has already unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the matter at the user's talk page.

If nothing else, this was an example of misusing a templated warning. ——SN54129 08:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole thing was very intrusive and unwarranted of me. I have striked (There are other cmt's in that section) the edit-warring warning and apologised to the user. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(2601, editing from a commuter train) Thank you, FlightTime. It’s greatly appreciated. The intro to that article—-perhaps the whole thing—-would benefit from a rewrite. My tweak was just a start. Cheers, 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:57 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime: If I may say so, and hopefully without sounding a patronizing ass, that was very big and open of you. There's a lessoon in there for me too I think. Cheers! ——SN54129 14:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: No, doesn't sound "patronizing" at all, thank you. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to close this as resolved. 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:57 (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat

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 [this diff], user:Juanitaagain threatens legal action.Jacona (talk) 18:54, 24 February 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.

Pinpointed by GSS

Hi, admin. I am here to raise concern over my articles being purposefully proposed for deletion (Synergis and Kowloon Development Company) within 5 minutes. I don't know the motive behind the unreasonable consecutive proposed deletions of my articles (which I've already objected because they comply with GNG) of GSS and whether it is because he is not satisfied about my vote in AfD discussions. I wish you to notify him that his actions are disruptive I tell him to STOP targeting my contributions. Thanks a lot.--WikiAviator (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Since GSS is a new page reviewer, my initial guess is that they came across those pages while doing new page review, concluded that they were not notable companies, and tagged them with PROD. Looking at the two pages you linked, neither of those demonstrates that the subject meets GNG and I would have probably either draftified them or proposed deletion if I'd reviewed them. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I generally concur with this.

@WikiAviator: If you have access to sources that meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability (see WP:CORPDEPTH for excellent guidance) please do focus on digging them up during the AfD period rather than pursuing this claim of misconduct... because I’m not seeing any misconduct. While there’s sometimes disagreement over whether new page patrollers should seek deletion for pages on notability or A7 grounds within a few minutes of page creation, as far as I know it’s not against the rules. Particularly when there’s an assertion of a WP:BEFORE search done by the person nominating the page for deletion, as GSS has done.

Once again, please find sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH and provide them in the appropriate place. If you do it within the AfD period the pages shouldn’t be deleted, but even if it takes you a little longer they can be recreated. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As a non-admin who used to check the new pages myself, I doubt it was strictly coincidental new page patrolling, as the pages were created a couple days apart. However, the first one that GSS proposed for deletion was Synergis, which is weakly sourced for notability (a single third-party source from 17 years ago, plus the company's own annual report and one line in a book from the stock market that the company trades under) and had already been tagged for conflict of interest. That combination makes it reasonable to check if we have a problematic page creator. Upon seeing Kowloon Development Company, which has weaker sourcing, I'm not surprised GSS was moved to propose that for deletion as well (references are a Bloomberg dead link, a "webb-site" database, and an announcement of a stock release.} Neither proposal for deletion is unreasonable, and even WikiAviator's initial defense of Kowloon on the AfD page is that "sources could be found". It looks to me like the problem is that WikiAviator is creating weakly-sourced pages, not that GSS is noticing them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

NatGertler, It is common for a new page patroller to check an author's other creations to spot for possible wP:COI. So the fact that 2 of his pages were nominated is not shocking at all. The shocking thing here is ridiculous amount of bad faith accusations against an NPP reviewer. Based on my own discussion [242] with WikiAviator, it appears to me that he has trouble understanding our notability standards, and shows WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality against others. Perhaps this is a WP:CIR issue and other conduct issues of the filer must be investigated. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Somalia/ Somaliland political dispute

On a variety of articles related to Somalia there appears to be a battle going on between User:Lion Pappa and User:Aqooni (and also possibly User:Capewearer). Lion Pappa has accused the other two users of sockpuppetry, but I have told him that he must not make such accusations without evidence, and that if he has evidence he should present it at WP:SPI. Both Lion Pappa and Aqooni have made edits at WP:AN3 making accusations against each other, but in both cases malformed. I have told Lion Pappa and Aqooni that if they have a content dispute the starting point is to discuss on the relevant article talk pages, but they have not done so. Lion Pappa has repeatedly removed sourced text from a number of articles, and in his most recent edit he has deliberately falsified a reference title. I was rather surprised not to find the Somalia/ Somaliland dispute among areas covered by Discretionary sanctions, but in any case the current behaviour of this group of editors appears to be disruptive. I will leave those of you with greater expertise to decide how widely the blame lies. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My edits to Issa Musse‎ and Oodweyne District (which I assume are the articles in dispute?) were only cleanup and reference fixes. Issa Musse in particular was a mess, and I cleaned it up. When a reference said Somalia, I wrote Somalia; when new references were added that said Somaliland, I backed away from editing, because I have no knowledge of or interest in the dispute over where any of the people or places are located. I'l add some supporting links from the edit history in a few minutes. Capewearer (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My initial cleanup of Issa Musse: [243], [244], [245], [246], [247].

A little later, following some back and forth between Lion Pappa and Aqooni, a reFill format of three new bare references: [248].

And on Oodweyne District, my initial cleanup, just as neutral as in the other article: [249]; then a re-format of the same bare reference [250]; then added a reliable source to a poorly sourced article: [251], [252], [253]. Editor Lion Pappa, who in addition to their edit warring and inflammatory edit summaries has clearly stated at User talk:David Biddulph that he or she is "here for justice" [254], and needs to state clearly what I've done wrong in all this. Capewearer (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been accused sockpuppetry by User:Lion Pappa quite a number of times and I hope the administrators can do the necessary checks to verify the invalidity of such a preposterous claim. I want to point your attention that the user User:Lion Pappa has been vandalising multiple pages and removing sourced information on the article do not state. He has also made multiple editions WITHOUT any references. The user has been notified twice already and haven't stopped. Please refer back to the history section of these articles to see the horrific levels of vandalism:

[[255]] (Oodweyne District) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[256]] (Gadabuursi) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[257]] (Berbera) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[258]] (Sahil, Somaliland) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[259]] (Somalia) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[260]] (Zeila) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[261]] (Issa Musse) - Created an entire article without any references

[[262]] (Awdal) - Constant vandalising of this page without references

[[263]] (Borama) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[264]] (Lughaya District) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[265]] (Lughaya) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

Aqooni (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

All three editors need to stop accusing each other of Vandalism (and perhaps read Wikipedia:Vandalism) - while you appear to be involved in a content dispute, and there seems to be some edit-warring, there does not seem to be any vandalism. Have any of you attempted to discuss the matters at the article talk pages?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

All three of us? I'm not in a content dispute, and I haven't accused anyone of vandalism. I'm here because a notice at my talk page said I may have been involved in this somehow. But as I explained in detail above, all I did was try to tidy up two pages. How about I just volunteer to never, ever edit another Somalia-related article again? Capewearer (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Being involved in editing in this topic, I thought I'd like to put my thought into this:

While all sides are engaging in an edit war, Aqooni has had a history of initiating edit wars, as proven by his history and talk page that is filled with blocks and reports. Aqooni seems to have a tribal bias and tends to remove any mentions of Somaliland despite Somaliland having complete, albeit unrecognized, independence from Somalia and Somali government control and despite promising Lion Pappa in Lion Pappa's page to leave articles alone, he's still at it if that's how I understood correctly.

I hope this resolves quickly. Mushteeg (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

As Mushteeq had chosen to join this discussion, it will be noticed that his recent edit changed Somalia to Somaliland, with an edit summary claiming "removed unsourced content", although the 3 references for the text in question all referred to Somalia rather than Somaliland. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Admins investigating this problem may wish also to consider User:Zaki199105 who was involved in editing many of the same articles (and undoing numerous edits by User:Aqooni) but is now blocked for sockpuppetry. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And another doing the same (& also blocked for sockpuppetry) was User:MahamedHaashi; I haven't notified this one, as I assume that if one instance of the sock knows about this thread then there's no need to notify each one separately). --David Biddulph (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologized on my talk page. I should be more careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushteeg (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Just one thing I propose:

All towns and districts of Somaliland should have its flag and push-in map, however, it should come with some sort of disclaimer that states that Somaliland is a de facto country that's internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia.

Now, the way to put it in the articles can be debated and wrong wordings would probably spark even more edit warring, but that is what I propose to put an end to this. Mushteeg (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mushteeg that we need to aim at a long-lasting solution. Pinging Kzl55, who is the paramount authority on Somaliland that I know of on Wikipedia. A centralized discussion somewhere (probably not here) in the form of a Request for Comment seems like a sound approach to moving forward. El_C 06:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

On returning from a block for edit-warring, User:Lion Pappa has resumed his previous behaviour of deliberately contradicting 3 cited references. Mushteeg has been blocked for sock-puppetry, but it looks as if this conflict (on multiple articles) will continue for as long as User:Lion Pappa is allowed to edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging El C, I see we are back to square one on the Somaliland/Somalia question again :). This issue almost always draws excessive emotional/nationalistic responses, members of the community who are familiar with the project know all about how long it has been going. As such it would seem beneficial to try and discuss the facts on the ground, away from nationalistic rhetoric (on both sides). Somaliland is a self-declared but internationally unrecognised de facto state, meaning that it has physical presence and control on the ground with all the trappings of a state (currency, government, army etc) whilst not being recognised internationally as a separate state by any country.

There is another fact that is important to acknowledge here; just like Somaliland is NOT a full state in the complete sense of the word (owing to lack of international recognition), Somalia too isn’t a full state in the complete sense of the word. Yes, it is recognised as a sovereign state by the UN and most countries in the world, but its government is very fragile and exerts little control on the ground, relying on +20,000 African Union soldiers to exist. Therefore Somalia has the opposite problem of Somaliland, it is a recognised state de jure, but lacks full de facto control on the ground.

Note: I am putting aside the history of Somaliland and Somalia being two separate, sovereign states that chose to form a union for now, just focusing on the reality on the ground today.

As such the two ‘states’ are not full states in the conventional sense of the word, Somalia has international recognition but de facto controls limited area and requires the protection of foreign soldiers, whilst Somaliland is de facto in control of its territory but no other state recognises it. Its a very unique issue. The problem with presenting Somaliland as an "autonomous region" within Somalia is that Somalia already has autonomous regions within the framework of its federal system (e.g. Galmudug, Puntland, Jubaland..etc) of which Somaliland is not part of, that would not be helpful to Wikipedia readership.

I think as a community we have two options to try and resolve the issue:

- If Wikipedia articles are reflecting the neutral reality on the ground, then a nuanced approach is needed. Something similar to the treatment of Taiwan on Wikipedia in relation to the PRC, or that of Sahrawi Republic would be apt. By that I mean describing Somaliland in a neutral language that describes reality on the ground, e.g. "self-declared state that is internationally unrecognised". This would be satisfy those who believe statehood does not necessarily mean international recognition but instead mean existence and effective control on the ground.

- On the other hand if Wikipedia is strictly focusing on the status of UN/international community recognition, then a de facto/de jure treatment might be the way to go, e.g. "Somaliland is a self-declared state, internationally recognised to be part of Somalia".

Addendum: just hours ago, Somaliland rejected another proposed visit by Ethiopia's PM Abiye Ahmed accompanied by Somalia's President Farmajo to Somaliland [266]. Also, NY Times reported five days ago the first ever meeting between heads of Somalia and Somaliland, which happened in the office of Ethiopia's PM during the recent AU summit [267]. It is worth noting that both were accorded presidential welcomes in Adis Ababa upon arrival. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Somalia, Somaliland: Lion Pappa reported by David Biddulph

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Lion Pappa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Djibouti (diff): vandalism after final warning. Obviously not a typo so a deliberately deceptive edit summary. Part of this editor's political campaign. David Biddulph (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Context:

• Special:Diff/942070169
• Special:PermanentLink/940930921#ANI_notice
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1030#Somalia/_Somaliland_political_dispute

~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Content dispute, still. Please use dispute resolution. Again, I recommend a centralized RfC. The Somalia—Somaliland dispute should not be decided through administrative intervention. El_C 16:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

In my view, repeated edits in contradiction of the cited sources, and edits such as this claiming "fixed unwarranted typo error" but in that respect obviously a deliberately deceptive edit summary, makes this a conduct issue, rather than a simple content dispute. Does the admin community regard this sort of conduct as acceptable? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit more tricky and nuanced than "acceptable" and "not acceptable". Not all conduct that does not immediately lead to an indefinite block is "acceptable", and not all blocks are the result of a quick AIV decision. Continuing what appears to be a multi-page edit war after a block for edit warring made me move the report here instead of letting it be deleted by the bot. At the same time, I didn't find it egregious enough to take (then pretty final) action myself. I wouldn't focus on the edit summary too much; edit warring appears to be the main issue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Now we have edit warring and disruption going the other way. That isn't going to be tolerated, either. El_C 21:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

IP spammers

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.

---

• 114.160.220.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.185.153.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These IPs keep adding spam links to numerous articles. Akisuto Zeniko (talk · contribs), 2001:318:e011:f::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 210.131.158.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 202.84.95.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 202.248.40.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been blocked for the same behavior in the same topic area. I think they are the same person as well. Could someone block the IPs and/or protect the articles? 153.227.110.191 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/114.160.220.2 reblocked for 3 months. Other one is a little stale – it hasn't edit in two weeks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/106.185.153.212 became active again, engaging in the same behavior on the same article. 153.227.110.191/153.204.42.250 (talk) 09:48, 24 February 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 disruption by Darkknight2149

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Subject has taken a WikiBreak, any further action moot unless he returns before 30 days has passed since my offer (i.e. 21 March 2020). -- llywrch (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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

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

November 2019 TTN AFD nominations

Stats: Total nominated = 127 Delete = 88 Merge = 8 Redirect = 27 Keep = 4 Delete Places in The Dark Tower series World of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen List of Hollyoaks locations Earldoms of Gwynedd (fictional) Crafthalls of Pern Locations in the Bionicle Saga Religions of the Discworld Guids of Ankh-Morpork Harper Hall List of locations in Artemis Fowl Locations of Shorthand Street Duchies of Gwynedd (fictional) Transformers: Generations Roadbuster Female Autobots List of boats in Arthur Ransome books Ahab (comics) Blithe (comics) Blight (comics) List of dimensions of the Discworld Transformers: Alternators Cancer (comics) Vishanti Adri Nital Action Pack (comics) Deities in the Elric series Karl Glogauer Gwynedd (fictional) Torenth (fictional) – also redirect Aura (comics) Grail (Wildstorm) Debbie Grayson Discworld gods Flora and fauna of the Discworld List of locations in Babylon 5 Outstanding elements of Babylon 5 List of Firefly planets and moons Planets of the Hainish Cycle Transformers: Robot Masters Pretenders (Transformers) Candlemaker (DC Comics) Cannon (Wildstorm) Mythology of Teen Wolf League of Super-Assassins Transformers Label series Exiles (Red Skull allies) Committee (comics) Creatures of Terabithia List of Redwall characters Nanny (comics) Cordelia Frost Bludgeon (Transformers) Darkwing (Transformers) Demolishor List of Primes and Matrix holders Flint (Wildstorm) Taboo (Wildstorm) Frostbite (Wildstorm) Spike Witwicky Wheeljack List of Beast Wars toys Double Dare (comics) Doctor Moon Deuce and Charger Crazy Sues Daily Globe (comics) Appellaxian Aquawoman Protector (Marvel Comics) NKVDemon Spacecraft in Red Dwarf List of Dune ships Gaius Cassius Longius (Rome character) Quintus Valerius Pompey Transformers: Robots in Disguise (toy line) Ironhide Norns (comics) Kid Commandos Cognoscenti (comics) Blacklight (MC2) – also redirect Stone (Marvel Comics) Googam Katherine Anne Summers Shiver Man Wildcard (comics) Plague (comics) List of planets in Marvel Comics Revolutionary (comics) Merge Ankh-Morpork Assassins' Guild History Monks Cutthroat (comics) Izzy Cohen Ronald Reagan in fiction Glowworm (comics) Arm-Fall-Off-Boy Guillotine (character) Redirect Rumble (Transformers) Ramjet (Transformers) Sentinel Prime Black Mass (comics) Grail (DC Comics) Clown (comics) Nehwon Eleven Kingdoms Ace Morgan Dorian Hawkmoon Marcus Junius Brutus (Rome character) Servilia of the Junii Lord Conquest Captain Wonder (DC Comics) Chlorophyll Kid Foxglove (DC Comics) Octavia of the Julii Chaos Dwarfs (Warhammer) Optimus Primal Gnaeus Pompey Magnus (Rome character) Undead (Warhammer) Niobe of the Voreni Artemis (Marvel Comics) Redwing (Marvel Comics) Bagalia Jann of the Jungle Lucky the Pizza Dog Keep Big Man (comics) Bi-Beast Umar (Marvel Comics) Goom

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

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

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

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

Other threads that have persistent hostility from this user:

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

Other particularly disruptive/hostile diffs (edit: these are diffs that help show a pattern for this user's behavior, including but not limited to their interactions with TTN):

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand that my focus on deletion over anything else and past history are contentious for many, but I'm not particularly sure how I earned such ire from them. Pretty much every interaction with them goes back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (Marvel Comics), in which I think they formed Mount Everest from a grain of sand. Maybe a third party can tell me I'm wrong, but I think my position there was perfectly clear. I'd admit that our initial interactions weren't without a bit of venom from both sides, but I feel they should have long moved past it. TTN (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If Darkknight2149 feels that he has a legitimate reason for a grievance about TTN then I feel he needs to address it, and lay out his case here and now. If not, then I agree it is long past time he let it go instead of continuing to make threats and doing nothing. I think discussion on an interaction ban and/or AFD topic ban should hold until after he has had a chance to respond, since depending on how he responds, his response may itself prompt a ban discussion. If he does not file a complaint at this time and is willing and able to let it go, then a ban is not needed. BOZ (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban between Darkknight2149 and TTN and topic ban at AFD as nom. It's clear from Darkknight2149's response below that they are not going to drop the stick anytime soon. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• More threats/attempts at intimidation, this time directed towards me: 1. "If you continue to edit war and scew the discussion, I'm having you reported for edit warring." 2. "I will probably end up having to a report to have to file a report about Eagle427's administratorship." 3. "This is most likely headed to Request for De-Adminship, depending on how the situation and (probable) ArbCom follow up plays out." Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban between Darkknight2149 and TTN and topic ban at AFD as per nom, but time-limited for 90 days. Not specific to Darkknight 2149 necessarily, but obviously including them based on the diffs presented by nom, there has been a pattern of intimidation, incivility, misinformed AfD !votes and threats against editors nominating comics and game-related topics for deletion. Though I initially suggested this should be time-limited to 90 days, on the basis of my perception that this was a transient issue, Darkknight's subsequent comments in this thread are indicative of a long-term fixation that will be unlikely to resolve in a set period of time. I think an indefinite IBAN/TBAN would, therefore, be in the best interest of the community. Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC); edited 02:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN to stop Darkknight2149 from harassing TTN, and also support AfD topic ban. This editor doesn't seem able to disagree civilly with people over deletion discussions, and has obviously developed an extreme hatred for TTN. A 97% success rate indicates there actually isn't anything wrong with TTN's nominations, but Darkknight2149 can't seem to accept that. The ranting and raving pointed out in the above diffs are bad enough, but the attempted intimidation is worse. "Do as I say or I'll take you to ANI! I'll do it! ANI! I will, I'll drag you to ANI! You have until the count of three.... one... two... two and a half... No really, I'm serious, you have to do as I say or I'll drag you to ANI!! And I'm starting an ArbCom case too!" Reyk _YO! 12:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Boomerang - This proposal is baseless, dishonest, and is very likely to WP:BOOMERANG for Eagles247.

Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes by attacking TTN or other users for nominating many articles for deletion - Blatantly fabricated. Half of those diffs (taken out of context) have absolutely nothing to do with AfD, TTN, or this situation at all. This was me removing a rude reply from my talk page (not AfD related), and this was me replying to a flippant, uncivil insult (also unrelated to AfD). Eagles247 is deliberately digging through my comment history, cherry-picking diffs, and claiming that they are AfD-related. This type of dishonesty is concerning coming from an administrator, not to mention (in addition to everything else) grounds for WP:ADMINACCT.

TTN has been cleaning up topics about fictional elements on Wikipedia for the past several months by nominating several hundred of them for deletion via PROD and AFD Right off the bat, he spins the situation without even attempting to explain what has been happening at AfD.

found that he had a 97% “success” rate, meaning 97% of his nominations resulted in delete, merge, or redirect after discussion - This excuse isn't valid for the reasons I'm about to outline below and are already outlined at WT:Notability (fiction). Nor does it justify TTN's disruption and refusal to engage in dispute resolution (the driving force of this conflict that Eagles neglected to mention).

and seemingly using this threat to try to prevent TTN from nominating more pages Having actively participated in the dispute at WT:Notability (fiction), Eagles247 knows exactly what the conflict is about. On top of outright lying, Eagles247 is deliberately feigning ignorance for the convenience of this report.

There have been multiple instances of Darkknight2149 threatening to take TTN to ANI over these concerns Proceeds to list of the instances where TTN was warned to stop and engage in dispute resolution. Notice how the crux of this "report" that Eagles247 filed (and subsequently parroted by Reyk) boils down to "Darkknight2149 had not gotten around to filing the ANI report yet, so he was using intimidation!" That's because it is the only thing they have to use against me and they know it.

Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes at AFD without providing a rationale This falls under WP:BADGERING. Given the sheer volume of nominations, my votes are perfectly valid. Every single one of those diffs was also in favour of a merge/move (which actually supports the nominations), so I'm not exactly sure what Eagles247 is trying to prove with this. This is also hypocritical considering that most of the rationales for deletion themselves (provided by TTN and Piotrus) have been some copy/paste variation of "Fails to establish notability. WP:GNG." TTN has also made it abundantly clear throughout these nominations that all he is doing is digging up as many Start-class/C-class character articles as he can, scrolling down to the References section, and spamming deletion nominations based on that alone. He doesn't even give users time to respond to the PRODS before opening an AfD. When sources are provided and guidelines are presented, TTN almost always refuses to accept them. There's no reason to type an in-depth explanation on every single vote. DarkKnight2149 11:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note 2 - Additionally, I should also note that Reyk and Chetsford are both biased involved parties. Reyk is fully in on TTN and Eagles247's behaviour, as can be seen in the grotesque circlejerk that took place at WT:Notability (fiction) [268], [269], [270] and every other instance where Reyk has involved himself. His rationale for the ban is also the same paper-thin "DK didn't open the ANI report yet!" excuse that he parroted from Eagles247.

Similarly, Chetsford's rationale for support is purely political - Not specific to Darkknight2149 necessarily, but obviously including them based on the diffs presented by nom, there has been a pattern of intimidation, incivility, misinformed AfD !votes and threats against editors nominating comics and game-related topics for deletion. Diffs that were (in part) fabricated by Eagles247, having been completely unrelated to TTN and AfD. This AN thread provided by Miraclepine below also seems to shed light on Chetsford, where TTN and Chetsford are both seen harassing BOZ for creating character articles and voting against TTN's deletion nominations. [271] Nothing fishy about any of this at all.

I suspect that every Support vote will be exactly the same. Even if Eagles247 and TTN can WP:FACTION their way into making this retaliatory proposal pass ANI, it would likely be immediately repealed afterwards by the arbitration committee. TTN and Eagles247 would do best to stop sanction gaming and open a community-wide discussion at WP:DRN. Their refusal to adhere to simple consensus / WP:BRD procedure, and attempting to claim that everyone who has come out against them is part of some secret ownership cabal is the only reason this dispute is still ongoing. DarkKnight2149 11:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN to stop Darkknight2149 interacting with TTN, and also an AfD topic ban at the very least. No, DarkKnight2149, not every "Support" vote will be the same, because this one wouldn't even have existed but for your ludicrous rant just above this with accusations of lying, hypocrisy, intimidation and the "grotesque circlejerk" comment. I'm not entirely sure what you were thinking when you wrote it, but I suspect it will ensure that this ANI will not go well for you. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I am currently working on a response to this below explaining the situation with TTN (which I don't believe you are aware of and hasn't been addressed yet). The "accusations of lying, hypocrisy, and intimidation" exists because actual lying and hypocrisy took place. As I mentioned on my talk page, you will see me mention that this is the most blatant instance of administrator corruption I have encountered on Wikipedia (and I don't say that lightly). If you go through those diffs, you will find that what I said about Eagles427 fabricating evidence is 100% accurate.

I believe you are reacting to my comment on your face value perception of it. Could you please explain what it is you object to? DarkKnight2149 13:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're partially correct - if you don't understand why the above comments are written in a seriously problematic way, then I don't think I can help. (I mean, "Reyk is fully in on TTN and Eagles247's behaviour, as can be seen in the grotesque circlejerk that took place at (diffs) and every other instance where Reyk has involved himself") More to the point is that you are writing as if there is a massive political conspiracy by multiple users against you, without stopping to think that they all might believe independently that they are doing the right thing. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I apologise if my wording came across too strongly in that sentence. I don't see anything inherently hostile in the rest of it, though. And no, there most certainly isn't a "political conspiracy" against me. In fact, TTN, Piotrus, and Eagles247 are the ones arguing that there's a conspiracy. This (and the situation itself, which is complicated) will be properly explained in #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149, where I outline what is really been happening with the whole TTN debacle (Eagles247 has been deliberately vague and dishonest). Hopefully when given proper context, you reconsider your vote. So far, you are the only uninvolved party to vote. DarkKnight2149 13:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do not believe there is a conspiracy here or at AFD. I think in general, members of a WikiProject may be more inclined to support the inclusion of articles within their WikiProject scope but there is nothing wrong with that tendency as long as there are policies and guidelines to support their positions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the fabrication of evidence than anything else, and specifically attributing out of context unrelated diffs that you dug from my contribution history to the AfD situation. I never thought I would see an administrator stoop that low. DarkKnight2149 14:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're carrying on in the same manner here - accusing people of lying, calling them names, and making all sorts of wild speculations as to their motivations. That makes it hard to believe the diffs above have been taken out of context at all. Being rude and accusatory seems to be your default setting. Reyk _YO! 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What you want to believe is immaterial, Reyk. Eagles247 absolutely did cherry-pick random diffs from my comment history and lie about them being related to AfD and TTN, which would be fabricating evidence. Not to mention that those two diffs that are related to AfD aren't even uncivil to begin with. If Eagles247 doesn't want to get called out for lying, then I suggest he stops lying. If they continue libeling and disruption, they are going to get called out for doing so. It's as simple as that. I know I'm in the right because the only thing you have against me is - 1) I didn't get around to filing the ANI report as soon as I would have liked. 2) I called TTN and Eagles247 out for their disruption, which you are spinning as an "attack". You know it just as well as I do, which is why Eagles247 is being forced to lie and fabricate evidence to begin with.

"calling them names" - Speaking of lying, when was this supposed name-calling? I would love to see proof of that, unless you consider "biased and involved" a personal attack.

"making all sorts of wild speculations" Ironic. Nothing I have said has been speculation, and your, TTN, and Eagles247's entire position at WT:Notability (fiction) has been built on making wild speculations about other people's motives. Every time someone opposes you, you automatically label them a "radical inclusionist fanboy" without any evidence. The conflict started with TTN casting aspersions and refusing to get the point after I pointed out a mistake in his Goblin nomination, and the subject of this report is me warning him about continued disruption and refusal to engage in dispute resolution. But don't worry, #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 will be up tonight. I look forward to watching this dishonest proposal getting batted down by the Arbritation Committee. DarkKnight2149 05:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that Eagles247 has cherry picked anything. As far as I can tell, the diffs they provided absolutely are representative of your hostility and vivid imagination. This whole "conflict" started because you don't like TTN nominating things for deletion, nothing more. Perhaps you see him as an easy target because he was once punished by ArbCom, arguing that he must be also being disruptive now because he was once described as disruptive way back when. However, the fact that his nominations nowadays are backed by community consensus 97% of the time completely refutes that idea. You seem to have boundless time to badger people with angry rants, but seemingly no time to actually start the proceedings you keep threatening people with. Hurry up and start your ArbCom case already. I predict it won't go the way you want. Reyk _YO! 08:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"This whole "conflict" started because you don't like TTN nominating things for deletion, nothing more." You mean aside from the very genuine concerns repeatedly raised with TTN's behaviour and the nomination spamming? And the very demonstrable problems that they have caused at AfD? And the several other users that have spoken out about it? Your persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is exactly why we're here today. But keep digging your grave. I'm in the middle of typing up a proper rebuttal below, and it's going to be a lot harder for you to keep pushing the narrative "But they are just mad because articles are deleted!" when it's finished.

"the fact that his nominations nowadays are backed by community consensus 97% of the time completely refutes that idea." Your arbritary percentage doesn't indicate a consensus for what TTN is doing, for reasons already explained by multiple users at WT:Notability (fiction), the Arbcom report, and soon by me (once again) below. Despite your attempts to libel me, you have nothing and you know you have nothing. I'm still waiting for you to show where "name calling" took place, by the way. DarkKnight2149 10:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And if you want to claim that this is all an elaborate bluff (yet again), Reyk, here is a preview of what I am currently typing in that section. The goal is to have it finished tonight and posted either tonight or mid-day tomorrow. The ArbCom case won't be filed until this is over (and it won't take nearly as long, since the foundation would already be set), as the section header explicitly states below. But I guess you really want to keep pushing the "empty threats" narrative, huh? DarkKnight2149 10:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not on trial and I haven't started proceedings against anyone so your repeated insistence that I "have nothing" is not really relevant. I just think you're wrong. By the way, if you're going to accuse people of lying, you shouldn't then also do things like accusing me of calling others "radical inclusionist fanboys". I never said that and I defy you to find a diff where I did. Or just finish typing up your ArbCom case. I predict it won't go the way you want. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, the ArbCom case is after this ANI thread has wrapped. In fact, we're likely going to be migrating there as soon as this closes. I'm in the middle of working on #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 right now. And you, Eagles247, and TTN have claimed and insinuated more than once (particularly at WT:Notability (fiction)) that every. single. person that has spoken out against you is an irrational inclusionist (with zero evidence). You just said it again about me right here. That's the epitome of WP:IDHT and WP:ASPERSIONS if I have ever seen it. DarkKnight2149 10:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say anything of the kind. Either file your ArbCom motion or just drop the issue. Up to you. Either way, stop putting words in my mouth that I never said, and leave me alone. Reyk _YO! 10:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This will be my final reply to you, until I get the below section finished (which will have your diffs/proof in it), is to stop putting words in my mouth and stop libeling me. You are accountable for your actions. DarkKnight2149 10:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN to stop Darkknight2149 interacting with TTN. This constant attacking has to stop. Regardless of the merits of an AFD, AFD discussion should not be about the nominator. Paul August ☎ 13:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: It was a mistake to post the cliffnotes rebuttal above without giving the proper context first, by explaining the situation below at #Comments and proposals by Darkknight2149 (currently working on). It's a shame that my limited time on Wikipedia has allowed Eagles247 to scew the narrative and completely deceive uninitiated editors who don't actually know what's been going on. ArbCom seems like the natural conclusion. After all, they are the ones who sanctioned TTN for this kind of behaviour the first time.

One thing I should address, since it's the only remotely convincing point that Eagles247 has on me, is the narrative that I have been using "bluffs" to "intimidate". He's essentially arguing that, because I warned TTN about an upcoming ANI report numerous times and never got around to it, I have been trying to "intimidate" people. First of all, let me explain a few more tidbits of the situation:

1. My time on Wikipedia is more limited than it was three or so years ago. As users such as Paleface Jack can attest, my work in general tends to move pretty slowly.
2. The original goal was to file the ANI report the weekend after I dropped the warning on TTN's talk page. Before this could happen, however, the discussion at WT:Notability (fiction) took off and delayed it significantly (this was around mid-December). However, it was delayed because the discussion there was heating up and I was waiting to see how it would pan out. However, there was a period from the holidays to mid-January that it honestly looked like TTN had taken some of the feedback at heart (from myself and multiple users), slowed down, and started to take the time to properly assess the articles he was nominating. However, I found out that this wasn't the case two days ago.
3. Even with this notice from 2 days ago in mind, the ANI report would not have been filed immediately. For one, I am currently dealing with another situation above involving WP:BLUDGEONING. For two, I am currently busy in real life, which is I haven't even gotten my full response published yet. I probably shouldn't have published smaller rebuttals first, since they rely heavily on the context of the larger situation at #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149. Going incremental was a bad idea, apparently.

To be honest, whether or not he believes that I'm "bluffing" isn't relevant. This thread is becoming a trainwreck before it has really even begun, and the band aid has already been ripped off (so an ArbCom case request wouldn't take nearly as long to file as this ANI report did). If this situation isn't properly and justly resolved, the ArbCom case request will (hopefully) be filed the same week this thread concludes. DarkKnight2149 14:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide me a diff in which I accuse you of "bluffing"? You used it in quotes twice here which makes it look like I've used that word before, and I don't believe this is the case. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I have only interacted with Darkknight2149 in three threads prior to opening this discussion: Iron Maiden (comics) AFD in which he !voted "keep" per my rationale (despite my !vote supporting a redirect), Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Deletion_of_articles_about_fiction, and Mindless Ones AFD only because he pinged me to sling mud two months after I responded at the notability thread. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support One-way IBAN and AFD Topicban for Darkknight, I dont see how any context would make what DK is doing okay. but we will see once he finshes typing up the comments and proposel section. TTN and Eagles, im sorry you are having to deal with this bullshit. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support two-way interaction ban and topic ban both Darkknight2149 and TTN from AFD. One-way interaction bans are rarely workable, and based on the conversations linked above, TTN's nominations were very obviously disruptive. Darkknight2149 wasn't behaving well, but TTN himself often responded by senseless bludgeoning of Darkknight2149's comments. Give both of them the same. Incidentally, I agree that this case is likely too soon for Arbcom. Krow750 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krow750: Honestly, if TTN would just stop and engage in dispute resolution by making his case at WP:DRN, I would be more than happy to drop the stick based on whatever result is determined there (as I stated throughout the AfDs). But alas, that is unlikely to happen. While I do not believe that I deserve to be banned, I would support this on the condition that TTN engages in Dispute Resolution when the ban expires, instead of going right back to what he was doing before in some other form (he was already banned once for bulk-redirecting massive amounts of character articles, and now it's PRODs and AfDs).

A one-way IBAN would also put me in a very vulnerable position, especially after having been lied about several times, so I would have no choice but to file the ArbCom case if that happens. DarkKnight2149 06:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support One-way IBAN and AFD Topicban for Darkknight per OP. I observed, but didn't participate in several of the discussions quoted above, and the additional evidence combined with DKs behaviour in this thread show me that they clearly can't contribute non-disruptively in these areas. As an additional note, threatening, but not actually initiating proceedings is a never a good look, and neither is repeatedly bringing up a 10+ old finding. Scribolt (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support two-way IBAN for Darknight and TTN, noting that I mainly see DarkKnight's behaviour as the problem, and TTN only in so far that he keeps his interactions with DK running for way longer than is productive. While TTN tends to rebut notability claims of any editor in AfDs and generally makes it about the sources, it's obvious that DK has a beef with TTN and targets him specifically. DK has repeatedly hijacked AfDs so that I felt that subthreads had to be archived to make the AfD readable (1,2). My take on the discussion at WT:FICT (while it was still running) was that DK lacks self-reflection and suffers from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to learn from other people's suggestions, while at the same time continuing to threaten with ANI and ARBCOM, apparently to daunt others (as if that was likely to work, huh). DK appears unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and it's gotten so tiresome for me that I just ignore any DK discussion threads (with or about TTN) nowadays. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sgeureka: If a one-way interaction ban were enacted (with only Darkknight2149 being banned from interacting with TTN), are you of the belief that TTN would make reference or interact with Darkknight2149 in a disruptive manner in the future? I agree that TTN has let their arguments with Darkknight219 go on for far too long at times, but it doesn't seem like TTN is the one starting these debates. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Eagles247: I initially preferred a one-way IBAN, but then I found this AFD where TTN started the (way too long) interaction. It would be unfair to make it all about DK, and I somewhat agree with Krow750 that one-way IBANs rarely work and with DK that that would put DK in a very vulnerable position. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Per Sgeureka and his sensible comments, I prefer a two-way IBAN. On the other hand, I feel that the AfD ban is unnecessary for either party, since it's most important to just separate the two parties at the moment. Talrolande (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Delayed (briefly) per El C

Case request by Darkknight2149 In light of this ([272], [273], [274]), I have scrapped the comment I was typing and will now be opening a case request to the arbritration committee before today is over with. The rampant disruption of TTN and misconduct from Eagles247 is astounding. The latter is an administrator and should know better, and I'm glad he did half of my work for me by filing this report and prompting me to push my other work aside and take action. ArbCom is the most appropriate place to take this, since they are the ones who banned TTN for very similar disruption in the past. For immediate background information, I would recommend taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Deletion of articles about fiction. The case request will be about the persistent personal attacks, aspersions, gaming, battleground-behaviour, WP:IDHT, refusal to engage in dispute resolution, blindly mass nominating copious amounts of Start-class articles for deletion at once (based only on quickly scrolling to the References sections, which has caused several issues at WP:AFD), borderline WP:NOTHERE tendencies, and rampant dishonesty from TTN, as well as factioning, gaming, and administrator misconduct from Eagles247. Virtually nothing that Eagles247 has said here has been honest, and the case request will be open before today is over with. DarkKnight2149 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I re-read my responses at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Deletion of articles about fiction, and I stand by all of them. I also stand by reverting your attempted header change using the rollback tool in accordance with WP:TPO. I look forward to reading your ArbCom case request when it is filed, and I wish you luck with the process. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Comment - What Eagles247's diffs about me "threatening" ANI don't show is that every time I had begun working an ANI report, something else came up. The holidays, the discussion at WT:Notability (fiction), and a number of other things. After December, it honestly looked as though TTN had slowed down and actually begun assessing the articles that he was bulk-nominating. It wasn't until yesterday that I checked AfD and found that TTN (who has been warned way too many times at this point) was continuing exactly what he was doing beforehand. If Eagles247 believes that I am bluffing (I'm sure they will grasp onto anything they can get a hold of as a defense), I don't actually care either way, since the ArbCom case will be up soon regardless. This isn't the first time this week that someone has WP:BOOMERANGed themselves by filing a retaliatory report on me. Eaglea247's weak allegations are also reassuring. DarkKnight2149 18:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC) @Darkknight2149: you are risking having your Arbitration request, which lest we forget is the last step in the dispute resolution process, being declined as premature due to not having attempted everything else first. Cited above are numerous warnings you've made of submitting noticeboard reports about this dispute. Did you submit such a report yet? If not, I'm not sure this ANI discussion itself has been exhausted yet, having reached an impasse that would result in an accepted Arbitration request. Just a hunch. El_C 18:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC) @Darkknight2149: I'd recommend adding BOZ to the Arbitration request. TTN's comment in this AN thread about BOZ stating that many of his actions are in line with keeping the standards of 2006 Wikipedia raises concerns about whether or not the criterion 6 of WP:ADMINACCT - Repeated or consistent poor judgment - applies to BOZ's situation and should be grounds to desysop BOZ. ミラP 02:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC) For the record, and if it helps, since my AN discussion (and this is summarizing my last post there), I have acknowledged and apologized for my past mistakes and poor judgement. I have greatly reduced my efforts at article creation to focus only on notable topics, I have modified my approach at AFD to always cite relevant policies and avoid the appearance of canvassing, and I have avoided undeleting anything which clearly should not be undeleted and using my admin tools on any articles that I have been previously involved with, and will continue to do these things. I have made a lot of progress on my undeletions list, but I understand that I still have a lot to go through. BOZ (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I don't think this issue has much to do with BOZ at all, unless you want to drag everyone who votes the other way to TTN into it was well. Reyk YO! 12:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Also also for the record, although I clearly do not agree with a good majority of his goals on Wikipedia, I have actually come to respect TTN for at least his openness about it and I think he takes a far more tempered approach than he once did. I might have quarreled with him in the past, but I do not want to have conflict with him or anyone else anymore. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149

Up soon. To avoid further distractions, I'm going to hold off replying to users (such as Reyk, Eagles247, and anything that isn't necessary to reply to) until it's done. DarkKnight2149 10:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: you've been talking about how you're going to post something in this section for a couple days now. I think admins have been fairly patient so far and have given you enough time to respond adequately to the concerns raised here. I strongly suggest that you post something here very soon if you intend for it to be read before this thread is closed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I was planning on posting it yesterday, but something came up. I mentioned earlier that my time isn't unlimited these days. Would it be more convenient to go ahead and close the case with the proposed sanctions due to "support for Eagles' proposal and excessive delays in Darkknight's defense" and then have me reopen the case (either here or at ArbCom) when I can get it typed? Eagles' allegations are weak enough that I'm confident that debunking them and repealing the sanction won't be difficult, just time consuming. DarkKnight2149 03:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Genuine question (no subtext), by the way. That much is obvious, but I felt I should clarify just so my words don't get spun around by Eagles247 later as "aggression at AfD" again. He already pulled diffs from unrelated threads and claimed that they were "AfD-related", which is just one example of his dishonesty. DarkKnight2149 05:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

That might be best. It would give you as much time as necessary. Since I'm here, I could close this.... but I've interacted extensively with most of the people mentioned in this proposal except for Eagles 247. TTN, Reyk, BOZ, and I are acquainted through hundreds (maybe even thousands) of AfD discussions, which seems to be the crux of this dispute. I also probably interacted with each of them a bit more outside of AfD, too (looking for sources, discussing notability issues, that sort of thing). I've helped DK2149 deal with a harassment campaign by sock puppets of a troll. In short, it's small world, and I'm a pretty active editor/admin. So, it might be best if someone else closed this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for closure

Would an uninvolved admin (@El C: ?) please close per Darkknight2149's suggestion: close the case with the proposed sanctions due to "support for Eagles' proposal and excessive delays in Darkknight's defense" and then have me reopen the case (either here or at ArbCom) when I can get it typed?, and NinjaRobotPirate's demure, above? Paul August ☎ 14:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, since Serial Number 54129 seems to have misunderstood me (see below), I'm proposing this be closed with a sanction for Darkknight2149 as they themselves have proposed. Paul August ☎ 12:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "excessive delays in Darkknight's defense" is a contributing factor to a closure here, he's responded 16 times already with great length and detail, and has been unable to convince participants in this discussion to agree with him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether "excessive delays" should be a factor, or whether mention of such should be part of the language of the close, those would be things the closing admin should decide. Paul August ☎ 15:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"with great length and detail" This is false. My primary defense has yet to be posted and the situation has yet to be explained. All of my comments here have been supplementary statements responding to specific claims from Eagles, Reyk, and other users. And without my primary statement, those supplementary statements have been pretty ineffectual due to a lack of context. DarkKnight2149 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

So what are the "Boomerang" and "Note 2" comments above? There isn't any due process requirement where people have to wait for your response or as you call your "primary" defense. If you made lengthy responses but failed to provide your main points (saving them for some nebulous later time), do not be surprised if most people aren't going to go back and revise their !vote here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: What lenghty response? Boomerang is a compilation of quickfire responses to specific points that Eagles247 made and Note 2 was a follow up addressing something else. That would fall under "supplementary responses". A lot of the stuff mentioned there is also reliant on #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149. Examples - This type of dishonesty is concerning coming from an administrator, not to mention (in addition to everything else) grounds for WP:ADMINACCT. What's the everything else? Right off the bat, he spins the situation without even attempting to explain what has been happening at AfD. What's been going on at AfD? What is TTN's disruption? This excuse isn't valid for the reasons I'm about to outline below and are already outlined at WT:Notability (fiction). Nor does it justify TTN's disruption and refusal to engage in dispute resolution (the driving force of this conflict that Eagles neglected to mention). This never got outlined below, and where does Dispute Resolution enter the equation? And so on...

"do not be surprised if most people aren't going to go back and revise their !vote here" Which is exactly why I advised NinjaRobotPirate to go ahead and close the thread to begin with. The Request for Closure? That would be me. The defense was initially supposed to be posted within a few hours of Boomerang. Then the next day. Then the next day. Then I got over halfway done and believed it would be posted the day-before-yesterday. Then something came up, and I suggested a closure. If you and Serial Number 54129 are going to respond, please keep up with the conversation. DarkKnight2149 19:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear, the intention is to re-open the case as soon as it is done typing, either here or (more likely) a follow up at ArbCom. DarkKnight2149 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

So no matter what the closure is here, you will argue after it's done, either here or try again at ArbCom? Hopefully then you will provide us with your "primary" defense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: No, it should be closed in line with consensus; and in this particular case, the consensus seems to be in favour of osme kind of sanction for DK2K149 (although acertaining precisely what that sanction is to be is why the closing admin is paid big bucks). ——SN54129 11:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: You seem to have misunderstood me. Yes, it should be closed "in line" with consensus, and yes, as you say, the consensus favors a sanction for Darkknight2149. And this is exactly what I've proposed above, and in fact this is what Darkknight2149 themselves have proposed.

Many thakns! I assumed that DK2K149 was aligning themselves with the suggestion that they should (naturally) avoid sanction. Thanks for the clarification! ——SN54129 12:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yes, I understand. Sorry for not being more clear. Paul August ☎ 12:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Paul August, I have not read this report closely and am simply too busy today to do so. El_C 18:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN of Darkknight2149 and support AfD topic ban. Darkknight2149, whatever your strategy here is, it's not helping your cause to keep on promising to present some explanation or defense later and especially not helpful to further drag this on by stating that you will keep on elevating this. You would be better off honestly reviewing everything here instead of being so defensive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Why bother replying to a discussion you obviously know nothing about? I can only repeat - If you are going to respond, then keep up with the conversation. The intention was to post #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 immediately after the supplementary statement. The only thing delaying it is the length and scheduling in real life. As I was getting closer to finishing a few days later, NinjaRobotPirate mentioned how long it was taking and I suggested going ahead and closing the discussion to give me more time to work on it without keeping everyone waiting. None of this was planned, and I have certainly been honest than TTN, Reyk, and Eagles247.

I should also note that I was already going to file an ANI thread at some point, but Eagles247 wanted to beat me to the punch. So yeah, don't act shocked when my schedule doesn't align with yours. If I had an infinite amount of time, this ANI report would have been filed in early December. I'm also currently juggling a sock puppet situation at #Sock puppet investigation and DC Extended Universe. You would do well to familarise yourself with the situation before basing your support on a presumptuous narrative about "strategy". DarkKnight2149 22:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If you simply must know, I am currently dealing with medical issues, a child support situation, work-related stuff, and I'm about to move houses for the third time since 2018. And that's all I'm telling you. Even now, I'm typing this on a mobile phone while the #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 draft is on a laptop at my house. So familarise yourself on this ANI situation before you attempt to "confront" someone and throw down some sort of gauntlet. DarkKnight2149 22:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you have so much going on. Llywrch though is right to ask, is it really that important for you to fight about whether or not you can argue in deletion discussions in Wikipedia? In the amount of time you've spent berating me, you could add a single sentence giving some idea what you want here. My opinion is based on what I read. I'm sorry that we are now at "I have a giant, giant explanation I don't have time to post but I do have time to post a giant screed at you for not waiting on my giant explanation." ;-) Good luck and take some time to relax. Feel free to ping me when you post it and I'll review and revise my single meaningless !vote accordingly. :-) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved Admin, & I took the time to familiarize myself with the details. I also have a full-time job, 2 young children (whom I am told are "special needs") & will be dealing with some medical issues in the next month, so I have some sympathy for Darkknight2149 here. What I'd like to propose is this: that Darkknight2149 take a WikiBreak of 30-90 days, get away from this place for a while, & deal with what he has to deal with. In return, there will be no IBAN, no sanctions, or anything. Yes, the AfDs will continue in your absence, but that will happen anyway. Most critically, what's more important: dealing with your own life, or Wikipedia? Any articles that are deleted can be recreated, if you can provide a persuasive argument for that. (And I suspect some of these lists can be fixed if someone adds the needed reliable sources. It can be done in one's personal space.) But at the moment it appears to me you are not in a good shape to convince anyone you are right, let alone do the work to save these articles, & are facing sanctions & humiliation if you don't take a Wikibreak.

I'll wait until the weekend (West Coast time in the US) for an answer before closing this. And I ask other admins to give Darkknight that time to consider this offer, & not close this discussion with the expected outcome. -- llywrch (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Update: No response from Darkknight2149, but he's only edited once since I made the above offer. If DK does not make an edit in the next few days, I'll assume he accepted the offer & is on a 30+ day Wikibreak & close this thread. If he does return to his earlier, problematic behavior I'll need to enforce the community consensus. -- llywrch (talk) 22:01, 23 February 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: JesseRafe

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 to this forum, but it seems like this user is violating the three-revert rule. Please see here, as it seems he has reverted the same edit far more than three times re: Andrew Yang. --ImpartielEditingRef (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Just going to go out on a limb and suggest that this might be User:MangforYayor, who was blocked and is seeking revenge on me? This name is not that different from one of their suggested names in their unblock request. Ignoring the spurious allegation of 3RR. JesseRafe (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's MangforYayor. If I had to guess, I'd say they're both AndInFirstPlace (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't encountered that editor, but did notice a love for As Good as I Once Was among IER and the also blocked Special:Contributions/Samthecannon, which was mirrored by IP Special:Contributions/130.132.173.146, which looks pretty similar to Special:Contributions/130.132.173.206 that just now posted on the 2021 election article linked above's talk page and presumably currently active (don't know if worth a range block or if ...146 is related). Wasn't intending to do an SPI here, just defend myself from a drive-by accusation. JesseRafe (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the monomania for Yang and their behaviour, I'd say that, yes, this is Ai1P. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 23:10, 24 February 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.

Vague threats of reporting to government in edit summaries by an anon

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.

---

See 83.6.122.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Does it merit any warning or block due to WP:LEGAL? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Obviously it deserves an NLT warning. Please do the honours.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I stumbled across them because one of their edits came up on my watchlist. I have dropped a NLT warning on their page. They seem to be on a spree to eliminate "antipolonism" (whatever they think that is) by removing "Polish" from a series of criminals. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I reinstated their obviously POV category removals as these were substantiated by the article text. If there are any objections to these actions, please ping me as watching this board is an invitation for a headache. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Welp, that didn't entirely work. The IP user has returned and, while no longer making legal threats in their edit summaries, has made multiple POV removals and added BLP-violating unsourced material. I've left a second warning about content policies but they are continuing to make changes based on their preferences. Is there an admin that wants to take a look? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I undid some. IP is pushing a POV on nationality, see:[275], edit summary: "He was born Jewish. When he became Polish ?".--Chuka Chief (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That's just so ... uninformed. At the very least. Not appropriate. 2604:2000:E010:1100:45BC:4AF1:1705:5CE9 (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Anon in question blocked by User:QEDK. Resolved? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:03, 26 February 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:Rafe87 once 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.

---

Rafe87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fresh off a block for making personal attacks (this user's fourth block, and second in the last two months), Rafe87 has returned to making personal attacks. --WMSR (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor in that entry who has noticed WMSR and some of his brothers-in-arms (such as User:MrX) have a penchant to troll and make bad-faith arguments, bait editors into hostile exchanges, and then playing victim in front of the moderation when they are answered in kind. This is not intended as a personal attack but as a sincere description of a pattern of behavior: they edit in a biased war, suppress reliable sources and revert other editors with whom they disagree with hostile summaries that are intended to humiliate, bait opponents into angry exchanges, and then weaponize the administration. What WMSR is doing to me — crying to the moderation to block me every time his clear pattern of behavior and that of his ideological colleagues is challenged, however lightly — is harassment. And for what is worth, he himself has a record of getting blocked for trolling and violating editing reversal rules. — Rafe87 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The above is the definition of a personal attack, complete with blatant falsehoods: I am not part of any conspiracy to suppress anyone, and I have never been blocked. --WMSR (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You're getting ahead of yourself. At no point did I use the word conspiracy, nor do I believe there is one. You and MrX could very much be acting independently, but with the results of your actions going in the same direction, because you share an ideological bias, namely against Sanders and in favor of his attackers in the media. — Rafe87 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I would note that WMSR revert was absurd and it might be trolling. You can't revert because there are typos.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a deceptive comment (one of many made by SharabSalam recently). VSMR's edit summary was: "Contains typos, removes relevant information, introduces irrelevant information".[276] So the editor did not just argue for exclusion of content due to typos. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I provided further information about my revert on the talk page; let's keep content discussions there. --WMSR (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you used coined edit summary and justified your revert by saying typos shows why someone would be mad at your reverts.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous justification that is confrontational and clearly intended to provoke hostility from me by humiliating me. Very likely that's what he wanted: bait me into getting angry so he could cry victim to the moderation yet again. — Rafe87 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As said before, I'm not the only editor in that entry who has taken issue with the approach to editing that article taken by WMSR and a few others, but I'm the only one who's been singled out for identifying their problematic behavior, which, yes, borders on trolling. When WMSR proposed that Media coverage of Bernie Sanders — an article that he's ironically obsessed with editing — be deleted from Wikipedia, other editors independently accused a pattern of trolling on the part of WMSR and a gaggle of other editors, who are clearly working to suppress this subject from this encyclopaedia entirely. (Bear in mind that that had been the third time in two months that Media coverage of Bernie Sanders and its predecessor, Media bias of Bernie Sanders, had their deletion proposed, with the attempt on the latter succeeding, unfortunately.) That's what the source of the tensions detailed here come from: WMSR simply do not want discussion of this subject on Wikipedia. Rafe87 (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR's reversal of my edits was itself reverted by another editor, and a third editor, who seems to be an administrator, has noticed that WMSR misrepresented the content that I inserted, and that he has no business reverting other editors on the basis of alleged typos. WMSR has a pattern of sloppy, poor quality editing, and animus-based reversal of content, as the case at hand just now shows. If anyone should be given a timeout from that article, that should be him. — Rafe87 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Glass houses, my friend. You are making completely baseless allegations against me on a noticeboard. I did not revert your edit solely on the basis of a typo. Anyone is welcome to look through my edit history; they will not find a pattern of sloppy, poor quality editing, and animus-based reversal of content as you allege. --WMSR (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• So, let me make sure I understand this: Rafe87 makes an unproved unprovoked attack on me[277], in response to a comment I made 11 days ago to another editor. Then, when Rafe87 is called out for it, they double down with a "brothers in arms" slur. On top of that, Rafe87 has the audacity to accuse me of having bias against Bernie Sanders, the only political candidate to whom I have ever made a campaign contribution, in my entire life. (And I will gladly send proof of that to Arbcom upon request).

What I would like to know is why editors like this keep getting second, third, and fourth chances[278] to moderate their behavior like everyone else is expected to do. Can we just move this to WP:AE? - MrX 🖋 18:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: You can file a report at AE anytime you feel you have enough evidence to justify sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I know Bbb23, but believe it or not, it's not how I love to spend my time. I may have to though if this keeps up. - MrX 🖋 19:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It was not an "unproved (sic) attack". It was merely an observation — that I'm not the only editor who can see that you and WMSR edit that entry in bad faith. Speaking of unprovoked attacks, do you remember that you reverted content that I inserted into the entry — detailing Chuck Todd's "Nazi" attack on Sanders's supporters — by saying repeatedly that I was engaging in "manufactured outrage"? That was a clear cut case of hostile editing and "unprovoked attacks", and if anyone should have been booted out from editing that article, it should have been you. Instead, you ganged up with WMSR to have me blocked. And by the way, did you notice that, despite my getting banned for a week, and taking a voluntary vacation for another week, the Chuck Todd content was inserted again by other editors? Maybe it's not me who was "manufacturing outrages", but you and WMSR who are fond of removing content just because you dislike it, using bad faith justifications not founded on Wiki policy? — Rafe87 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You were blocked for a week on February 13 by El C for personal attacks. You stayed away from Wikipedia for about 5 days more. Apparently, it didn't do you any good because you immediately resume the behavior that got you blocked. As I stated before in another discussion on ANI about you, I believe myself to be WP:INVOLVED. If I didn't, I would indefinitely block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, I don't think you are well-informed about this issue and I would suggest you not to make any ridiculous comment in this thread again.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23: It didn't do any good because the causes of my so-called misbehavior — MrX's and WMSR's trolling, bad faith editing, and personal attacks and harassment of me — have themselves not changed. If anything they're being abetted by bad administrators like you.

And I think you're bad administrator. Truly awful. Remember when I tried to fix the title of Kathua rape case into the more accurate Kathua rape and murder case, because the rape victim was also murdered, and you reverted me for God knows what reason? Right-wing bias in favor of the killers, perhaps? Islamophobia against the victim? I don't remember. I know it was stupid and unjustified considering the facts of the case; and, whether you intended it or not, your reversal of me had the effect of downplaying the whole dimension of the crimes perpetrated against that young Muslim girl.

It's good that you consider yourself "involved", because you are. I have cited here several instances of these two editors engaging in unprovoked personal attacks against me and poor quality editing on the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, and instead of commenting on my case all you do is incite these two users (considered trolls by several other editors) to prolong their campaign against me. — Rafe87 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has extensively edited the pages of Islamophobes and far-right individuals (and gotten into countless content disputes over it), I've not seen anything that would indicate that the the editor Bbb23 is an Islamophobic right-winger or that his editing is biased in favor of those causes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 month. It's always a really poor idea to make personal attacks (Islamophobia? really?) *in the middle* of an ANI thread about your personal attacks, especially right after a previous 1 week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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

The 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.

---

After the block

@Floquenbeam: you may have missed that he's simply carried on the completely unfounded and ridiculous personal attack on his talk page. He tried to make an appeal but messed up the template. I'm not wasting time fixing it but I declined saying if he continues in that vein he can expect a longer block. Looks like you were too kind. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Meh; that seems like sarcastic venting after a block, and doesn't mention any user by name. I'm inclined to keep talk page access for now, in case they want to post an actual unblock request. No objection if another admin feels differently, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI, talk page access removed by User:El_C. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The editor had an unblock request which read: At no point by the way, did I say that BBB23 is certainly Islamophobic, I said that could be one of the reasons he reverted my wholly justified change in the title of an article, and that, "whether he intended or not", he's reversal of the change had the effect of downplaying an anti-Muslim crime against a little girl. That is an unacceptable provocation, even when written to downplay a more egregious personal attack. I have redacted it and, as mentioned, revoked talk page access. El_C 19:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Partially in my defense, when I made my comment, their first unblock request didn't mention Bbb23 by name. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We may actually get somewhere when someone looks beyond superficial name calling and actually tries to understand what the issues are. There are a group of editors who hate that article, have tried to nuke it at AFD and DRV several times now, and continually remove large chunks of sourced text. But they’re at least polite when they do it, so apparently that’s not the issue. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been watching that article and I think there is a case of WP:TAGTEAM in that article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I'm sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. I'm not on Wikipedia to "troll", I am not tag-teaming, and I didn't come here to face continued attacks and unsubstantiated accusations from you. --WMSR (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note Levivich comments [279][280]. I am not the only who noticed this and it seems that the same editors are here as well. ha!. Also, WMSR you are removing a comment that doesnt contain any personal attack. Refactoring other editors comments is not a good idea.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Pointing out other unsubstantiated accusations does not substantiate your accusation. Restoring personal attacks on a talk page isn't a great look either. --WMSR (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, its not unsubstantiated? Its already in effect in this thread. The same team that Levivich talked about. Also, there is no personal attack in that comment. If you want to ask admins here if thats a personal attack comment then do it. Where is the personal attack in there?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nearly every time I have seen a TAGTEAM accusation it has been false. O3000 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no evidence of tagteaming. SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another (prejudiced by past content disagreements/possible disputes with user) and should be wholly disregarded, and probably forbidden from commenting on threads unless they have a reason to be directly involved. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I am actually involved in this and you are the one who is not involved. You seems to be upset that I showed your bludgeoning habit in #User:Wikieditor19920?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam You do understand the meaning of "substantiated" right? Accusations require evidence. Where does your comment indicate a formal finding of tagteaming by the users you named, or any other substantive evidence? For you to suggest that an accusation of tagteaming is "substantiated" without any actual evidence is unquestionably covered by WP:NPA. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, if you see my comment above, I haven't made a direct accusation and thats for a reason, this isnt the right place and the right time to make a direct accusation. I have noted that I found another editor (Levivich) who also pointed out some evidences of tag-teaming. The same team appeared here although they are all not involved. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a case of WP:TAGTEAM in that article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC) You just now referred to these same users as a "team." An accusation which you claim is {{not unsubstantiated}. Unless you can provide a scintilla of evidence to support this, WSMR is correct to characterize what you're suggesting as a personal attack. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't made a direct accusation and Levivich comment shows the same team that is here. How about your direct accusation here This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another (prejudiced by past content disagreements/possible disputes with user) and should be wholly disregarded, and probably forbidden from commenting on threads unless they have a reason to be directly involved.

Where are your evidences?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Funny that you jumped here apparently without knowing that I am involved in this. "prejudiced by past content disagreements/possible disputes with user", I feel like you accidentally described yourself.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The "evidences" are your claims here and in the thread above. And please, stop the WP:WIKILAWYERING. You just stated that you "think there is a case of tagteaming" and provided diffs implicating the users above. You can choose to back off that accusation or apologize, but don't claim you didn't make it. You also suggested that this tagteaming claim was "substantiated." It is not. Don't make insinuations about other editors that you aren't willing to stand by. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't made a direct accusation, you are the one who made a direct accusation. There is no evidence in the above thread. There are only evidences of your bludgeoning in RfCs and AfDs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:15, 25 February 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.

83.6.122.128 reported by Mr Xaero and Tymon.r

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

---

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

83.6.122.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism after final warning. IP user is removing categories without justification from multiple articles along with claims that individuals int he subject matter are not Polish without any references or citations. See summary for articles on the contributions page [281]. Mr Xaero ^☎️ 23:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Co-report: Clear case of disruptive editing. Multiple warnings given, including by me in Polish, which seems to be his native language. All unsuccessful. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The user has been blocked from editing, so I believe no further discussion on ANI is needed. Could some uninvolved editor WP:PCLOSE this? Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:46, 26 February 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:Krish! requesting Standard Offer consideration

Moved to WP:AN § Standard offer request by User:Krish!

Moving this since AN is more typically used for unblock appeals. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

Krish! is requesting unblock consideration per the Standard Offer. Their unblock request can be found at User talk:Krish!#Standard offer appeal. A while back, Krish! was part of a nucleus of strong editors of Indian entertainment content. That population has dwindled a bit in recent years. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Support per WP:ROPE. Their request seems sincere, and checks all of the standard unblock boxes. I have no problem letting them back into the fold. --Jayron32 16:14, 26 February 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.

Are user warning templates vandalism?

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

---

Placing user warnings isn't vandalism, surely? I placed a warning on Spartan's talk page because they reverted a container category that I had removed, only for them to revert my warning citing "vandalism", then slapping a vandalism template on my talk page. I tried to point out to them that user warnings were not vandalism, but this was met with the same removal citing "vandalism" and further vandalism templates on my page. This cycle contiued further. It also appears that it is fine for them to remove warning templates from their talk page, but if I do it, it is "bad faith". This seems to be some kind of strange "revenge" templating behaviour. Can some clarity be given to myself and Spartan on this? 212.135.65.247 (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Unless your template usage was literally premised on nothing and made to annoy Spartan, it wouldn't be vandalism, so shouldn't be reverse templated as such. Good-faith cross-templating should never occur - I've never seen it be productive. While I note you tried to engage on their page, I'd suggest both of you try to communicate by a non-template discussion, on one of your talk pages. @Spartan:, the editor (like you) is entitled to remove the warnings from their talk page - doing so is taken as notice they've been read, but is permitted. For this specific instance, I'd suggest a cease and desist on both sides, and either talk without templates or just pause from engaging. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Providing Spartan doesn't template me further on this issue, I'm happy for this to be the end of it. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. When dealing with someone who's been on WP for over a decade, it's usually a better idea to politely discuss an issue or ask a question.Jacona (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I actually prefer Wikipedia:Don't template anyone, which explains why warning templates are rarely a useful tool when trying to work collaboratively with others. --Jayron32 13:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, WP:TTR. But these are all just essays. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Calling them "just essays" does not mean they are not useful or true. Other pages are "just policy" or "just guidelines" and they are only as useful as they can make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia and its community work better together. --Jayron32 13:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

They are "just" essays, as they could, as the disclaimer at the top says, represent a minority viewpoint. I am not wrong to template a "regular" just because an essay suggests not to, especially when there is another essay giving an opposing view. I'm sure I am correct in saying that the user warning templates are not designed with the idea that a select group of people are somehow exempt, and there is no guideline/instruction in place requiring that you should check the standing of an editor before templating them. In any case, the editor in question could have ignored/removed what was a completely valid use of a template and moved on, but they chose to repeatedly template me with false accusations of vandalism instead, so they cannot be that averse to the implementation of user warning templates. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong or right in this context is determined by outcome, not intent. Either something works or it doesn't, and thinking it should have worked doesn't make it right. I'm just saying that there are better ways of handling disputes than templates, and you are of course free to choose whatever method you want, but be aware that choosing methods that are not known to be useful in solving the problem will not solve the problem. I have assumed you are interested in improving the situation, and solving problems, and would also be interested in improving outcomes of possible future disputes. Perhaps that was an overreach on my part. Then again, if you weren't interested in making things better, you'd have never started this thread in the first place. --Jayron32 14:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Jayron. I used to have the same mindset that templates were fine to use because they are built into the system and not prohibited by policy or guideline. I now see them as being sort of like car horns; they have a place, but it is not good to use them in situations where it would be better to have a conversation instead. Just as you wouldn’t walk around blasting an air horn to start a conversation in real life, you shouldn’t use templates to replace conversations on WP. It isn’t a against the rules, but something does not have to be against the rules to be counterproductive. Michepman (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There exist soft versions of many templates which you can follow up with a polite request. OTOH, there are some seriously nasty editors and repeat offenders who need the less polite templates. On the third hand (foot?), it’s kinder to template someone that has violated 3RR and request a self-rvt than to file at AN/3. For 1RR, a simple reminder is usually better as so many 1RRs are accidental. O3000 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

In the context of a good-faith editor alerting another good-faith editor about a problem with editing, there is no such thing as a soft version of a template. If the poster is not competent to speak in English, they should be working on another project. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Spartan and personal attacks, falsely claiming edits are vandalism, falsely claiming to be an admin, and more

Hi. I'm extremely concerned by several aspects of Spartan's behavior. One of the first things I noticed about them, was they were falsely claiming to be an administrator on their userpage. I removed it, and they began reverting my edit repeatedly, claiming it was "just a joke". Whenever someone makes a comment to their talk page, Spartan's usual response is to revert them, claiming whoever left them a message was a "vandal". They had been warned about that before, but have continued since. They also left User:Doniago a fairly serious personal attack back in 2017. I gave them a warning about some of these things, and their only response was to revert it and call me a vandal and a harasser, repeating their behavior which in part lead to the warning in the first place. They also have a habit of making reverts without explaining them. I'm very concerned about these issues and I would like the admins to take a look at them. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, I just noticed there was a report about them above. I think this one covers very different issues, though. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It might be best to merge the reports, for clarity, and so users don’t ignore something that might be relevant. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's really necessary, though. The other report is more focused on templates than anything. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

please stop harassing me. Thank you. if you vandalize my talk page i will continue to undo the vandalism. .... added at 02:05, 27 February 2020 by Spartan.

I don't know why you said I was "vandalizing the page" when I notified you of this discussion. I have to notify you. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Spartan, by "vandalism" or "harassment", do you just mean "doing something that I don't like"? -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have to say I'm amazed that we had an editor who hasn't been here for years return only to edit war with two separate people in a single day. I don't think the behavior of the other party in either case is particularly spotless but neither is Spartan's behavior. For the admin userbox to be a "joke" for Spartan, things needed to be a lot clearer than what was on that page - it would not be clear to many other editors that the user was not an administrator. However, in general users get to manage their userpages. This includes IP users. So if they want to clear the warnings they can. For all the reasons expressed above not templating someone else back is also wise. But yeah I'm just having a hard time getting past an editor I'd love to be welcoming back to Wikipedia who gets in two really picayune edit wars on their first day back. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, do you think you could expand on "I don't think the behavior of the other party in either case is particularly spotless"? TheAwesomeHwyh 02:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

TheAwesomeHwyh, yes. I did for the IP but you're right I didn't for you. It's a bad idea to edit war with anyone anywhere. In this case you also have the factor that editors have a lot of leeway over their userspace. Now in this case I agree with you. But that's all the more reason to have sought intervention before the first revert not the fourth. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, thanks for the input! TheAwesomeHwyh 02:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

People sometimes claim to be administrators to encourage editors to leave them alone; see, for example, Spartan's talk page, which threatens people with a block if they vandalize it. Spartan seems to take long wikibreaks, then reappear to do something disruptive. When he did this in 2010, he was indefinitely blocked as compromised. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked Spartan for their disruptive editing. Simply reverting the IP's correct edit with no explanation was disruptive, both contravening WP:BOLD and WP:COMMUNICATE. Blanking their attempts to communicate is disruptive, calling it vandalism is tendentious and a personal attack. When a third party stepped in, they were also blanked and labeled a vandal. If there's no communicating with this user in good faith, blocking is the only resolution on the table. Hopefully they will learn from this short block and we will not have further issues. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Also, does anyone have insight as to whether the Jimbo quote on their talk page is real? If it's not, it's arguably defamatory and should certainly be removed. If it is, I may add it to my own talk page. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Jimbo sometimes speaks a bit bluntly when he's annoyed, but he doesn't talk like that. If you do a search, Spartan's user page is the only place this phrase appears in all of English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:28, 27 February 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 unsourced genre's

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 continues to add unsourced genre's and various other unsourced info to articles as can be seen here, here and here for example, despite repeated final warnings in November, December and again in February. Please could an admin remind them of the importance of Verify. Robvanvee 05:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indef, thanks for reporting. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Au contraire, tis you who should be thanked. Robvanvee 05:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by garden variety hoaxer

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.

---

Legal threat in two edits (edit summary on the left, and actual text on the right of this diff). Editor is upset that their fake claim to the non-existant title Duke of Northern Ireland is faced with deletion as a hoax. As legal threats should be reported here, and not a lot seems to be lost if this editor gets booted off anyway, here we are. Fram (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Now removed their TPA as well. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 27 February 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.

Reviewing by User:GSS and others

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 my fellow Wikipedians. It has come to my attention that most editors here are really bias about paid editors particularly at WP:AfC. I'ld say this is the main reason why most undisclosed paid editors forcefully create articles in the mainspace instead of AfC. I had a convo with GSS regarding two of my articles (Draft:Daniel Etim Effiong and Draft:Big Boy Toyz regarding Notability on this thread here but he never responded back to me, the other article is Draft:Asif Bhamla where he never gave any feedback. I've fully disclosed being WP:PAID and have been abiding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I feel this treatment is fairly a bit harsh upon. So I come here seeking community review and here from other editors who are not bias about WP:PAID. Dileshwar Singh Patil (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the drafts in question, but must note that starting a complaint with accusations of bias against well-established editors rarely achieves the desired result. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I've reviewed the drafts - they're promotional in character ("His passion for performances" isn't a line that should appear in a biography) and are marginally notable. And it's "biased," not "bias." These drafts were properly rejected and fall well short of the kind of contributions expected from disclosed paid contributors. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I also see that GSS hasn't been properly notified about this AN/I thread. Dileshwar Singh Patil, please follow the instructions at the top of this page and notify GSS. Thank you in advance. OhKayeSierra (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• The only problem I see here is the OP. The fact that they can't write a decent draft to justify moving it to main space is not the fault of the reviewers. The OP hasn't had an article in name space since 2017. Hopefully, their clients aren't paying too much.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Acroterion and Bbb23 - these drafts are promotional in their language, and would need to be largely rewritten to be accepted, I don't see anything wrong with the declines, which were from multiple users, not just GSS. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Both of those drafts are laden with promotional writing and of borderline notability at best; they absolutely do not belong in mainspace and declining them was the correct course of action. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which Dileshwar Singh Patil claims to abide by, also include WP:NPOV and WP:ADMASK; I don't see much evidence that these are being adhered to, and would posit that a block-flavoured boomerang under WP:NOTHERE might be the most apt conclusion to this complaint. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Jayron32: Because of Yunshui's suggestion, which I think is a reasonable one, I think we should leave this open.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorsing the boomerang WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR block suggestion by Yunshui. Because there's concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:ADMASK, I'd also suggest that the user should be able to request to be unblocked under {{2nd chance}} and prove that they're able to edit neutral topics constructively. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse boomerang. If there's one thing the project needs less than a paid editor, it's an incompetent paid editor. ——SN54129 14:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse boomerang. (I wont repeat what has already been said) This is obvious harassment of GSS with intentions to intimidate him. The proposers must not be allowed to get away with it. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse boomerang - Paid editors get less rope.--WaltCip (talk) 15:00, 27 February 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.

Islam and domestic violence

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

---

>> @Arsi786: and @Doug Weller: also noted on their respective Talk Pages as per {subst:ANI-notice}

There are many Wiki articles relating to the Quran which require improvement. I have detailed those issues, as I see them, along with my rectification proposals, here: Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles [283]

The list of my contributions is here : [284]

In Islam and domestic violence [285] I have run into a 'road block' here: Special:Diff/941835903 and Special:Diff/941843665

This has been discussed (unsatisfactorily) on the Talk Page here: [286]

Appreciate Wiki Editor(s) oversight to resolve this issue. Koreangauteng (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Koreangauteng, as a content dispute, this matter is not appropriate for AN/I. You posted an extremely long wall of text at WikiProject Islam, and I'm frankly surprised that anyone there took the time to read through the whole thing and respond to it. If you have specific disagreements about specific article content, I'd suggest you look into our many dispute resolution options. creffett (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion moved to [287] Koreangauteng (talk) 04:03, 25 February 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:The Great Corrector

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.

---

After adding a WP:BLP notice the Talk: page of The Great Corrector (talk · contribs), I noticed some pretty offensive material there, specifically this. It's pretty old (been there since 2015), and @Winner 42: only edits sporadically these days, but the fact that it has been left there since 2015, and the ratio of warnings to edits, indicates to me that User:The Great Corrector is WP:NOTHERE. I'm also pinging @Bishonen: regarding this modification of her comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment of WP:NOTHERE - this editor's actions do not look like someone willing to play nice in the sandbox with the other editors. The talk page in particular is troubling, as is the assertion without a trace of irony that they make no mistakes and have "absolute power" (and we all know what absolute power does...) ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They're playing the long troll game. I'd block, but Floquenbeam beat me to it. Always one step ahead...-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 27 February 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.

Warning a user

A user named is sabotaging and vandalising the Russia page, I put honest, fair and accurate information on the page but they keep changing it. Any administrator out there, please help.

GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please stop him and anyone who vandalizes this page and the Demographics of Russia page. (e.g. vandalised past 4th warning).

IntercontinentalEmpire (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• What I see here is you repeatedly inserting information to claim to be accurate, but are failing to provide a reliable source for. Also, you are required to notify users of ANI discussions, which I will do so now. Amaury • 17:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• IntercontinentalEmpire When someone disagrees with you, what you are supposed to do is go to the article talk page and start a friendly discussion to amicably solve your problems by comparing source information and making sure the Wikipedia article reflects reliable sources. What you are doing instead is to edit war, to falsely call their editing "vandalism" and to claim they are sabotaging something. If you press forward in this regard, it is unlikely to go well for you. Instead, you should try that other thing where you discuss things with people in a friendly manner. --Jayron32 17:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User:141.161.133.248

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

This is user User:141.161.133.29, who is currently blocked for constant POV edits with misleading edit summaries. They appear to be back under this new IP, with the same MO as before. Tdc42 (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note that this is from the IP range of Georgetown University. A rangeblock is probably not a great idea if it can be avoided. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Administrator note I've blocked the 133.248 for 2 weeks for block evasion, reset the 133.29's original block, and blocked 133.10 for 2 weeks. A temporary rangeblock of Special:Contributions/141.161.133.0/24 may make sense here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

IP account with WP:UNDUE interest in mass shootings

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.

---

• 96.54.186.128 (talk · contribs)

Persistent takeover of town and city articles with details of mass shootings. An impressive example: Kettle Valley. Restoring content after a final warning here merits discussion [288]. Has received visits from multiple admins, including Acroterion, Materialscientist and Drmies. Hasn't gotten the message, and doesn't seem deterred by a temporary block. These articles aren't the venue for this obsession. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, we are all obsessed by different things, but I am more obsessed with people who don't use references in their articles, as was not done by this user with his additions to Kettle Valley here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kettle_Valley&oldid=942522690. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

True enough. We can add unsourced or poorly sourced content to undue emphasis, as well as a predilection for adding specific gun makes and models into text when it's not especially helpful. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I find this creepy. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Likewise. An almost complete absence of Edit summaries also makes it hard to understand the goal of this editor. Even when one is provided, it's disconcerting. For the one shooting incident in my country this editor seems to be interested in, the only Edit summary provided was "Baker steps through the door, a loaded Remington 12-gauge double barrel shotgun at the ready on his hip." That IS creepy. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

They were using the quote directly from a source; my question is whether this is a WP:RELIABLE source [289]. They've referred to blogs and even copied directly from a police report. Yeah, there's a disquieting quality to this. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"They were using the quote directly from a source" Yes. I thought that might be the case. But that demonstrates a lack of understanding of how things work here. When doesWP:COMPETENCE come into play? HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

A WP:NOTHERE block may be in order before they do any more damage; the alternative is monitoring, which is a timesink. Miniapolis 00:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Monitoring in the future? I suspect we haven't begun to go through the back catalogue. Nothing added here was sourced [290]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 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 disruption

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 talk page

This user has a SPA agenda (it seems to be about one word) changing all instances of Demon to their preferred word "Fiend". A couple of the latest instances (outside their 'tribs) can be seen here: Special:Diff/942075625 and Special:Diff/942626768. Definite NOTHERE editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

More than one word. Their use of categories is concerning. Might be some good in there but alot of their work needs reverting. Particularly adding elf category to dwarf pages. Reallt should be restricted from using HotCat or anything to do with categories at a minimum. Slywriter (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

delete many contents from page without cite any sources just because one words is unaccepable deed

also in classic sources of Draugr and Dvergr are just synonyms of svartalfar and dokkalfar

just disagreeing with one of member isn't count as edit war

thank u for understanding

أبو السعد 22 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Prefer indefinite block per WP:CIR, but would settle for a topic ban from folklore and from category changes. I was going to start an ANI on this user and was relieved to see that had already been done. This user seems to be obsessed with changing folklore terminology based only on their own opinions. Any communication from them has terrible grammar, makes unsupported assertions, and seems to be shifting the burden of proof. See above, see this bizarreness, see this, and see the numerous complaints on the user's talk page from users like Flyer22 Frozen, Bloodofox, Johnuniq, and CorbieVreccan. And yes, they are edit warring at Succubus. [291][292][293][294] Crossroads ^-talk- 02:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• أبو السعد 22 (talk · contribs) is not helping the encyclopedia. Combining broken English with a focus on fiend is wasting other editor's time. As unfriendly as it may be, a CIR block is needed. The global contribs shows the user is temporarily blocked at the two other projects where they have a significant edit count. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite Ban / Topic Ban along with Full Revert unless someone has the patience to see if anything of value has been added. Glancing through Wikidata and Arabic wiki(via Google translate), it seems to be the same obsession with redefining folklore terms to their preferred terms. CIR ban seems appropriate as they are likely to continue being a net negative. Slywriter (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked per above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Can you also rollback their 'tribs. - FlightTime (open channel)

Technically, yes, but I think it would probably be better to be more discriminate in reverting the edits. Some of them were bizarre, like putting the comic book villain Ra's al Ghul, a human criminal, in a category for ghouls. But other edits are probably not so easily reverted without some kind of justification. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

When I mentioned a rollback, I misread their contributions as 94, not ~940. Guess some old fashioned sleuthing is in order. Slywriter (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Only just got to this, but support indef block. Thank you, everyone who took care of this. User is WP:NOTHERE to work in collaboration. I am going to delete the bizarre category / categories they made and moved random articles into. I didn't go through every single one of their edits yesterday, but all those I checked were unconstructive at best, and most were disruptive. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, their creation of categories and rearranging articles into them is a complete mess. We're going to need help from an editor or editors who specialize in cats, and hopefully who can run a bot to put these articles back where they were. I tried to just revert what they did with the Sprites category, and the Ghouls stuff, but this is too much for me to do manually. Seriously, just revert it all. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

They posted to their talk page and mentioned that they use Google Translate. That might be the reason for the bizarre categories, calling dwarves "elves", as well as using "fiends" for everything. GTranslate is really bad at conveying semantic subtleties and more often than not its translations are misleading. Any editor who needs translation software to contribute at all is unlikely to be able to contribute productively. Unfortunately. --bonadea contributions talk 08:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to say I agree with CorbieVreccan that all their changes should be reverted. I have never seen a positive edit from them, and the person has engaged in so many category changes that a great many of them are probably on little watched articles that may never get corrected. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: Maybe WP:CAT's talk page would have editors familar with this? But what I would do is treat it page by page - revert their edits to articles and previously existing categories, keeping in mind they have already been reverted in some cases, and blank their created categories. This will empty out their created categories and also prevent them from appearing in higher level good categories. The created categories can then be CSD'ed or taken to CfD.

Here is the statistical analysis of their contributions. How far back did you get when reverting? I may be able to help.

Edit: Yeah, it's arduous. Maybe a bot would be better, I don't know. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 16:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing this, the mythology student in me is screaming a little. I will say that a couple of the categories they created seem plausible (Category:Phoenix birds, for example, even if I don't like the name), but there's a lot of noise and very little signal here. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This IP is quacking like a WP:DUCK: [295] Crossroads ^-talk- 16:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Creffpublic: respect the scream. There's no need to keep any of this. I just deleted more of the empty cats. If a bot helper doesn't show up, we'll get to it all eventually. But there's no reason to humour this user. Even if they meant well, the end result has been tantamount to vandalism. Go look at their talk page; they're now just trolling the admins in their unblock requests, as well as attempting to evade the block with IP socking. They've worn out their welcome here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:50, 27 February 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 Trumpabteilung

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.

---

(First time I have submitted one of these. Sorry for any mistakes.)

Trumpabteilung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed the nationality of a Jewish writer. The article in question is Louis Fürnberg, and the two times the user has made this edit can be found here and here.

I am not sure of the correct action to take (other than reverting the edit) but the combination of the username and the information they are removing is concerning. ToBeFree suggested this was the correct location for this information. I will notify the user once I have submitted this. Red Fiona (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(via IRC:) I wasn't entirely sure about this, but it might need administrative attention, so I've suggested to make the report on Wikipedia, here, for lack of a better idea. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Have you tried discussing it with him? I do not see discussion on the article's talk page. 2604:2000:E010:1100:45BC:4AF1:1705:5CE9 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  It appears to be a behavioral issue spread across multiple pages, and by a new user whose name ("Trump department", German) might indicate a trolling-only account. I think it's okay to request some independent eyes on the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  It's generally a problematic behavior when editors remove nationalities and insert ethnicity or religion - i.e., removing Czechoslovak-German and substituting Jewish. While there can be benign circumstances, it's generally a sign somebody's up to something. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Certainly odd. But I do think the editor should be addressed on a talk page. 2604:2000:E010:1100:45BC:4AF1:1705:5CE9 (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  I left them a note. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Strangely, it is similar to the questionable edits of the editor discussed above at "Vague threats or reporting to government in edit summaries by an anon". 2604:2000:E010:1100:45BC:4AF1:1705:5CE9 (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Either block them, or at the very, very least get them to change their username. A name which closely resembles Sturmabteilung, includes a Trump reference, and is busy editing Jewish topics and changing Schindler's Ark from a "non-fiction novel" to plain "novel" (with the much stronger implication that it isn't true, which combined with the Holocaust should set off all kind of warning bells)... This is not some coincidental unlucky editing / username combination, this is trolling or spreading some distasteful position. Fram (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I've left a warning template for them so hopefully we might get some response. Lemon martini (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, seriously. The user has been editing Wikipedia (admittedly very sparsely) since 2018 with that username? I've softblocked them. No prejudice to other sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 13:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC).
  • Good block per WP:NONAZIS. This is not the kind of thing we need to pussy foot around with. --Jayron32 15:19, 26 February 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.

As One (opera)

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.

---

Persistent addition of promotional blurbs, reviews, and some older copyright violation, added by multiple WP:SPAs. I've already removed some of the content in question, but it's been restored by new editors. As of now, three separate sections are devoted largely to positive reviews. I'm also dubious about the inclusion of a large table for past productions as WP:UNDUE. More eyes needed for copy editing, rev/deletion of copied material, COI and possible WP:MULTIPLE appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The timeline makes me wonder if there are socks involved. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't going to run a check, but since we're speculating here about policy violations, I did. It looks to me like they're just a bunch of new users collaborating with each other. I doubt there's anything nefarious going on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Two of the accounts were created within an hour or so of one another, and both only edit this page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Could be a school project. --Jayron32 12:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

They lay dormant for weeks before even making an edit to the article. It just seems odd. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking, NinjaRobotPirate. Maybe not nefarious, but it always raises a red flag when multiple accounts appear simultaneously with a sole common interest, then disappear as quickly. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:25, 28 February 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:Colonel Pritchard Uncivil 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.

---

User:Colonel Pritchard is a new editor who has been removing sourced information and adding large amounts of unsourced information on the article Hickory Hill (Ashland, Virginia). This editor then added an edit to my talk page stating "You seem to be nothing but a troublemaker" I did put a template on his page that I felt that was attacking an fellow editor. Colonel Pritchard then reverted back to the unsourced version of Hickory Hill with this edit summary "viewmont viking is a troll" and left me another message on my talk page that stated "I was as polite as I could be with a troublemaking, troll" I feel these personal attacks are unwarranted as I have tried to take the situation to the talk page and I feel I am doing what is best for the project by removing unsourced information. I have a long history here at Wikipedia and don't feel it is appropriate to be treated this way. Thank you,--VViking_TalkEdits 14:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

They aren't that new. It's a 7-year old account. There's a 6-year gap in the editing history as well, something about this is suspicious. --Jayron32 15:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it that suspicious, the (narrow) area of interest pretty clearly overlaps between 6 years ago and today. Given the username matches a ref they keep trying to add, I suspect there's OR/SELFCITE going on here. It's pretty clear who the person behind the account is, but it's based on off-wiki evidence and they haven't publicly made the connection so I'll disclose it privately to admins if requested. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It's suspicious in the fact that there is a distinct possibility that they have been editing Wikipedia under other guises in the intervening years. --Jayron32 16:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

So, in addition to the tendentious editing and edit warring, I also received two emails from this user attacking me after I left a note on his talk page saying that his personal attacks to Viewmont Viking were beyond the pale. Clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute constructively imho. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I would support an indefinite block based on their behavior, per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. Amaury • 17:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Any admin can feel free to extend that block. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:38, 28 February 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.

Short IP range vandalizing multiple articles

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

---

204.116.222.190 (talk · contribs) and 204.116.222.191 (talk · contribs) have both been doing petty vandalism today. Both vandalized Rosalina (Mario). Other editors have warned both on their talk pages. These are part of a very large net-block issued by a major ISP. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Range blocked. Probably a school. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Possible copycat page?

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 look at User:AtIant, page seems to be a copy and post form someone else[[296]], claims to be admin but user rights says nay nay. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This is AtIant with a capital I. It's mimicking Atlant with a lower case L. I'll block them eventually, but first want to see how much of their own time they'll waste recreating pages that are never going to end up convincing anyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I see, seemed like something simple that I was missing. Thanks Floq as long as someone is aware. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess I won't have any fun after all, they quit right after you notified them, so I'll block and delete all the mimicry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 28 February 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.

Lea Tahuhu

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

---

Hi. Please can someone revdel the recent IP edits and summaries at Lea Tahuhu's article? For example, stuff like this Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 22:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• You wonder what's wrong with some people. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you for sorting. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 22:55, 28 February 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.

Berrocca addict at Violet-Anne Wynne

Berrocca addict (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly restoring BLP violating material at Violet-Anne Wynne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

They first added criticism of a living person referenced to Twitter at 12:47, 13 February 2020. I removed the BLP violating, and off-topic material at 15:16, 13 February 2020 mentioning WP:TWITTER in my edit summary. It was then restored at 08:44, 14 February 2020 claiming Passes WP:Twitter threshold for inclusion. I then removed it again at 08:57, 14 February 2020, and left clear messages regarding how the material wasn't acceptable per WP:TWITTER and WP:BLPSPS. This was ignored, and the material restored again at 10:45, 14 February 2020 claiming No BLP violation, clearly. All then went quite after I left a final warning at 11:09, 14 February 2020.

However today they have again restored the material at 14:15, 26 February 2020. Their use of the Daily Express as a reference isn't acceptable as it's listed as a tabloid at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and even if it was acceptable it doesn't reference the criticism from the National Women's Council of Ireland which is solely referenced by Twitter and isn't acceptable per WP:BLPSPS as I've pointed out more than once. I've tried explaining to this user but they don't seem to get the point and keep restoring WP:BLP violation material without attempting to discuss it, so perhaps someone else could try getting through to them please? FDW777 (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've gone and protected the article. @Berrocca addict: Please carry on discussion on the article talk page, and establish consensus for adding your text before procedeing further. I can unprotect the article once we've reached consensus. This action was taken as an expedient, and is not meant to supplant or avoid any blocks the community may wish to impose. --Jayron32 14:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • There was no attempt at consensus made by FDW777. The notability of statements made by the Prime Minister, as well as the National W omens Council, which is a national representative body, about statements made by a member of Parliament warrant inclusion. There is an apparent attempt at misusing the WP:BLPSPS to encourage censorship, as there was no effort made by FDW777 to use the talk page, just to remove remarkably notable people making notable statements regarding the subject of the article Berrocca addict (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Please start that discussion presently, and then give it time to develop. This is not the time to throw around accusations against other editors. This is the time to start and carry on a civil discussion over the content at the article talk page. If you find that you are reaching an impasse, after giving it some time, go to WP:DR and seek additional input from uninvolved editors. I highly suggest when you start the discussion, you present your sources and only discuss their content and the words you intend to add to the article, and not even mention another editor or their actions. It will go much better for you if you do that. --Jayron32 16:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bot at AIV

This edit (and an earlier one) by the helper bot removed a report on the basis that a rangeblock was in place, but the rangeblock is only a partial block so the vandal is continuing his spree of vandalism. The bot is therefore obviously malfunctioning, presumably not properly taking account of the recent concept of partial blocks. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Keith D blocked them, but this is probably something that needs to be raised with the bot operator. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I see that David Biddulph has already flagged down the botop. They are somewhat inactive though so it might take a while. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Quod erat expectandum: This is something that could use some community input at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Proposal:_Partial_blocks_clerking_algorithm, where I have pointed out this problem over a month ago. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Imzadi1979 User:J947

Hello, these users are deleting my pages and templates for no good reason. Please block these users. Spg1059-a6s (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Imzadi1979 hasn't deleted a page for three weeks; what is the page under contention? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 15:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Portal:Badges was deleted on 25 Feb by Hut 8.5 with the rationale "Test page". Perhaps he can lend some additional context to the situation. That is the only page created by the above user that has been deleted. I can find absolutely no reason why the complaint against Imzadi1979 or J947 has been lodged, as neither has deleted any work by the OP. --Jayron32 16:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Imzadi1979 comes into play here. There's nothing actionable in this thread as far as I can see.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but he didn't delete anything. He gave his opinion in a discussion. Are we now to expect to be dragged to ANI for giving opinions in discussions? --Jayron32 16:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The only contents of Portal:Badges was {{Badges}}. It never had any other content apart from a speedy deletion tag. I'm not sure exactly what the creator was trying to do there but it looked to me like an experiment with using the template, and hence a test page. It certainly didn't look like a portal. Even if it isn't a test page it certainly isn't any use to the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 18:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I am considering a block for Spg1059-a6s for disruptive editing, including the creation of several inappropriate pages, the inappropriate filing of this ANI discussion, and comments like these: [297], [298], [299]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Spg1059-a6s is a new editor who is clearly clueless about how things work around here. As far as I can tell, this editor has never been welcomed to Wikipedia or offered any guidance on how we do things here. Given that the editor's clueless edits do not appear to be having any negative effect on any pages that readers might encounter, I don't think a preemptive block is warranted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

They know enough about Wikipedia to post demands on ANI that two users be blocked for nominating their pages for deletion. If you want to give them some rope, go for it, but their edits have been almost exclusively disruptive so far. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Making an ANI post as an obviously new user with 20 edits is not a qualifier for competence and experience. The "disruption" you refer to is exceptionally petty, and they haven't even been given a chance to explain what they're even trying to do. Calm down. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Stmky and attendance tables at 2020 Rugby Europe Championship

I'm having some issues with User:Stmky at the 2020 Rugby Europe Championship article. There is a section in the article summarising all the attendance data for the tournament, but I feel this is a violation of WP:CRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS; however, when I have tried to remove this info, User:Stmky restores it with no comment. They have responded at the article talk page, but only after much cajoling and they still haven't provided a satisfactory response to my concerns. It is clear to me that they are not here to work collaboratively on the encyclopaedia as the aforementioned talk page post was their first on any form of talk page in more than two years editing here, and based on the content of that talk page message, I also believe they have issues of ownership of articles. Some input on this would be appreciated before I go absolutely nuts at the reluctance of WP:RU members to weigh in on the topic. – PeeJay 11:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Spartan, at it 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.

---

Hi. Almost immediately after the previous thread on this issue (which lead to a temporary block), Spartan has continued to do the same behavior that lead to their block, but this time they just implied it. To be clear, I don't think either of these things are worthy of a block yet, but they are concerning. First, they added a template saying that their userpage has been vandalized before, presumably referring to the edits by me, Cryptic, Swarm, Johnuniq, and Floquenbeam, obviously none of these users are vandals. Then, they added a userbox to their talkpage claiming it has been vandalized. Again, I'm not sure either of these things are worthy of a block, but it is very concerning that they returned to some of the same behavior that lead to their block almost immediately after it expired. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion stop following their page. It is harmless. Lightburst (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think it was exactly "harmless" when they claimed they were an admin, or claimed multiple good faith users were vandals, or fabricated a fake, offensive Jimmy Wales quote. I'm just concerned that they're going to continue a lot of their behavior. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Time served. They caught a block already for the behavior. Following should only be collegial and your WP:FOLLOWING is not based on this ANI. Lightburst (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

... but they've already continued their behavior. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

And I resent the insinuation that checking up on a recently-unblocked user is tantamount to harassment/hounding. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, with one respected user already raising concerns with this report, I think that if there's no objections it should be closed. I apologize, and I'm going to think more about what I did wrong here and how to avoid it in the future. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention a long time one. (2013!) TheAwesomeHwyh 20:43, 29 February 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.

Long-term genre warring at Swedish metal band Opeth articles

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

---

Some IPs from Pasadena, Maryland, and the registered user Bravodeboer have been genre-warring over Opeth's genres for a year and a half, at least. Bravodeboer's first-ever edit was a complaint that Opeth's genres were wrong, but without reference to a published source. Much of Bravodeboer's work has been to change genres without citing a reference. Bravodeboer continued genre warring at Morningrise and Orchid (album) after two IPs were blocked. The Maryland IP Special:Contributions/71.127.149.106 was blocked most recently for this, while the related IP Special:Contributions/71.244.236.102 was blocked a few days ago for the same thing, and then jumped in for more genre warring today. To me, it looks like a violation of WP:MULTIPLE but without creating a second username as sockpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, can we just get rid of music genres? Nothing's worth this shit. EEng 16:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd support keeping sourced genres. That'd trim close to 90% of them. Tiderolls 17:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, EEng. I always appreciate a good derailing. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm serious. It would solve the problem for you and, moreover, for generations unborn. EEng 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I would support the idea getting rid of music genres from infoboxes altogether. It's like the Judean Popular People's Front vs the People's Front of Judea. NO, this band isn't a classical black death melodic goth metal outfit, they're (pick any other combination)! WP:WikiProject Classical Music many years ago decided that assigning musical genres to people or pieces was more trouble than it was worth, and was nothing but a source of futile arguments. Narky Blert (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Two week block for disruptive editing applied. Bravodeboer, the next one will be indefinite. I'd insert some joke involving "extremely low" or some assertion regarding the difference between blackened goth metal and gothicized black metal, but this genre shit is just too tiresome. See, it's making a dedicated admin like me use foul language, like "blackened". I sorry. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 28 February 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.

Meetup- related MfD ban for WilliamJE

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.

---

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

User William has started an MfD seemingly to "attack" an meetup. I do not take this lightly as meetups are a major part of our community. I propose that he be community banned from creating XfDs related to Wikipedia Meetups. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 06:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Zppix is referring to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Meetup:Kansas City/Women in Jazz March 2020, which I have speedy closed as it clearly isn't going anywhere and was a bad idea from the start. Having recently defended WilliamJE during his signature dust-up at AN, I'm disappointed to see that he's thrust himself right back into the thick of controversy. It seems hasty to me to jump straight to proposing a ban over a single MfD, but this one was a really bad idea. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, did he modify the confusing signature, as was explicitly asked in the closing statement of AN thread yet ? --DBigXrayᗙ 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, he has unfortunately refused to make the requested changes. I do wish he would reconsider. This reminds me of a recent experience in which myself and several others were repeatedly rebuffed by one editor who refused to listen to anyone who didn't tell him exactly what he wanted to hear. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I am still confused why this specific article was up for MfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Zppix, did you discuss this concern with William before escalating it to ANI ? if yes, what was his response ? DBigXrayᗙ 08:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray I don't speak for Zppix directly but this ANI report was filed because the user was committing abusive deletion spam, failing to have ever explained it, and failing to even respond to all the pings on the MfD page itself all day. This is consistent with the user's overall behavior. This is not good faith behavior, or something that can be reasoned with. I hope that's informative to your question. — Smuckola(talk) 08:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Before MfD this was put on CSD, and denied. I also note that this user has a long block log. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh my goodness that's even more extreme than I'd realized. How many blocks, how many instances of WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:TENDENTIOUS and grudges, until that's enough? What's the policy on this? Five thousand strikes and you're out? Today's was one of his more passive aggressive form of bullying; to repeatedly delete a component of Wikipedia itself, particularly a Meetup invitation which is our literal welcome mat to the world saying that Wikipedia is the place to be. A safe and decent place. That's what got deleted today. The librarian who built a world class art museum Meetup host for a curated orientation for Wikipedians, and promoted Wikipedia on the metro TV news, was met with a giant failure message in the ultimate WP:BITE. The user page, the behavior log, everything, is intolerable by civil society. Any regular person walking into Wikipedia for the first time and seeing any of this would be horrified that this behavior is routinely constantly enabled and tolerated at Wikipedia. And they'd never return. And rightfully so. Maybe just save yourselves, good citizens! It's like finding that someone has 10 DUIs. Just how?! At what point are admins effectively complicit in it? Should anyone feel safe going out, or bother to obey rule of law? I want to know the policy on how many hundreds of belligerent tendentious offenses until a permanent block. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 09:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Smuckola, I think you'll find that nothing was deleted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Decency was. Time was. All the time and integrity wasted for all the people he insulted who either disappeared or who stopped him. A WP:TENDENTIOUS abuser was stopped by decent people—it doesn't matter. The ends justify the means—no they don't. That's not how anything works. Anyone who's making excuses is complicit and need not reply. — Smuckola(talk) 22:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

AT MFD
WITH TEMPERS ABOUND
LET'S AVOID
A BATTLEGROUND
Burma-shave

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Zppix. It was deletion spamming, with a speedy delete which was immediately overturned and then a MfD here which was immediately overturned. Both with nonsensical reasons given. In trying to delete a basic WP:MEETUP notice! I assume there's no way an experienced user doesn't know that this spam is an abuse of Wikipedians and of Wikipedia itself. I see the user's history is of open belligerence and polemic toward the community and Wikipedia itself, down to its very infrastructure and ability to operate, which is WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE. This is my first encounter, but multiple very senior Wikipedians have told me that the user is so hostile, belligerent, and tendentious as to be beyond reason, and to have bullied them into letting him go with it just to avoid him rather than even speak to him. On another point, the user page is advertising a personal business of Amazon ebooks, verbally soliciting commercial traffic, and bragging about sales. And the user page, and Wikipedia's image hosting,[300] are abused as a personal family photo album. This is a bunch of WP:UPNOT, such as WP:POLEMIC WP:USERBIO WP:NOTWEBHOST. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 08:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see where he is adverting his books? All I see his him saying that he has made and published them. No links to any of the books. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Smuckola, I would hardly consider the following to be advertising: I have personally written twenty-five fiction ebooks. All of which are for sale at Amazon. Has anyone bought my work? I sold just over 100 ebooks my first month. The rest I'll let you guess. Also, you'll find that many editors have pictures of themselves on their userpage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, Hell, an Admin has one! And its amazing! LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Admin with picture of themself on their userpage? You're talking about Drmies Drmies (fixed broken link) right? DMacks (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

DMacks, no, I was talking about the hair god, Oshwah. (No offence Drmies)LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is at ANI. Yes clearly the WilliamJE should not have opened that MfD. But as always, you should talk to an editor before opening an ANI. And by talk, I mean on their talk page. If you fail to do so, your ANI is generally an instant fail. I appreciate that talking to WilliamJE hasn't been successful in the past on other matters, but you still need to try. Also, even if you had talked to WilliamJE and they refused to accept they were wrong, I don't see how opening that single MfD is enough for any sort of topic ban. If there were a pattern here, maybe. But not just a single wrong MfD. P.S. That CSD doesn't seem to establish a pattern. Opening a XfD if you were wrong about CSD is the norm. All it shows is the editor was strongly mistaken about the page being unsuited for Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but it says above in headers that "Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page" not that "it is mandatory" to do so. Zppix can only explain why they did not "consider" it. As explained by Smuckola above, I would guess that outrageous anti-social behavior might be a reason. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: is right I made a mistake. Not the first time at deletion discussions, which BTW I have a long history at. NE writes= "Opening a XfD if you were wrong about CSD is the norm." Have done that before. NE is also right, this MFD should have never been opened.

• • @Smuckola: Your diatribe concerning my User page is as disgraceful as it is untrue. Where in it is one mention of any book title of mine or the name of my business? There isn't any or anywhere else on WP because I have never mentioned them here. So your claim 'the user page is advertising a personal business of Amazon ebooks, verbally soliciting commercial traffic' is an 'absolute lie'. As for attack on me for image hosting, your diatribe is almost as bad. Personal photos aren't disallowed on WP, and two- The photo is being used in the biography of Gerald Barbarito. The only one WP has. Shame on you Smuckola for both these totally wrong attacks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Smuckola: Smuckola's above comparison of my block history to 10 DUIs shows a utterly irrational vindictiveness in this editor especially when you combine it with the lies about my User page. DUI kills 30 people a day in the United States, posting or getting blocked at WP never will. I think this statement of theirs can compare to people calling someone a Nazi or Hitler, and we know what the community thinks of that behavior. Secondly, I don't drink and never been drunk in my life. Anyone who accuses me of such or compares me to people who do, deserve nothing but riddicule....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to hear from @WilliamJE: before commenting further about their actions regarding this meetup page. Nick (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Nick he has said something above. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

LakesideMiners, looking at the timestamps, Nick had asked this question before WilliamJE responded. But WilliamJE edit warred to move his response up, against timestamp chronology. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, no, I saw the timestamps things. that's why I told him. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• • I didn’t bring it up on his talk page due to his anti-social behaviour and past history (block logs/past an thread/etc) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Zippix: Your failure to assume good faith pathetic as your jumping to conclusions. You start this discussion in the time period (Between 930 at night and six in the morning my time) I'm always off WP for me instead of waiting. Two- A study of me at deletion discussions will show I do withdraw nominations. One of you will ask, when was that, 6 years ago? How about less than a month ago[301]. If you did didn't shit around in my talk page or block history and instead looked at my deletion discussion history this would have been easily findable. @Smuckola: When are you going to withdraw the lies about my user page and personal attack (DUI) you made against me? Considering the level of those attacks, maybe it is time to open a discussion on whether those are sanctionable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

After reading WilliamJE's response and invoking Godwin's law - I know WP:AGF but I'm not sure how here. Was an editor involved in this meetup also involved in asking him to change his signature recently? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon Looking though quickly, no. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon, how would you respond if someone compared your editing history to drunk driving? I agree that there are concerns with WilliamJE's demeanor, but some of the statements above are plainly unfair. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark I'd look at my behavior to see what I did to draw such a comparison. I'd have probably considered my behavior long before I got that many blocks. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon, that's a reasonable attitude and I do agree that WilliamJE should examine his own conduct. That said, the analogy was inappropriate and anyone could have predicted that it would lead to more heat than light. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark One of the themes in this ANI is that WilliamJE has had a lot of chances to correct their behavior. The friendly feedback isn't working, even the more on-the-nose feedback isn't working. The request to change his signature to make it readable came across more like an intervention than anything else. For the record, I've nominated 94 articles for deletion, and even I don't understand what the point of this MfD was. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon, I share your concerns. Having interacted with WilliamJE in the past, I regard him as a valuable, good-faith contributor. It's important to take feedback on board and I hope what I wrote here will be effective. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon to answer your question, no, this is my tragic introduction to this user, and I'm the only person at the Meetup with any background in Wikipedia internals like this (beneath the articles), but still I avoid ANI like the plague because I know it's a WP:BATTLEGROUND in itself. I have only rarely ever pursued any administrative action except when it's a patent assault against Wikipedia or Wikipedians. And even that is super rare, because I have all but shut down my activity for years simply due to Wikipedia's infamously institutionally toxic culture like this. Like thousands of others have, I thought "okay, you want it, you can have it" and all but quit editing (instead of engaging in any form of community leadership until this Meetup). So I strolled into a beautiful friendly public facility full of new friends and we stepped on this guy's cyber-landmine. Two repeated deletion requests is not an accident or a valid mistake after 100,000 edits. Challenging the policy and nature of WP:MEETUP by destroying it is not valid behavior but abuse. Soliciting a deletion discussion with no discussion is abuse. The nonsensical premise of "wikipedia is not a social network" (he says in soliciting worldwide discussion among our networked society) is not an actual mistake or due process, but a destruction of WP:MEETUP which is effectively an attack on Wikipedia even more actively than is his signature against archival bots. He just now said in this thread that it shouldn't have even happened (unapologetically, but just out of having been caught). The analogy I stated was clearly made over the entire process here, and to everyone who isn't calling for a block, to consider whether they themselves are complicit with a chronic malignant abuser. One person in this thread even said that surely the user's good edits outweigh the bad—which means that we all simply need to spam 100,000 edits to reach wikigodhood, and we're above the law. Like a fine for a toxic dump, a block is just the cost of doing business. Look at the block log alone, to demolish any assumption of good faith. I clearly said that when you see such an egregious record, whatever the charges or reason or outcome (DUI doesn't matter at all, just a prime example), you just automatically know that the system has failed because everyone has let it happen. And you know that only once or twice was already enough. The particular charge or the outcome of the case doesn't matter anymore when it's gone this far, and anyone who doesn't call for a block has to critically consider how jaded and complicit they may be toward serious Wikipedia abuse. All that's needed is for decent people to do nothing, or just use bureaucratic platitudes to make themselves feel like they did something. So now we'll add WP:NPA within this very thread to this very thread, along with the countless such incidents named in the extensive block log already. It is already stated countless times in the block log and various discussions, this is a hostile anti-repentant anti-corrective WP:TENDENTIOUS abuser who sees criticism as a personal attack and instantly escalates to maximal (even Godwin) personal attack response in order to sabotage conversation and process. Beyond reason, beyond discussion. This is the opposite of Wikipedia, and can't be tolerated. This is the portrait of a way-past-endgame scenario of WP:TEND WP:NOTHERE. Hence this ANI, among others. The user is clearly not examining behavior except to creatively weaponize it—to use Wikipedia and the decency of its admins, as a personal WP:BATTLEGROUND. Even asking the user anymore to examine behavior makes no sense whatsoever to the point where I'd assume the user's abuse history hasn't been read at all. I know the system is insufficient, and I assume nobody here built it, but I want citation of the letter and spirit of how it's even being followed as is. — Smuckola(talk) 22:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Smuckola, no, I did not say that their good edits outweigh the bad. Please don't twist my words. And please stop being overly dramatic. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This. WilliamJE's behavior was unacceptable, but wasn't so extreme or damaging as you paint it. He started a bad MfD that was an obvious non-starter and which was closed very quickly, and he made some comments in this thread in his own defense that were ill-considered and only hurt his own case. But with these two posts, you've done just as much to hurt your own credibility as you have in pleading your case. Certainly there are problems in the Wikipedia community, and I don't mean to deny that. But by painting this matter as emblematic of those very serious problems, you're serving to dilute the story of those who face those problems on a day-to-day basis. I think you might want to disengage from this thread, Smuckola. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Smuckola, RE: His Sig. His sig doesn't screw with bots. its annoying yes. but it doesn't screw with the bots. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know such MEETUP pages existed, until today. Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• The stated deletion rationale is a legitimate argument, but not in an XfD nom. What I think WilliamJE should take away from this is that XfD is not an effective mechanism for creating or interpreting policy, particularly not on a piecemeal basis. It's more for applying policy to particular fact situations. This is something that should be teed up via RfC. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• I find it difficult to understand this editor's insistence here that this is not a social media site, when he defends his right to use such social media paraphernalia as a customised signature. Both can't be acceptable at the same time. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  ^Jorm liked this comment.--Jorm (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  +1 --JBL (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• This looks like a mistake; there was still a redirect from the main namespace. Twinkle was used so it's possible the fact it was an MFD and not AFD was not noticed. It's still at "Wikipedia:Meetup:" which (although not the only page with that prefix) should probably be "Wikipedia:Meetup/" to make it a subpage and add a link to the main Meetup page. Peter James (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would encourage WilliamJE to (re)read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Editing while angry as hell with this garbage (diff) is a formula for a block. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Question WilliamJE I've been trying to read through the various posts above to get a sense for this. I don't think Smuckola's commentary is particularly helpful, and I agree that they have said things about you that they should not. However, while I see you responding to draw attention to their unnecessary invective, I can't see if you have explained anywhere why you nominated this particular MEETUP notice for deletion. The 'not a social network' rationale doesn't seem to make any sense, unless it's your contention that all MEETUP notices should be deleted, and you were intending to start nominating them as soon as they popped up. Why start with this one? Apologies if I've overlooked an explanation somewhere, feel free to point me at it if you've already explained. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Botched previous ping, not sure last notification was sent - apologies for spamming you if you already received this WilliamJE GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Two way interaction ban between WilliamJE and Smuckola

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

WilliamJE and Smuckola are both exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and refusing to WP:drop the stick. To avoid further disruption, both users should be subject to a two way interaction ban. (retroactive signature per Nil Einne's comment) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this is not solving any of the problems raised here. These 2 users do not have any history of friction, in fact there has been no interaction between them other than at this ANI. So how this IBAN helps is beyond my understanding. These heated rants on ANI must not be used as an excuse to punish them. Any proposed solution must address the actual problem, and not the symptoms. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per DBigXray Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose given the absence of a long-term intractable personalized dispute between the two. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the above. This seems to be just a one-off spat. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with others, despite strong disagreement here, I'm not seeing any evidence of any ongoing problems warranting this. And frankly although I have strong disagreement with WilliamJE on the signature issue and while WilliamJE interaction here with Smuckola isn't perfect, it seems very far from the sort of behaviour warranting an iban. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not necessary at this point. This is a very low-stakes, low-volatility dispute.

Proposal two: don't skip proposal numbers

Place holder joke

Support with caveat - I think someone saw Proposal: Two and made a mistake so this proposal can be snow closed :-P BTW generally speaking proposers should sign their proposals which wasn't done here ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC) someone should probably make a proposal about that. It could be Proposal 87.Jacona (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Oppose Numbers are hard. Buffs (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Support Can only vote once. Buffs (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Support Number order consistency makes it easier for the closing admin to adjudicate and keeps the discussion more organized. Michepman (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Three: Topic ban for WilliamJE

WilliamJE is topic banned from editing or nominating any WP:MEETUP related pages unless its to denote his participation or to organize one for a period of 6 months then which he could then appeal.

• Support as proposer Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose He made one bad nomination. I cannot find in his history where he's ever edited or nominated a MEETUP page for deletion before or since. A topic ban isn't necessary to protect the encylopedia. Schazjmd (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Schazjmd: While a single action can justify an editing restriction, this is not one of those actions. Particularly given WilliamJE above seems to understand that MfD for a single page wasn't the right approach to the legitimate question of whether WP:NOTSOCIAL should restrict the existence of meetup organization pages on enwiki. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. One bad deletion nomination shouldn't lead to any sanctions. There are many editors who have made scores of bad deletion nominations, but are still allowed to carry on. They are the ones that we should be looking at. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As I said earlier it would be questionable even if they have refused to accept what they did was a mistake, but since they did accept that, I have no idea why this is being proposed. WilliamJE's response actually seems to reaffirm what was said by several including me. Always talk to an editor if you have concerns. There may be odd exceptions but 'editor doesn't seem to respond well to negative feedback' no matter how justified is not one of them; you have to try. Nil Einne (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a tban for one acknowledged mistake would be very excessive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not everything warrants the harshest sanction. Michepman (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Four: Close

This has acquired no useful direction since being opened, and is not likely to miraculously adopt one now. Close this and shoo away the patrons: "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here". Mr rnddude (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Let's get this show on the road. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per IP. This is just dumb(the whole issue, not the proposal). could have been fixed with a whale. I do think that Smuckola should retract their claims and apologize. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support And hope for peace. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Until the most important question of this thread, asked by User:Girth Summit is answered by WilliamJE. As of now it is unanswered despite pings. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 23:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - @WilliamJE: doesn't appear to be interested in answering @Girth Summit:'s question. Might as well shut down the ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  I'd like to see an answer to the question before I can support the closure of this thread. Put it this way - closing with no action is one way forward, but on the other hand, a TBan from nominating MEETUP notices at MfD would affect most people in no way whatsoever - very few people would ever consider nominating such a notice for deletion. I'd really like to understand the rationale for such an unusual action before deciding whether I think we can forget about it and move on. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Girth Summit: 1- I didn't know they existed. 2- How I found the page- New pages[302] which I frequently check. Close the thread if you want. If you want to discuss this more, post to my talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, some people might find it difficult to believe that an editor of your experience didn't know that meetups were a thing - personally, I've never been to one, but most of the time my watchlist has an advert for a meetup in London, Oxford or Manchester plastered across it, and consequently they were one of the first 'things' I knew about when I started editing Wikipedia. HOWEVER - I'm happy to assume good faith and accept that you didn't know about them - perhaps there's a way to turn such notifications off, or perhaps nobody organises them in your neck of the woods and you don't get the adverts on your watchlist.

I know a bit about checking new pages, through working at NPP. If I were to come across a new page in project space, and I didn't know what it was, I would try to find out more before doing anything about it. If you had searched for MEETUP, or if you had tried putting WP:MEETUP in square brackets, it would have been very easy to find out what a meetup was. To stick a CSD tag on a project page because you don't know what it was seems rather reckless; to follow up with an MfD nomination after the CSD is declined, without taking some trivial steps to find out more, is very hard for me to understand. I'd like to see an undertaking from you that you will be more careful with nominations for deletion in future - 'I don't know what this is' is not, on its own, a valid reason for deletion, and invalid deletion nominations are disruptive, and unpleasant for the people on the receiving end. Please consider making such an undertaking so that we can move on. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:I meant I never knew about the pages, not that I didn't know about the meetings. I did nothing reckless and for about the third time since this started, I made a mistake.

@Smuckola: I may not be dropping the matter about Smuckola's allegations here. His clear cut violation of Aspersions, other false statements, and non withdrawal of his statements may leave me no other choice than take it to ARBCOM because he violated one of their rulings. His false allegations are all out there for anyone to see and as I wrote below, can be used for ammunition against me again. Where was this community when he accused me without evidence? One editor didn't know about meetup pages, about 10 editors here didn't know about WP:ASPERSIONS. What is the worse case of ignorance?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: yes, you should definitely raise your concerns in another AN/I filing. ——SN54129 11:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, I have to confess that I find your response a bit concerning. You didn't know what a page was, so your first response was to CSD it - and then, when that was declined, to send it to MfD - but you don't think that's a reckless course of action? I'm not looking to crucify you for making a mistake, but I want you to recognise that your mistake was very easily avoidable, and undertake not to repeat it. I also note that you didn't go the author's talk page to apologise, which is certainly what I would have done if I'd made such a mistake.

As for Smuckola and Arbcom, I think that you do have another choice. The first two sentences of WP:NPA#First_offenses_and_isolated_incidents runs Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it. Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates editors tend to overreact. A far as I know there has been no prior history between yourself and Smuckola; they overreacted to your deletion nominations, and wrote a couple of overheated walls of text above. Nobody has taken them seriously, and several people have told them to cool it, and they have stopped posting now. Your best option here is therefore probably to let this slide, but to report it if Smuckola tries to continue this elsewhere. If you were to make the undertaking I've requested above, I would be content for this to be closed with no action towards yourself, and a warning for Smuckola that they watch what they're saying about other editors on noticeboards. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support - This whole thread has generated more heat than light. There are no long lasting intractable, or severe issues that warrant admin intervention. Michepman (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support — closing. More heat than light. The sig "William, is the complaint department really on the roof" alludes to "The Complaint Department Is On The Roof", a phrase found embossed on metal signs sometimes posted in a small business such as an old, traditional hardware store. The implied message being, if customers have a complaint, they can go jump off the roof. I've seen this kind of message posted at a couple of places; once at a still photo and motion picture supply house in Chicago or New York City, perhaps forty years ago. It worked as a joke if the business had responsive customer service (the sign could be bought as a novelty item in sign shops.) I don't think the phrase as a sig is actionable, but it seems to indicate time sink ahead — Neonorange (Phil) 10:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Five: A block for User Smuckola for violating WP:ASPERSIONS

It is a open and shut case that @Smuckola: violated ASPERSIONS and an arbcom ruling[303] when he claimed[304] 'advertising a personal business of Amazon ebooks, verbally soliciting commercial traffic' aka I used my User page to promote my ebooks or solicit business and provided no evidence for such claims. My User page has never been used for such purposes. Smuckola has had plenty of time to remove his baseless accusations and has failed to do so....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support As editor bringing this proposal....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as punitive. An insufficient record has been developed in this thread to support a need for sanctions as a preventive measure against Smuckola. That said, I agree that Smuckola’s posts are in violation of the policies William has cited and that it’s appropriate to warn him of this. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, for the same reasons that I opposed any sanction against William, because nothing rises to the level where sanctions should be applied. But, @WilliamJE:, please change your signature so it doesn't become an issue that is raised every time you are involved in a discussion. Just as a matter of common courtesy rather than sonething mandated by Wikipedia policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for obvious reasons stated prior to my !vote Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• It may be too late for a block at this stage, but a warning is in order. Smuckola's reckless accusations of policy violations and the over-the-top tone of their posts do not bode well for their future participation at ANI if they don't make adjustments. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Phil Bridger: Are all of you forgetting that Smuckola also said I was using my User page as a personal photo album- totally untrue - and compared my block log to DUI. So he violates aspersions, commits personal attacks, and makes other false allegations and that's all not worthy of a block then what is? He violated a arbcom decision and has had 4 days to withdraw his statements (Actually he thinks[305] the DUI comparison was fine) and hasn't....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Furthermore why didn't any of you who commented earlier when this whole ANI started that Smuckola was out of line in his claims even if they were true. They were violating aspersions due to not providing evidence. His non-withdrawal of his attack is problematic too. What's there to stop from resurrecting that claim one night and a kangaroo court forming here (while I'm asleep) without a bit of checking before hand? Nothing, because it almost happened here. I had to point out the aspersions violation and false claims and the first should have been obvious to any experienced editor....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You're essentially asking for a punitive sanction to dissuade him from doing the same thing in the future. Even if I agree that's the right thing to do—and I don't agree—it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to use sanctions in such a manner. The all-too-common argument along the lines of "he hasn't withdrawn his statement so the harm is ongoing" is sophistry of the highest order. The statement was made, and it's done. It would be nice if he withdrew it. And the fact that he didn't would be useful evidence when claiming of a pattern of disruption were he to start doing it again. But from all appearances this thread is done and dusted.
    At the same time, your pushing for sanctioning and taking matters to his user talk page demanding retraction despite everything that's happened in this thread, is going to get you sanctioned if you keep it up. This is one of those things that you just have to let go for now. At a certain point the harm you're inflicting on your own reputation is going to far and away outweigh any harm he's done or can do. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd get sanctioned for asking for justice for someone who without question attacked me/violated an ARBCOM ruling. I guess you would argue a rape victim deserves jail for pointing their finger at an attacker caught on video tape too because they refuse to get over it. I posted to Smuckola's talk page BEFORE this proposal began and notified them of it as is required. Since when too has blocks not been handed down punitively. You violate some community restriction, perform a PA, get blocked. It happens at WP every month. People can't predict the future or what anyone else will do. So what else is the reason?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
      • A rape victim? Really? Do you genuinely think that’s an even remotely appropriate analogy? 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
        • You oppose sanctions against an editor who compared me to someone who has had 10 DUIs. DUI driving kills thousands of people[306] every year in the United States alone and my editing here is compared to it. Take that analogy on....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

          WilliamJE, two wrongs are not making a right here. Their analogy was stupid, and you're now accusing the IP of being a rape apologist. We can achieve a better level of discourse here if we really put our backs into it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

          WilliamJE, of course Smuckola should not have compared you to a drink-driver, but, by exactly the same token, you should not have compared that editor to a rapist. Both are serious allegations of criminality. So far I have opposed sanctions against either of you, but if Smuckola is sanctioned I see no reason why you shouldn't be too. You seem to have a problem with the concept that rules that apply to other editors also apply to you. If the term hadn't been hijacked by people that want to refuse other people privileges that they demand for themselves I would say that you are demonstrating snowflake behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

          • Again someone is putting words in my mouth. I didn't compare the IP to a rapist, just the people who make excuses for them or other criminals. It is an open and shut case that Smuckola violated aspersions, committed personal attacks, and made false accusations. Editors make excuses for it or don't say anything at all. You are condoning what they did. They wiki assaulted me aka took multiple swipes(DUI, my user page being used to promote my business, my user page being used as a personal album at least!) at me. Does it take me going to ARBCOM to get enforcement of one of their rulings. It shouldn't, either that or the whole community shouldn't be enforcing their rulings. They have no meaning....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

            I didn't compare the IP to a rapist, just the people who make excuses for them or other criminals. How about we all agree not to compare anyone to rapists or rape apologists? Or criminals or terrorists or Nazis or Hitler or the devil or Levivich, etc. Levivich (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

          • Smuckola also wrote 'Should anyone feel safe going out, or bother to obey rule of law?' I'm a threat to people going out of their homes? All of you don't consider this an outrageous personal attack? He implied I am a monster....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

            • @Levivich:, ...or "monsters" ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as WP:PUNITIVE. ——SN54129 13:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is nowhere near as bad as rape and the comparison is frankly silly. Blocks are preventive not punitive. Michepman (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal six: Civility restriction on WilliamJE

WilliamJE should be subject to a community imposed WP:Civility restriction. WilliamJE may be sanctioned (including a block) if he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or to be an assumption of bad faith. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think a straightforward WP:NOTHERE block may be in order in light of his continued battleground behavior in the above thread. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • ... and elsewhere at User:Girth Summit's talk page --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • WilliamJE is here to build an encyclopedia. See Special:contributions/WilliamJE — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose while I wish William would just let this go and move on, I don't see the point of civility restrictions in general. They basically amount to a declaration that an editor may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned if they violate policy, but that's already the case. As for the NOTHERE suggestion, William is plainly here to build an encyclopedia. Seriously, it's (long past) time to shut this megathread down without any further action. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:39, 29 February 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.