Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rdfox 76 (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 8 March 2020 (→User:Catdogkid -- Not quite sure what the hell's going on here: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion

    Incivility help

    (non-admin closure) Obviously, no admin wants to do anything about this. 2600:1003:B86D:12C8:FC75:FAD0:5FC0:189C (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was distracted by off-Wiki activities: I had cataract surgery. -- llywrch (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    You were warned about bludgeoning because, even as the discussion was winding down and we were waiting for others to comment, you kept replying over and over to every single comment (often with two comments at a time) restating your position. As the discussion died down, you were told by both me and TheJoebro64 that there's no reason to keep going in circles and we need to allow others to comment, and you still kept trying to burying the thread with your replies because the discussion wasn't going your way. As soon as Joebro mentioned something about an RfC and I stated that I was about to open a fourth Arbitrary Break to wrap up the discussion and gather final comments/votes, you immediately rushed to open an Abitrary Break yourself [1], [2], [3] [4] just to restate your position (for the umpteenth time) and rant about how "But consensus is not based off of votes!!!"
    Then, almost immediately after you opened the Arbritary Break, Popfox3 shows up to the discussion and becomes the only user to strongly support you in that entire thread. This user only has six edits to their account. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and they're all recent. Every single one of the accounts edits are at Talk:DC Extended Universe, taking the same position as DisneyMetalhead in discussions. The only two exceptions were from yesterday, when the account came to defend DMH and then added a space [11], [12] to their username and talk page, to create those pages and get rid of the redlink (in order to look less suspicious).
    @DisneyMetalhead: Not only were you guilty of WP:BLUDGEON and opened an ANI report as soon as you were warned to stop, but give us one good reason why we shouldn't open a WP:SPI. Your only defense so far for bludgeoning has been "just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm bludgeoning", which immediately falls apart under scrutiny. DarkKnight2149 18:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As if that wasn't evidence enough of WP:SOCKing, DisneyMetalhead's account was registered in September 2016 [13]. Popfox3 was registered only a month later in October 2016 [14]. So far, Popfox's only defense has been "actually I'm not a sock because my account was registered in 2016 and I simply didn't use it until recently." [15] In other words, "I didn't use my account until I needed to support DisneyMetalhead at Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions." DarkKnight2149 19:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While that does appear suspicious, you need to be clear, DK - are you stating, without equivocation, that DMh and Popfox3 are the same user? If so, you need to come out and call for a SPI investigation and file the report. I get how, if it is true, it is infuriating (I've had the same accusation made about me as well, and it is a stain that - if not specifically debunked - remains forever), but you cannot even make the accusation as part of an argument without having created an SPI report. As upset as you might be at DMh, tainting their reputation is completely unwarranted without a truckload of proof. Submit the report, await the results and frame your argument accordingly. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: It is not just DisneyMetalhead's reputation that is being tainted. I finally have time to attempt to contribute, and I immediately have accusations hurled at me and a potential investigation into my account, all because I agreed with a user in a discussion. I am NOT a sock puppet, and it is infuriating and humiliating that I have to go through this and have my reputation tainted before I even really do anything. I actually welcome an investigation if that's what it'll take to get Darknight2149 to stop. This is ridiculous. Popfox3 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: I understand that, throughout the discussion, you have tried to be the middle man of the discussion who has tried to find a middle ground between everyone involved. However, there is no middle ground here. DisneyMetalhead's behaviour fits the exact parameters of WP:BLUDGEON. My point is that there is overwhelming evidence that Popfox3 is a sock puppet of DisneyMetalhead. I'm waiting for administrator feedback first, but I probably am going to have to open a WP:SPI at some point today. I'm not clairvoyant, but from what I can see, this more than warrants a checkuser. DarkKnight2149 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that DisneyMetalhead stop reply-spamming at Talk:DC Extended Universe, and give others a chance to comment. For the moment, unless someone addresses me or something I said, I will be doing the same. DarkKnight2149 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Popfox3 - I am not going to reply directly to your comments as, at best, you are an SPA, and not really worthy of comment. At worst you are a sock, and I literally will not waste any further time (apart from this single comment) to interact with you until you either build a more diverse set of edits and an SPI comes back as unrelated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkknight2149 I myself have been accused of BLUDGEON (even before the term came into fashion); it comes from being young and unwilling to consider other viewpoints; a person doing so is absolutely convinced that the other editors suffer from anterograde amnesia and won't remember the previous comments make. Its rather disrespectful and I cringe at the fact that I used to be that way.
    Understand that DMh is likely young and needs a bit more marinating in the Stew of Life before being taken seriously. If they are socking, they deserve every single awful thing that Wikipedia can do to them (please forgive my draconian view on this, but it will not be softening or changing - socks deserve the Swift Sword of Icky Death, imo). I would have suggested on their talk page that they give other the chance to respond before addressing the comments en toto and not piecemeal. If that failed to work, get an RfC; don't wait for it, just start one. Lots of eyes will come to the page and if DMh keeps doing that, their comments will likely boomerang back onto themselves.
    I think an ANI is bit much (as you skipped a step), unless you are seeking help on how to correct the problem. If you came here seeking punishment for DMh and Popfox3, you've done this incorrectly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: I didn't skip a step. I actually did leave DisneyMetalHead a message asking for them to cool it down, and they retaliated by filing this report. I didn't file it. This is a WP:BOOMERANG scenario.
    To be honest, I don't buy Popfox3's story at all. When I was a newbie, I didn't even understand what a talk page was or the discussion process until a few weeks or so in. Yet his/her supposed first (and only) order of business is to only reply to Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions? And they happen to take all of the same positions as DisneyMetalHead? And they happened to show up to the thread just as DMH was growing more and more desperate and overzealous, and the thread was seemingly leading to a close or a RFC? And as soon as they supported DMH, they created a blank userpage and talk page to get rid of the redlink and make their lack of activity less obvious? And their account was created just a month after DisneyMetalHead's? Yeah, everything about this smells fishy. I already have a WP:SPI tab open. I will alert this thread when the report is filed. DarkKnight2149 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you you following the necessary steps, Darkknight2149 dotting your 'i's' and crossing your 't's'. Maybe hold off on talking any more about your suspicions regarding the connections between DMh ad Popfox3 until after the SPI. The ANI is to deal with tendentious editing behavior or personal attacks, which DMh correctly did; accusing them of being part of a socking is a PA unless proven, as the lack of AGF is apparent. Others will offer far more wise advice than I. I am suggesting you don't make any further comments regarding the SPI until it is complete. Focus on what you feel is DMh's disruptive editing behaviors as you see them, because I can guarantee that the user is doing the same here.
    The hardest lesson I had to learn in Wikipedia is that trying to verbally annihilate another user in an edit summary or in talk is counterproductive; how can you even wrap your head around working with someone like that ever again, hating them that much? The short answer is that you cannot. You have to just walk away for a while and let them dig a big enough hole for themselves, jump in and start throwing dirt on themselves. You can sit by the side an eat popcorn or whatever. Just stay above their personal implosion. The point is that you point out a problem, and allow the larger contingent of very smart people here figure out how to resolve that problem. Anyone is prone to mistakes, but not a larger group of thinkers, like you see in Wikipedia. Give the system a chance to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Continued bludgeoning from DisneyMetalhead

    The SPI hasn't even filed yet and DisneyMetalhead is continuing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion [16]. Both myself and Jack Sebastian have warned them about it at this point, and advised them to drop the stick and wait for others to comment. Even when the consensus is stacked against them and when everyone has explained why repeatedly, DMH insists on replying to every single comment to aggressively hammer the point in some more. I guess DMH thought that by filing a retaliatory report and spinning it as an incivility report (all because of this message and this notice, by the way), they would get some kind of "get out of jail free" card to continue exactly what they have been doing. I have well over 20 notifications from DisneyMetalhead from the last few days alone, and they're all from the same discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe. DarkKnight2149 07:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sock puppet investigation

    Main page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisneyMetalhead

    The sock puppet investigation has been filed.

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

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

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

    Then how do you explain this? Moreover, why did you claim that Popfox's IP address is "nowhere near" yours? I'm not alone when I say this - None of this adds up. DarkKnight2149 01:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How do I explain what exactly? I just stated that I don't know the user known as Popfox3. Assume WP:GOODFAITH, and understand that I misspoke - stating how I thought it would be proved...through IPs. I stated that they are nowhere near me - because they aren't me. Cheers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're not you, then how would you know where their IP address is? That's a very specific way of putting it. But back to my first question, how do you explain the strong evidence of socking between you and 206.81.136.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) presented by Prefall at the SPI? This wasn't a simple case of logged out editing, because you directly interacted with the IP as if it were a separate user. Also worth mentioning, Popfox3 made their first non-DC Extended Universe edits today by making some edits at Harry Potter articles and joining the Harry Potter Task Force, and even that is a topic area that you have been known to edit in the past [18], [19], [20]. As others have pointed out, checkusers can detect proxies and VPNs, but they can't necessarily detect if you are using a long distance IP from another computer or instances of WP:MEAT. DarkKnight2149 04:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DisneyMetalhead, would you care linking to your previous account(s)? The account isn't deleted, as it's impossible to delete an account. JOEBRO64 12:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to comment about this. DisneyMetalhead claims he had "a different profile" (singular) years ago and that "the username" (singular again) was then "deleted"; however, Wikipedia profiles can't be deleted as per WP:FAQ and WP:UNC. Further, they relate to just one previous account here despite having previously referred to "various usernames" on 24 January and claiming in their own userpage that they "have been for years as an unregistered editor, and previously other editing profiles that were since abandoned/unregistered". On this, it is remarkable that their userpage initially claimed, in March 2017, that they "have been for years under an unregistered editor name" only. It was not until June 2019 that they made mention to "other editing profiles". And they edited it again to add the "that were since abandoned/unregistered" bit at 01:51, 10 February 2020, this is, in response to my comment earlier at 01:02 where I pointed out that they had previously claimed having had several usernames.
    If DisneyMetalhead did use other accounts in the past, which do obviously still exist because they can't be unregistered or deleted, their identity must be disclosed. We can't have an user apparently having undisclosed sleeper accounts around here, as that's a potential hotbed for socking and even block evasion.
    On the IP issue, the concern is not that DisneyMetalhead claimed having a different IP than Popfox3 (that would be obvious if they are different people). The issue is that they claimed that Popfox3's IP was "nowhere near mine". You can't know where a IP range originates from without knowing such an IP address beforehand, thus being impossible to determine whether it is near or far from your own.
    It's also becoming very obvious that Popfox3 is only commenting in places where DisneyMetalhead is present. Indeed, their user talkpage discussions are becoming a near-insult at pretending they are different people. The way the two accounts are engaging to each other is not natural at all (Further, it wasn't DisneyMetalhead who opened this ANI thread? One would think they know nothing about it from this comment.... This has gone beyond WP:BOOMERANG already). Impru20talk 14:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We definitely need to get some admin involvement. I think it's safe to say there's definitely something fishy going on here. JOEBRO64 21:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Question: Honest question (this may perhaps show my lack of tech-savviness)... how do I look at when an article was created? There was one article created with my previous editor log-in.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, previously when I stated that I had used other 'log-ins' I was being ambiguous as to how many... and when I added that I did not know that it was not allowed to have multiple. That is why I have adjusted it to state what I had originally meant.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DisneyMetalhead, you should just go into the article history and keep going back until you get to the earliest revision. JOEBRO64 23:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @DisneyMetalhead: If you inform us on what the article is, we can find it for you. DarkKnight2149 07:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @TheJoebro64: and @Darkknight2149: the only article created with a previous log-in was an article about The Storm, the American rock band. However, as I previously stated that log-in has been abandoned/never used long ago. Reviewing the edit history however, I go to the oldest edit and I don't see the article being created. Perhaps I'm looking at this incorrectly(?). In all honesty I don't even remember the old username that was used (this was years ago).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Upon searching my old user-name, the page no longer exists... with some further digging, reviewing articles I have edited years ago, as well as talk-page discussions that I was involved with - I found an ANI regarding incivility allegations in 2016, with a discussion regarding some edits I had done years ago. They can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933 #User:Burningblue52.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The account in question is Lorem ipsum5656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is indefinitely blocked, and I'm not entirely sure why you didn't just retract the supposed legal threat (and become immediately unblocked) instead of creating a new account two weeks later. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Eagles247: the honest reason was that I thought it had been deleted/removed (I didn't know it could be unblocked). On top of that, the title of username had personal significance in my life at that time. After going through some traumatic marital experiences, I wanted a "clean slate"/fresh start and changed all my log-ins on various pages. In the meantime, my busy schedule did not allow for me to be constantly checking WP. I hope this shows that I have not used 'multiple user names' as I miss-stated on my talk page. I edited without a registered log-in for years, simply because I did not care to/have time to. When I made the user referenced above and upon being blocked (in addition to the personal life situations), I made a new log-in to start over. Those are the only user names I ever made/used. It was my understanding that the username was deleted/removed...I didn't know it could be unblocked at the time.

    You are telling me you have been evading a block for four years? Wow.
    That's not how WP:FRESHSTART works. It is explicit in that Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions imposed (including, but not limited to, those listed here); or is currently or about to be formally discussed for their conduct (such as at an administrative noticeboard or in an open case with the Arbitration Committee); or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start. You can't just create a new account because your previous one was indeffed, then claim it is a "clean start". That's anything but "clean". Impru20talk 00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On top of the apparent socking with IP addresses, this would blatantly and unambiguously fall under WP:Block evasion. DarkKnight2149 05:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seemingly, their previous account did acknowledge already in September 2016 having been an editor "under various emails and usernames". Plus, under the DisneyMetalhead account they attempted to pose as if the two of them were two entirely different and unrelated editors (diff). Considering all presented evidence, it is very likely that this older account isn't the only one or even the first one being operated by this person. Impru20talk 12:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just remembered something. I thought this account sounded familiar, and it turns out, I have a history with Lorem ipsum5656. Lorem is actually Burningblue52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who actually had an extensive history of original research, WP:CIR, restoring edits reverted by multiple editors against consensus, and a whole list of other problems. Burningblue52 renamed their account right before they were blocked, and they weren't blocked for no reason. If Burningblue and DisneyMetalHead are the same user, that's definitely a major problem. DarkKnight2149 19:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tagging Doug Weller, who blocked Lorem ipsum5656/Burningblue52 the first time. DarkKnight2149 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this certainly answers a lot of questions I had. I'm absolutely stunned and saddened that DMH has been block evading for years now. I think we need to keep doing some digging to see if we can find any other potential sleepers/previously blocked accounts, as this is by no means a small issue. JOEBRO64 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If DMH has been doing that, shouldn't they be blocked by this point? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We're still waiting for an administrator response. DarkKnight2149 23:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from TheJoebro64

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Just so everyone is aware, this thread has been open for nearly 20 days and (despite unanimous consensus that block evasion and bludgeoning took place, and clear evidence of sleeper accounts) the case still hasn't received administrator attention. Not that there's any rush, but given the threat of a premature archive, someone might consider adding a DNAU template. DarkKnight2149 02:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the DNAU template for 45 days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    45 days is extraordinarily excessive. At this point, I don't think this is a matter admins are willing to censure anyone over, and it's dragging on. Adding another month and a half is not going to improve matters at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's a little excessive. I've shortened it down to at least 10 days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Wikieditor19920

    There is an AfD that I am a part of; actually I was part of some work this weekend to strike out the names of the suspect from the article in keeping with Wikipedia privacy policies. When it was first posted, the nominator asked why this particular missing persons case was unusual (per WP:NOTNEWS and etc. about not having an article for every crime.) I quickly noticed it and before I had decided one way or another, posted a link to the article Missing white woman syndrome which discusses why some crime victims get more press than others.

    Sometime later, after I had made a comment about how I felt the article should go (in opposition to the other editor's thoughts), User:Wikieditor19920 decided to strike through my comment without leaving an edit summary, leaving this note in the article: "Striking as inflammatory and off-topic." They had asked me a few hours earlier to do so, but both the request and the strike was done while I was working. I was a bit shocked, and wasn't even sure if an editor was supposed to do this (as it turns out, it's not, WP:TPO). I double checked to see if they were an admin; surely that's more of an admin thing. Thankfully another editor backed it out. I attempted to talk it over with them with mixed results.

    This one incident seems one of many as it turns out - they went to the talk page of editor User:Black Kite who put the article up for AfD asking them why (which is in the AfD), and later accused the editor of ignoring policy and being disruptive - none of which makes much sense, AfDs are procedural and this isn't a case where someone has put the article up for an AfD repeatedly which would be abuse. Or calling the logic of someone who supports deletion "hopelessly flawed" - all this seems to fly in the face of AfD etiquette. I've participated in many AfD discussions, and this is more of a personal attack than a discussion of how to properly apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

    This apparently is not the first time at the ANI rodeo for this user: see [21], [22], [23], and this edit war that went way out of control. This is getting a bit absurd, and while I don't feel harassed yet, there is definitely a discomfort when wanting to engage with this user. Even bringing this up at ANI was hard because I knew it would likely distract from anti-vandalism work.

    But none of this feels right. We are supposed to be civil. This - what has been doing on - isn't civil, and after that many notes at the ANI, I would have think they would have learned their lesson. Apparently not. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This report makes no allegation of a violation other than trying to Poison the well. User:Mr. Vernon suggested at an AfD discussion (Murder of Tessa Majors) on an article about a murder that the victim's race was the only reason that reliable source sources had reported on it. Further, they based their delete vote on this reasoning, which completely disregards AfD guidelines and frankly violates WP:NOTFORUM. I raised an issue with the editor about this, and they have since repeatedly posted on my talk page to challenge me about it, restoring a thread I had deleted violating my right to WP:BLANK.
    In addition to beating a WP:DEADHORSE on my talk page, this user is also canvassing [24][25][26][27] "support" for this thread. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not use quotes around something I did not say. I never said the victim's race. I did say that if she were of another race, she wouldn't be getting this kind of press coverage, and the article I linked to has peer-reviewed data to back up that assertion. Second, this isn't WP:CANVASSING; there cannot be an attempt to move the needle on consensus because ANI does not operate based on consensus. These users have had interactions recently with this user and may want to provide input; but that's all they can provide, input. All of these users have had interaction with this user recently about this specific AfD (and only those users.) Notifying them that there is an ongoing discussion seems correct. If it IS canvassing (or otherwise against another policy that I am not aware of), please let me know ASAP and I will remove the notifications and apologize for getting it wrong, and accept whatever punishment I get for breaking the rules. Also, the "vote" (which it isn't, AfDs run based on consensus) had nothing to do with this, but rather my reading of WP:EVENT and determining notability guidelines for crime based on a reading of the material; see here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User acknowledges that they said what I said they said (I italicized for emphasis, didn't use quotes) and asks if they can unring a bell re: WP:CANVAS. Over a comment that I agreed to disagree with them on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd, I thought Canvassing was more like this attempt to solicit a user's "vote" into the AfD you are involved with. Did I get that wrong? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above diff shows that I solicited the advice of an uninvolved admin about an article possibly qualifying for WP:SPEEDYKEEP, whose position I had no idea about beforehand. Indeed, the admin disagreed with me. You are going around asking for editors who you believe will be on your side because they either a) agreed with you at the AfD discussion (constituting a small minority), b) have had disagreements with me in the past, or c) both, to "chime in," or rather, gang up on an ANI thread. Apples and oranges. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Followup on canvassing: my mistake, I interpreted the article to apply to matters of consensus only. I've rolled back the changes, and as far as I know those editors have not read it (they have not posted here or tried to contact me.) It's up to the admins how they want to handle it. Of course the edits are still there (Wikieditor19920 has linked to them) so they can be examined and the appropriate action taken. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And for repeatedly restoring a deleted thread (yours) to my talk page? Was that a mistake as well? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920, how is that inflammatory comment?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam—is it proper to imply that the article exists because the victim is a white woman? Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus stop that's not what he/she said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam—why are you saying "that's not what he/she said"? Of course that's "what he/she said". And Mr. Vernon goes on to say "If she were of another race, there wouldn't be this kind of coverage." Also User:LaraGingerbread responds to Mr. Vernon saying "So Tessa's case got attention because she's white?" The whiteness of a victim is not a reason to delete an article. Such comments can be considered extraneous to a deletion discussion. And possibly a violation of WP:FORUM. Mr. Vernon is still writing (4 days ago) "Furthermore Missing white woman syndrome is an input here. She is getting significant coverage because she's a young attractive white woman." I don't think Wikipedia second-guesses sources and looks skeptically on sources based on our belief that we know what motivates sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Question Is it permissible to ping the talk pages of an admin to ask them to Speedy Keep an article going through AfD? I've read WP:SK and it gives very limited reasons for doing so, none of which apply here. WP:SNOW wasn't even applying (not at the time, anyway.) I've always thought that the folks at AfD do a good job of monitoring and applying Speedy Keep/Snow/etc. when they apply without needing to go around asking. It also seems odd that once the admin said no, Wikieditor19920 kept pushing [28] [29]. This is an honest question - is this ok to do? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the canvassing kicks in. I'll note that User:Objective3000 is criticizing me for my number of contributions at an AfD, while exhibiting the same behavior at a move discussion for that same page. Ironically, 03000 took the AfD as another opportunity to attempt to re-litigate the move discussion, which was completely irrelevant.
    User:Mr. Vernon purports he didn't know that canvassing was a technical violation, but common sense should hold that seeking out other editors to gang up on someone is not in accordance with WP policy. He actually violated 3 tenets of canvassing with this thread: 1) posting a non-neutral message "chime in... Wikieditor is getting absurd..." 2) to a non-neutral audience (those he believes more likely to agree with him for reasons above) and 3) perhaps spamming (posting the same message rapidly on 4 different user talkpages). It's difficult to believe that this was an unintentional innocent mistake, and you can't unring a bell.
    Lastly, this user forced me to delete his thread from my talk page four times [34][35][36][37] to challenge me on something I had already acknowledged, our disagreement about his comment, and which there was nothing further to say about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am confused about how an editor can force you to remove something from a talk page. Being very proactive about pruning a conversation from a talk page (as in, within a few minutes) seems like a choice. Your comment is still on my talk page; what of it? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not entitled to restore comments to my talk page that I have deleted. Removal is an acknowledgment that I have read it, as were my (multiple) responses. WP:BLANK, WP:TPG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All involved need to stop bickering here and at the AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, which is why I suggested a warning about bludgeoning with no sanction. O3000 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I'd love to. It should be kept at the AfD. And if Wikieditor19920 did that, as is the case for most AfDs, that would be fantastic. But they take it to my talk page. They [edit my comments. They harass the person who nominated the article for AfD on their talk page. They request a speedy keep from an admin and harass them after they say no to the point where the admin says "I must also admit some curiosity as to what you think you'll accomplish, practically speaking. It should be clear by now I'm not going to change my mind." I'm wondering if this user is here to build an encyclopedia or not. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Aggressive bludgeoning is WE19920's main mode of interaction on talk pages; a stern warning from an attentive admin is sorely needed. --JBL (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Joel B. Lewis—Wikieditor19920 nicely asks Mr. Vernon on their Talk page if they would consider striking their comment. They explain that the comment is "in very poor taste in an AfD discussion like the one above". And Wikieditor19920 nicely asks Cryptic on their Talk page about the same subject. I will point out that Cryptic says that this incident "shouldn't have gotten the disproportionate media coverage it has". No, that is not what Wikipedia is about. We follow sources. Sources clearly enunciate that the Murder of Tessa Majors is interpreted by some to herald a return to high crime rates in New York City.[38] Wikipedia does not get to decide that the incident "shouldn't have gotten the disproportionate media coverage it has". Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus stop I see that you have learned nothing from your recently expired topic ban. --JBL (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JBL—there are often two sides to a story, and I feel it is important to support somebody being treated shabbily. I think I am weighing in to this discussion in a measured manner. Thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't want to be blocked again. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite—you say "Simply, the user needs to stop bludgeoning debates". An overly simplistic understanding of the current juncture might find that you should not have initiated the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tessa Majors. It is OK to have such a discussion—why should we have an article on Murder of Tessa Majors? We can discuss this. But it has to be done in a civil manner. That should not include an extraneous comment about Missing white woman syndrome. That comment immediately followed your nomination of the article for deletion. I don't think that is what you had in mind. You made no mention of race in your explanation for why you were nominating this article for deletion. The comment should have been expunged and that is simply what Wikieditor19920 was endeavoring to do. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bus stop: That's because it was I saw the AfD a few minutes after it went live and replied to it immediately. As far as I know that's the basic order of AfDs, top-level comments are in chronological order, which is why my input (keep or delete) is much further down the page. I'm not sure why I saw the AfD so soon, but I had been watching that page closely due to issues regarding posting the names of the suspects (not by anyone involved here) and of course when I'm looking out for vandalism, watching recent changes/new pages is a must. --Mr. Vernon (talk)

    I'd suggest both the OP and Wikieditor199220 give that AfD some breathing room and leave each other alone. That should resolve everything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's fine, but User:Mr. Vernon has now 1) violated my talkspace by restoring a thread that I intentionally deleted, multiple times, and 2) has filed a frivolous ANI report over an issue that had ended (my striking of a comment he made at an AfD discussion, that wasn't part of his vote, and with an explanation, which he objected to and that I took no further action on) and 3) engaged in blatant canvassing to unduly influence an ANI thread against me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, the fact that this user would try to compensate for the lack of any perceptible reason to have come to ANI in this instance by trying to create prejudice with a full history of any time I've been involved in an ANI thread (which is limited and never resulted in any sanction), in addition to the canvassing, is a complete misuse of what ANI is for. WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wikieditor19920: where is the restoring multiple times? The only time they seemed to restore comments you deleted is here [39] [40]. While generally speaking editors should not restore comments that an editor deleted from their talk page, the explanation [41] offers some understanding of why they did so.

    I don't see where else they restored comments that you had deleted. They did make that new comments on the issue after you had deleted the thread, but that is not a WP:OWNTALK issue. If we're ignoring psychic nonsense, by definition you cannot have read comments which had not been posted before. And while yes, if they use the same section heading technically they're restoring the section heading that's a fairly pointless semantic debate since the editor could just give a different section heading.

    For WP:harassment and other reasons, if an editor wants to drop an issue on their talk page, this generally should be respected, just as if an editor wants to completely ban another from their talk page. But that's a different point. And frankly, I can understand why Mr. Vernon wanted to offer their explanation if you're making such a big deal over what is actually a single restoration of deleted comments.

    Further if you want someone to drop an issue, it helps a great deal if you don't respond either other than with a basic message saying you no longer wish to discuss the issue. While editors should generally still respect a request to drop an issue on their talk page even if the other editor has said a lot as unfair as that can be, it's generally a bit lame to expect you should be the one to get in the last word.

    Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, this user is not allowed to restore any comments to my talk page, once, twice, or at all. And repeatedly re-opening a thread title that I deleted with new comments is just as much of a restoration as his restoring a deleted conversation thread.
    This has nothing to do with who has the "last word." I could not care less, nor do I owe him a response to every one of a series messages confronting me about something long dropped, to either his satisfaction or yours. I politely raised an issue with User:Mr. Vernon on his talk page about a potentially inflammatory comment he made an an AfD. He took exception with my striking the remark at the page and posted on my talk page about it. When I gave this response, there was nothing more to say about it. I shouldn't have to repeat myself with this post, which was the last response I gave before he came to ANI (and which shows how unnecessary this report was). As for If we're ignoring psychic nonsense, by definition you cannot have read comments which had not been posted before., I have no idea what you are talking about. I removed the thread once he had posted it, in addition to offering written replies. This is a user who seems to have lost his temper and apparently didn't get the response he wanted from me, and that's why where at ANI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wikieditor19920: I came across this when looking for something else and since it's still open and has had a reply about a day ago I might as well reply. I think you've misunderstood my point. I already acknowledged that Mr. Vernon should not have restored that comment that one single time they did so. I simply said, I also understood why they did so, given their stated reasons, and the likelihood that they were unaware of our guidelines in this area. If you cannot accepted that editors make mistakes, and are going to make such a big deal over a single mistake, I don't think you are going to last long here.

    And I emphasise the single mistake bit. You claimed "restored twice" but this did not happen. The comment was only restored once. And no, making additional comments is not the same thing as restoring. Especially if your comments are different things from what you said earlier. As I indicated, one of the key reason why editors are forbidden from restoring deleted comments is they serve no purpose. If an editor deletes a comment, it's take as a sign it's been read and understood. An editor cannot have read and understood something which has not been stated. Therefore such a reasoning does not apply.

    Offering further comments to an editor after they deleted your comments is not behaviour that is explicitly forbidden by WP:UOWN and WP:OWNTALK. It may or may not violate WP:Harassment, but that's a far more complicated issue.As I also indicated, you did not simply remove the comments without responding. You responded and then immediately removed the comments. While you are entitled to do that, any suggestion that the other editor should have stopped responding is far more complicated when you're effectively demanding the right to respond, without the other party being able to respond in the same place. In other words, if you want someone to drop and issue, stop responding. Don't respond and then delete your comments.

    I would not support someone commenting on an editor's talk page if an editor has explicitly asked them not to, even in such circumstances. But this isn't what happened here. You never made such a request. You simply deleted the comments, which again you were entitled to do so, but this also makes it far less clear cut whether it was inappropriate for an editor to respond further. As I already said, if you don't want an editor to respond further, your best solution is to simply say so. It's not to respond saying other stuff, then delete all the comments and expect the editor to understand this means you want no further responses, even if an editor feels there is an important point of clarification based on what you said.

    As for the rest of the stuff, I don't really give a damn. I only responded here because I felt, and still feel, it was wrong for you to imply that comments you deleted from your talk page were restored twice when this isn't what happened. They were only restored once, with a second followup using the same subject heading but without restoring the earlier comments.

    Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The main question, in my opinion, concerns the propriety/impropriety of striking through a flippant comment on race. I wanted to do something about the comment "What makes this one unusual?" Please see Missing white woman syndrome—but I did not. It is a response to the Nom (Black Kite) asking What makes this one unusual? There in fact may be a racial component to the Murder of Tessa Majors but it is imperative that any such racial component be addressed in a serious way. The comment was out of place. If I would have done something, I probably would have outright reverted it. In general, I support Wikieditor19920's striking through of what I am terming a flippant statement. The statement is not respectful of anyone—not black people, not white people—and we can know that it was not intended with complete seriousness because there was no followthrough—that line of argument was not continued in Mr. Vernon's actual deletion argument. In fact there is no mention of race in Mr. Vernon's actual deletion argument. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment was perfect.
    Has this thread gone far enough into the Twilight Zone yet? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call ANI.
    I think of ANI as more like the Towaway Zone. EEng 01:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bus stop - you're missing the point completely. Whether the AfD I started was correct or not, the editor has been bludgeoning discussions that he doesn't agree with (not to mention heading off to other editor's talk pages to annoy them), and he needs to stop doing it. This was quite clearly pointed out above. This is not about the validity or otherwise of a particular AfD or DRV. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment at your and Vernon's talk page was not to "annoy you" -- it was to ask that you reconsider an off-topic comment about race that has absolutely nothing to do with notability guidelines. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Multiple users cited my arguments as persuasive enough to influence their vote, and frankly, it seems like the discussion is overwhelmingly favoring keep. Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have, though when an editor agreeswith you, it seems it isn't bludgeoning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black Kite: I have no idea where you are pulling those numbers from. I have about nine comments at that RfC, most of which are very short replies to pings, and Vernon has seven, including an extremely long counter-response to Levivich's analysis. I suggest you double check your work before accusing other editors of "not being able to count." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a few typo fixes for each comment - guilty of occasional typographical errors? Sure. Vastly more participation than Vernon? I don't think so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have. Not according to ctrl+F. You have made the double amount of comments made by Mr. Vernon.[42][43]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your contributions to this discussion have been partisan and sloppy, SharabSalam. I really don't even want to engage with you on this, but note that Ctrl F captures a) pings (including yours) and other editors citing my username when agreeing with my arguments "Per Wikieditor19920..." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920, omg, do you think I would search only for "Wikieditor19920"? I searched "Wikieditor19920 (talk)" see the screenshots.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Does that include my responses to yourfour comments you made under my vote demanding some further explanation? Enough. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Black Kite—I pointed out that the reason given for your initiation of the AfD was detoured by the next comment by Mr. Vernon. It was a non sequitur. Mr. Vernon was asked on their Talk page to remove their comment, but they refused to do so. That is an out of place comment. If there was any cogency to that comment then Mr. Vernon or someone else would have told us that the article should have been deleted because the news tends to favor white female victims over black female victims. But we don't see that. An extraneous and inflammatory assertion should be removed from an AfD such as this one, especially appearing at the top of the discussion. They were literally responding to a question you posed, Black Kite. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted that you don't think the comment from Mr. Vernon applies. But, other editors are allowed their own opinions. Hasn't this been discussed enough? O3000 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    O3000—I didn't ask Mr. Vernon to initiate a section on WP:AN/I about Wikieditor19920. If it has been "discussed enough" then maybe Mr. Vernon can request that this thread be closed. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, the issue now seems to be bludgeoning. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever sticks, right? As discussed above, my participation at the AfD under discussion has been essentially equal to the user filing the report and mostly in response to pings. Further, my arguments persuaded - his did not. Another editor might see a problem with the fact that the filing editor a) engaged in improper canvassing for this report and b) this same editor's refusal to allow me to blank my own page per WP:OWNTALK. This has been an enormous waste of time, esp. considering the extremely long report does not name any specific basis for coming to ANI, and the reason that this discussion has become so drawn out is precisely because of the filing editor's canvassing. Note that I did not at any time ping Bus Stop to become involved in this conversation or otherwise notify him about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk)

    The filer was incorrect in restoring an edit on your TP, and you were incorrect in striking the filer’s edit on the AfD. Your comment persuaded on your incorrect statement that GNG overrules NOTNEWS when GNG is a guideline and NOTNEWS is a policy. As to canvassing, this is not an example of bringing like-minded folk to an AfD or RfC. This is bringing involved people to an AN/I discussion and seems kosher to me. And, your whatever sticks, right is uncalled for. O3000 (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Black Kite Objective3000, Wikieditor19920 has made more than 50 comments in Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede? (based on ctrl-F "Wikieditor19920 (talk)"). This is bizarre. However, I don't think it has reached the point that it is sanctionable but I would support a warning for this behaviour.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just ignore that “RfC”. It is way overdue for closure, there is no way the consensus will change, and requests for closure are heavily backlogged. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with O3000 that that discussion is due for closure, though I think we'll disagree on how it should be closed. I haven't commented on that discussion in almost a month, and I think you'll see pretty extensive involvement in that discussion from several editors. SharabSalam is the type of user who will pester me multiple times at an AFD to expound on my vote [44][45][46][47] and then come to ANI and try to pile on accusations of bludgeoning for my replies at that same page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920, because your vote was "Speedy keep, snow" which is something that would require more clarification, and yet even if we removed the comments you made in response to me, the number of comments you made is still more than the number of comments made by -Mr. Vernon. Also, I am not the only one here accusing you of bludgeoning. There is also O3000 and Black Kite. I have seen the same bludgeoning by you in this discussion where you made 53 comments in that RfC including some three to four unindented bullet comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam, There is nothing in the sources that suggest that this is any different from any "murder" or "killing" that happens in the U.S. in daily basis. This is why wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.? Your repeated pings and comments under my vote were not about "clarification," you were merely quibbling me over my vote. Which you also did to other editors at that page.[48][49]. When I reply, don't come to ANI and complain that I've "bludgeoned" the discussion by responding to you. This is a perfect illustration of why canvassing at ANI is prohibited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920, In addition to that RfC and that AfD. Here is another recent example of your bludgeoning [50]. Note: I wasn't even in that discussion so you can't say I forced you to reply. An editor there, S Marshall noted your response to every vote and said From the large number of times you've posted in this discussion, I would tend to suspect that you might be very concerned about the outcome. It's up to you, but I do suggest that you consider not replying quite so much. And yet you continued.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam If a user makes a comment about me as the nominator at an AfD or the propriety of the nomination, I'm allowed to address it. As for threads where we've been mutually involved, you, tend pester me and others for responses to inane or pointed questions long after everyone's begun ignoring you, and then you come here to cite my replies to your pings as bludgeoning. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Enough. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    your incorrect statement that GNG overrules NOTNEWS... I'm not going to rehash our positions at the AfD here. Canvassing is equally inappropriate at ANI as at article discussion pages. User Vernon only pinged editors who either a) disagreed with me at the AfD and agreed with him, b) have had disagreements with me in the past, or c) both. You and SharabSalam are included under c). I have not had any prior interactions with Black Kite but he opened the AfD discussion and Vernon has been a strong advocate of deletion. Further, the message that he pinged with was a copy-paste, in rapid succession, on four users pages and completely non-neutral, making it clear that he was expecting your "support." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm asking nicely: please stop.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikieditor19920, I don't believe that we've ever interacted (or if we have, I'm not remembering) and I don't think I've ever interacted non-trivially with any of the other main parties here, so I think I'm fairly uninvolved here and can look at this without any sort of bias. As such, please hear me when I say that while others may not be guiltless, you really aren't doing yourself any favors right now. You keep responding frequently and somewhat aggressively to most of the statements here (hence the repeated references above to WP:BLUDGEON), and it's really not helping your case. It seems like this behavior is what Mr. Vernon was concerned about when filing this, so you're actually proving them right and drawing attention away from any potential misdeeds of theirs. I suggest you take a moment to listen to the concerns of others, even if you disagree with them, then try to see it from their perspective. They're not crazy, just passionate about Wikipedia, too. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. Everything's a two-way street, and my striking Vernon's comment was a mistake. I take WP policy seriously, so if something I do is on the line, I'll admit it. WP:TPO does seem to restrict those kind of actions for an off-topic comment. Maybe hatting it would've been the better approach, or just leaving it be (which I did after being reverted). So I do have an end in this. I think I acknowledged this to the filer, but apparently that wasn't enough to dissuade them from repeatedly bringing it up on my talk page and restoring a thread repeatedly after I'd replied, and then filing and canvassing this ANI report. I don't think any of that was necessary, but I've said my piece on it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    At the informal request of the OP Mr. Vernon, I am re-opening this thread, as it seems that, despite the reported party recognizing and acknowledging they made a mistake, there are still loose threads and other general concerns regarding this user. As I'm not familiar with the reported party, I will leave future closures to those who are more familiar; as such, I won't involve myself in this case, other than this courtesy notice that I've re-opened the thread. Amaury • 21:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:JUSTDROPIT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to be confused with WP:JUSTDOIT – Levivich [dubious – discuss] 05:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Krish!

    Krish! was recently unblocked per the Standard Offer after a long indefinite block. One of the reasons for the block can been in this ANI thread, in which he clashed with me with conspiracy theory claims of "taking money" and making up many such imaginary claims against me. This coupled with a general WP:Battleground mentality.

    It should be noted that I NOT indulged in edit war with editor in last 24 hours. Krimuk 2.0 has reverted 3 edits on Priyanka Chopra's article, 2 edits at his talk page and I have only reverted his one wrong wrong edit which he later accepted here.Krish | Talk 21:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly read THE REAL version that happened. This version is written to make people confuse into think that I was the one who was edit warring.Krish | Talk 00:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Now within 24 hours of coming back, he is back to his old ways of whitewashing the page of his favourite subject Priyanka Chopra by adding unsourced puffery which I removed in this edit and removing negative critical notice and poor box office return of her film. When reverted and asked to maintain WP:STATUSQUO, he resorted to his usual edit-warring instead of starting a discussion on talk page (which I started), as he was advised to do. He did not make a single attempt to explain his edit on the talk page (update: he did after I opened this ANI thread, albeit still making accusations against me on the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Instead he began making more of the same claims against me (similar to the 2018 event), in this thread. He absolutely refuses to listen to my advice to "open a neutrally-worded talk page discussion and ask the community to gain consensus", which I said three times, and instead insists on only making accusations against me by saying "You were not reverted because other editors are not ready to challenge your edits or just don't care. Only I would have challenged it but I was blocked." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: This complain was brought to ANI while I was working on the reply to the discussion at [HERE. Also note this discussion has nothing with any of the reverts as I did not revert any of his edits. So discussing about it is not even related to any of it. This discussion was added there much much after he complained about me at Hunter's page. But here he makes it seem like I was not ready to discuss.Krish | Talk 21:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: One of my reverts to the Chopra article was a mistake which I rectified myself, when pointed out. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A request to the Administrators: Kindly read my warm post extending olive branch on Krimuk 2.0's talk page, then after being shut down my reluctance of editing any article fearing revert and then block and then here to read here. Thank you.Krish | Talk 21:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    PSS: My intent is to not get the editor blocked, because everyone deserves a second chance and some of their edits are quite constructive. But these constant accusations are aggravating when a simple talk page discussion with uninvolved editors can suffice, when he does indeed want to "challenge" me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would kindly ask to the administrators to go through the history of Priyanka Chopra (an article that I have been updating and expanding; it was un-updated for a long time). It should be noted that I ONLY reverted him once because he did had reverted my last 5 to 6 edits (an improvement) without reading as he accepts here. I did not engage in edit war as I just reverted his edit saying you don't WP: OWN the article because as an editor I can add things in articles by giving strong sources. But he has been reverting all of my edits since last night BUT not once did I revert any of his edit, except the one where he accepted he reverted without reading. After his constant revert spree, I wrote to Cyphoidbomb on his about Krimuk 2.0 reverting all my edits and I been afraid of editing further in fear of getting blocked. I even tried to extend an olive branch but he rejected me twice: her saying "i was wrong, clearly nothing has changed. sigh" and here saying Not interested.Krish | Talk 20:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite Chopra being "one of the most talented actresses of Indian cinema" was there in her article for 5 or so years, until 2018 and this editor was the one who removed it without any reasons. Same goes for "widespread success", it was there all those years but was only removed by the said editor in 2018 without any explanation. Also when he reverted my today's edits claiming PUFFERY, I did not revert him, I welcomed his edit. I had added several important things in the article that were missing and updated the article. He reverted most of my edit but I recerted just one edit. I only reverted his edit when he had added a misinformation in the article which he had later accepted [that it was his mistake yet he filed a complain against me. Kindly read my talk page post to know what really happened. Thanks.Krish | Talk 00:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hell in a Bucket But I reverted him because he had added a wrong information and later accepted he accepted his mistake. That user reverted me 2 times on his talk page, 3 times on article and here I am. Please understand I did not edit war. Please read the post on my talk page. I am feeling so helpless right now. What I am supposed to do? I have done everything to explain what really happened yet I am being blamed.Krish | Talk 01:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Krish!, If someone removes your post on their talk page, leave it that way. It's allowed, the assumption is that they read your post. If they revert you on an article, leave it, and try to discuss it. If they don't use the noticeboards or other forms of dispute resolution. You need to be the perfect editor, in any circumstance. Ravensfire (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravensfire I understand what you are saying but I did not revert any of the debatable stuff. I reverted his wrong edit where he re-added a wrong information. When he had first reverted my edit 2 days ago, I actually went to discuss on his talk. Then he kept repeatedly reverting my edit as if he [[WP: OWN]s the article. Should I have to now discuss about adding links to an article? He kept reverting my edits and I am here being reported. How is is fair? And, no one is ready to listen to my version.Krish | Talk 04:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Maybe I was unclear, but the problem isn't about edit-warring. It's about a recently unblocked editor who comes back and does these (which he should not do even once):

    • 1) In this edit he uses this source in which a single journalist writes that "Priyanka has emerged as one of the most talented and versatile actresses in Bollywood" which he turns into "Several critics and media publications have described Chopra as one of the most talented actresses in Indian cinema". (For non-Indian editors, Bollywood is a smaller subset of Indian cinema).
    • 2) He says that he wants to "improve" the article, but that involves only removing negative critical and commercial notice to two of her films. Note, that this "activism" does not extend to removing a single positive comment or mention of a commercial success, of which there are plenty.
    • 3) He renames a section to "widespread success" when there is no such reference in that section that states that.
    • 4) Deliberately removes an informative source from Moneycontrol.com (an RS) for another one that does not mention "box office flop" in its title.
    • 5) The same battleground mentality, which led to his previous block, can be seen in this edit when he tells me "You were not reverted because other editors are not ready to challenge your edits or just don't care. Only I would have challenged it but I was blocked."
    • 6) Keeps making unverified claims against me, on the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in every "discussion": here, here, and above.

    Are these valid edits for someone who is back on the standard offer? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To counter his points:
    You clearly had said on Berean Hunter's page that I was edit warring. I only reverted your one edit that too the wrong UNICEF information one which you accepted later. Your contant reverts of all my edits shows that you were trying to provoke me to edit- war. I on the other hand was explaining every edit of mine.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) Then explain why the same line was used in the article since 2018? You removed that without giving any explanations but hid it under "trim redundant info; add 2 new important lists" summary so that no one would notice.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2) I had removed it and you re-added it by reverting me and then I realised you were right and I did not revert. So why are you trying to make it seem like I reverted them? It is notable that these two performances that have been shown as negative/mixed by Krimuk are actually well received as I proved it on the article's talk page. Plus see his response. He says he won't accept it as he considers a positive reviews only if the ratio is 100 positive: 1 Negative. This is violation of wikipedia guidelines.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3) Again it was therein the article since a very long time, removed by in 2018 without explanations. So you think that you don't have to give explanation to edit but constantly wants explanation and discussion from others. Again WP: OWN violation.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4) My summary clearly states there was no BOX OFFICE BOMB mentioned in the source but you had used BOX OFFICE BOMB in that article. Again WP: NPOV violation. MONEY CONTROL is NOT used on wikipedia for Box Office figures and that was my reason to remove it. I had replaced that source with a better source. Also, my other summary says I used it more widely accepted BOX OFFICE website source on wikipedia. Source was replaced but I still used a neutral tone to describe an unsuccessful film as unsuuccessful/did not do well and not BOMB like you did.]Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5) It's not about Battleground. It's about you constantly reverting, removing everything from articles without explanations YET you want editors like me to add a coma, link after taking persmission from you. I have challenged your edits on Priyanka Chopra's talk page and it's obvious that your edits violated WP: NPOV.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6) You have been accusing me of WHITEWASHING Chopra's article. Is that not a WP: Personal Atack? Also people can see that I have properly given my response to your edits on Chopra's talk page discussion and it is obvious, they violate WP: NPOV. See his response [here and [51] when I quoted a wikipedia rule about WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight, he says "tiny minorities" would be 1 negative review for 100 positives, which does not seem the case anywhere". What is does suppose to mean?Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please NOTE: This user behaves as if you WP:OWN the articles on wikipedia. Could you explain why you significantly changed Bajirao Mastani article which was decided after several days of grueling discussions on its talk page? You removed the version of the article that was the consensus of the same wikipedia community that you are talking about. But you reverted it without discussing with any editor forget community, why? As per WP: I Don't Like It or WP: OWN? Could you care to explain? Isn't this a violation of wikipedia rules to remove something from article that was decided after consensus of the community or you just do it as you please? Similarly, in 2018 he removed several things (with strong sources) that were present since a long time from Chopra's article, an FA written by other prominent editors, without any explanations. I saw no discussions happening there. Yet he wants me to ask his permission to add even a comma in that article.Krish | Talk 06:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As for "Yet he wants me to ask his permission to add even a comma in that article." that's yet another unverified claim against me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you revert most of my edits on Chopra's article. You reverted my edit when I linked an article, you reverted my edit when I corrected your false information about UNICEF, you reverted my edit when I added Chopra's "noted for philanthropy" line, you reverted me when I renamed a section and others. Yet you can do everything without any questions by others? After my response on Chopra's talk page on those discussions, it is pretty clear that you have WP: OWN and WP: I Just Don't Like It problem as I gave my response and proved that Chopra's performances in those films were positively reviewed yet you are not ready to consider my voice. Why? I even provided my response with very strong sources yet you are not ready to accept an alternative view point.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "it is pretty clear that you have WP: OWN and WP: I Don't Like It problem". Instead of making repeated false accusations against an editor, comment on the 6 gratuitous edits highlighted above that go against your standard offer. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So now, I cannot even defend myself by tackling each of your accusatory points? You have done the same thing that you are accusing me of and are still doing. I'm countering "your edits" and not you. While you have been accusing me of whitewashing and then falsely accusing you. I'm just explaining my version of what you have added here and ANI is about that. I am suppose to defend myself here.Krish | Talk 07:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    More...

    "MONEY CONTROL sources are NOT used for Box Office figures" -- please provide a written policy that states that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I, who has written over 1 FA and 17 good articles on films, know that for the first time I have seen a Money Control source being used in any Indian film article, especially for BO. Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ does not list Money Control as an important source for Indian films. After replacing that Money Control source, I had given a link from Box Office India, widely used source here, that described the poor performance of the film. But it should be noted that your edit described that commercially flop film, as a Box Office Bomb. While even that Money Control article source did not say anything about the film being a Box Office Bomb, violating WP: NPOV. Would you like to tell everyone here, why?Krish | Talk 23:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Box office flop redirects to box office bomb. It’s a synonym. And also, as stated multiple times above, not the issue here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Box Office Bomb" is a term used for describing a very expensive film that looses a huge chunk of money, not for an independent/small budget film. Plus that article does not say anything about how much money it lost or what the budget was. So how did you come to conclusion that the film was a box office bomb? You even linked it. Yet I have observed you did not add "Box Office Bomb" to an another article you have been editing, Chhapaak which has been described as a "A Big FLOP" by Box Office India, the most widely accepted BO website on wikipedia, a site which you yourself have used several times to cite edits like XYZ is the biggest box office star in India but did not cared to use in that article. Box Office India wrote another piece saying "Chhapaak - A Rare Loser For The Industry". The analysis said "Chhapaak is that rare loser for the industry which will lose money. Chhapaak will put its investors in the red with even with satellite and digital." This sounds more like a Box Office Bomb. Don't you think?Krish | Talk 00:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to draw attention away from the subject at hand. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's your WP: NPOV violating edits and then treating every article as WP: OWN, removing discussed/consensus reached edits like you did on Bajirao Mastani.Krish | Talk 08:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is precisely the definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and very similar to the previous ANI thread in which you made unvalidated accusations against me, which got you blocked in the first place. Just like that case, this ANI is not about me and I am not the one who is back here on the WP:Standard offer. You are. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's here you changed a version of the article which was decided after several days of grueling discussions and different POVs of several editors on its talk page. Then you removed the version of the article without explanations or any reason, violating Wikipedia rules. So I am not pointing to just any random stuff because it is documented in that article's history. Now coming to the main point, one of the many Wikipedia rules says Be Bold and perform edits backed by strong sources. That's exactly what I did after coming back but you started reverting my edits. I did not revert any of your edits. I did not revert you for reverting my edits and I accepted my mistake and respected your reverts as those were discussion worthy and hence left it the way you wanted. I only reverted you once when you re-added a misinformation to the lead which you later accepted saying "this was entirely my mistake -- i misread". Then you reported me at Berean Hunter's page and then started a discussion and when I was writing the response to that discussion, you reported me at ANI. So now you tell me what I am supposed to do? I would do exactly as you say. I s that okay?Krish | Talk 09:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again an attempt to mislead. Your revert also included the re-inclusion of puffery terms and removal of negative critical and commercial response, as highlighted in points 2 and 3 above. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You reverted my last 4 "constructive edits" just because you did not agree with my one edit but in process re-added a wrong information, yet somehow only I am wrong? In Chopra's article, critical and commercial response of many of her hit and acclaimed films/roles are not present either. So I removed it to balance it out. But I accepted your reverts of critical response of DDD and did not revert. I reverted you only once when you reverted five edits at once, with four of which were actually constructive and one was debatable. I only reverted you once when you re-added a misinformation to the lead, which is a violation of wikipedia rules. Let's accept it we both were wrong and we should move on.Krish | Talk 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    Are you two quite done now? Honestly no one is going to read the above massive wall of sniping, arguing and bickering. Krimuk2.0 if you have a case to put forward please make it concisely and structured in a single post. Krish! stop responding to every single little comment, you're not helping yourself. Canterbury Tail talk 17:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, Krish, the amount of bold you are using is excessive, please calm down on it.LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury Tail and LakesideMiners After coming back I my BOLD edits were not that bold. You can see at the article's talk page that the negative critical reviews that he had added actually violated WP: NPOV. There you can see her performances in those two films were not panned like his edits made it seem. WP NPOV says if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. So me removing a non-controversial thing was not that Bold. How can you show 22 positive review and 3 negative review as mixed review and 12 positive, 2 mixed-leaning towards positive and 2 negative as purely negative performance? But anyways, when he reverted me, I accepted it and did not revert as I was planning for a discussion in next few days. I did not revert him for reverting my edits and I accepted my mistake and respected his reverts as those were discussion worthy and hence left it the way he wanted. I only reverted him once when he re-added a misinformation to the lead which he later accepted saying "this was entirely my mistake -- i misread". Then he reported me at Berean Hunter's page for edit warring and then he started a discussion and when I was writing the response to that discussion, he reported me at ANI. Maybe we both are at fault and we should move on? And if only I am wrong here then I would like to apologise as I did not mean harm. I had updated that article as it wasn't since a very long time. So if I am wrong forgive me. I don't know if I can say more now.Krish | Talk 19:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe LakesideMiners is talking about your bold sentences like this? -MegaGoat Contribs 19:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MegaGoat, yes, that is what I meant. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 19:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MegaGoat Oh I am sorry for misunderstanding. I know I overdid it above but I won't be doing it from now LakesideMiners. Thanks for calling out my mistake. I appreciate it.Krish | Talk 19:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Revenge trolling vandalism by User:96.238.128.155

    (non-admin closure) Range blocked by El_C. Amaury • 19:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Following an edit I made to Connie Glynn that met with the displeasure of the IP, the aforementioned took revenge on my edits to Gui Minhai. Request block. -- Ohc ¡digame! 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Final warning (uw-disruptive4) issued. El_C 23:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/96.238.128.0/21 seems to be the range that is causing the most trouble at that article if that warning doesn't help. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the only people who seem to have caused any trouble with the page since she deleted her videos have been User:Ohconfucius, User:Deepfriedokra, User:Tymon.r, User:Phuzion, User:Nyook, User:AntiCompositeNumber, User:Oshwah, User:MelanieN, User:LPS and MLP Fan, User:Dorsetonian, User:TK421bsod, and User:Gyanda. These were all registered users, and all edits not by these registered users have only been for the purpose of drawing attention to what she did and/or what she should do next, while edits by these registered users have been trying to cover up what she did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.128.155 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "Here's a big long list of users who did the appropriate thing on Wikipedia, which is to remove UrbanDictionary nonsense from biographies of living people." Did you mean to demonstrate that you have no idea how Wikipedia works, and should immediately cease editing before you're subject to a long-term block for multiple policy violations? Because that's what you did there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I know how the people who created Wikipedia want it to work, I just think it's important that people find out about Connie Glynn's decision to take away stuff that was doing significant good and think it should be mentioned somehow in her article rather than trying to act like it didn't happen. I definitely think I'm too close to the situation to think neutrally about it, but no one who isn't seems to want to add anything at all about that to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.128.155 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    96.238.128.155 (talk · contribs) blocked for 60 hours for disruptive editing. El_C 01:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note this is after the IP vandalized El_C's talk page here. I'd still suggest extending the block to the /21 range to prevent further disruption. The same person was blocked 2 weeks on February 12 for disruptive editing on the same subject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the range for the duration. Thanks, Eagles247. El_C 04:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The IP came back after the block expired with the same nonsense. I’ve blocked the IP address for 3 months and blocked the range for 1 month. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor, violating WP:NOTBROKEN, unresponsive

    91.125.218.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is rapidly and without explanation "fixing" redirects, contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN. IP has not responded to notices on talk page. Is this a pattern of behaviour that rings any bells? The edits are far too rapid to be being done by a clueless newbie. DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. I'm a DABfixer, and I don't correct even the easiest bad links that fast. (I have better things to do than fixing NOTBROKEN links; unless they're counter-intuitive WP:EASTEREGGs which might puzzle readers.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny that, I just left a note encouraging WP:DPL. Prodego talk 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been a heavy-duty DABfixer since 2016, and I don't recall ({{senile cackle}}, my memory could be going) any issue similar to this having been raised at WT:DPL or WT:DAB during that time. Although all help is welcome, I'd be reluctant to point to point an IP towards towards the tools we use the most; there's too much risk of difficult-to-detect damage. Narky Blert (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is now editing as 212.219.142.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), same edits, same articles. DuncanHill (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked both. Materialscientist (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Materialscientist:. DuncanHill (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Has started again now the block has expired. @Materialscientist:. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chuckwick 2020 - MOS:NUMERAL + no edit summaries

    Chuckwick 2020 (talk · contribs) seems to have a preference for integers written as figures, not as words, and has been going through various articles modifying integers in them to number format (e.g.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]). MOS:NUMBER, on the other hand, states "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)."
    In addition to these entirely unnecessary changes, Chuckwick 2020 does not use edit summaries, nor do they use their Talk: page. Thus a series of notices on their Talk: page have gone unnoticed or unheeded. Is there some way of encouraging them to stop making unnecessary changes, and start using edit summaries? Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I was notified that I may be involved, but I only provided one of the six warning templates on Chuckwick 2020's talk page, and it was requesting the use of edit summaries, That was repeated by another editor a few weeks later, and the rest are actual warnings. From what I can see, some of Chuckwick 2020's edits apply MoSs correctly, while others do not. I think that we need to know what the editor is thinking and why the incorrect changes are being made, and engagement with other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the first step is to get them to respond here. They've continued to edit, but have neither replied on their Talk: page, nor commented here. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @Aranya:. Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Jayjg, thank you for the ping. The only interaction I've had with Chuckwick 2020 concerned his edits on Tupac Shakur. The edits ([62], [63], [64]) removed some of the clunky inline Unreliable source? tags but also correctly changed the capitalization in a reference name to match its source title. It wasn't really evident to me why he removed the tags given the lack of edit summaries, and I myself didn't see any problems with the tags, so I reverted the edits so that the tags can possibly aid future improvements to the article. I then added a templated notice to his talk page as a courtesy. Although he seems (to me) like a novice editor acting in good faith, despite the lack of communication, I definitely think that competence is required at some point and that he should at least try to communicate his intentions (and help edit more in-line with MOS and the like as necessary). – Aranya (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC) (edited again 03:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    They are still editing, and still doing the same: [65][66][67]. They clearly know how to add an edit summary[68]; they just choose not to. Unresponsive users who have never used their Talk: page are typically blocked, to bring their attention to their Talk: page, and to get them to engage. Unless someone objects, I think that's the next step. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Dmehus

    Based on the reasoning in the "Proposed close" section below:
    • User:Dmehus is blocked until June 15th. This is not a self-requested block; since this is a community discussion, it would require community agreement to unblock earlier. (Doug, as an aside, I am very confident that the community would not agree to that, and strongly recommend against trying.)
    • Upon his return, he will be indefinitely banned from the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces, except to participate in discussions started by other people about (a) articles he has made significant contributions to himself, or (b) about him.
    • If significant disruption switches to other namespaces, an admin can block indefinitely.
    • If there is no significant disruption to other namespaces, Doug can request a loosening of this restriction at WP:AN. (Doug, as an aside, I am very confident that the community would not agree to that if you request it sooner than about 4 months after being unblocked, and strongly recommend against trying. However, see the exception below)
    • A strong suggestion to make a loosening more likely, but not a requirement, is that Doug find an established editor (for example, User:Mazca has offered, and might still be willing in 3 months) to mentor him prior to requesting a loosening of the namespace restriction. If he finds an experienced mentor, then I'd recommend appealing some or all of the namespace ban in accordance with his mentor's advice, which I suspect the community would be comfortable with even if earlier than 4 months. But of course the exact type of loosening would be determined by the community discussion when it happens. (As an aside, I'm hoping the community would simply defer to a mentor's judgement, if there was one, rather than micro-manage restrictions.)
    • Pretty much everyone acknowledges Doug's good faith.
    • User:Mazca wins the thread, for the most helpful comment/offer.
    • Doug's talk page will remain open, just in case Doug and Mazca/some other mentor want to get an earlier start. Doug can request removal of talk page access if he feels it will help enforce a break. Talk page access/removal *is* self-requested.
    --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I know we don't like citing WP:CIR, but I can think of no other adequate description for Doug's behavior, especially after several novel length discussions about his problematic edits in a wide range of areas. The behavior doesn't seem to be improving and frankly appears to be frustrating and wearing down more uninvolved editors patience and good faith. As I write this, it's hard to be concise because of the sheer amount of problems and lengthy discussions that exhibit this type of well meaning but disruptive behavior.

    • this firm but clear explanation about this RFD by Tavix where Doug's responses do nothing to address the problem but indicate what appears to be an unwillingness to learn combined with some wikilawyering. I find this discussion to be the final straw as it offered encouragement, advice and warnings from several experienced and respected editors that went ignored (specifically, the advice to go find another area to edit, such as articles needing sources otherwise the continued behavior is likely to end up in a topic ban, or worse.) It also appears that messing around with ambiguous DABs is not a new problem
    • Another discussion started by Tavix, about Doug's problems at AFD, touching again on the lack of due diligence and bludgeoning.
    • There also seems to be a problem with just not listening in general, like when he has repeatedly pinged and thanked editors despite being asked several times in various venues not to.[69][70][71][72][73]and even a twice about ping-canvassing In fact, in this thread he even states "I tend to overuse the thank button", even after the above discussions. To put it into perspective, he's made 2903 thanks in his tenure (actively editing for ~6 months) which is about 483/month. That's a lot of thanks. I know they mean well but at some point you have to realize that the thank button just generates annoying notifications when you use it repeatedly.
    • This comment by primefac really sums up a large part of the problem. they give the impression that you are commenting on a discussion purely to comment on a discussion. If you don't know what a template does, or why it would be useful, there is really no need to comment saying that; simply wait until someone else has done so and/or leave well enough alone. Your comments (both the initial one and the subsequent replies to the other participants) add almost nothing and (if anything) make it more tedious to read through the actual discussion.


    I should note that all of these diffs are almost entirely only discussions on his talk page and do not include the countless discussions in other venues where the same things have been repeated ad nauseum. (notified) Praxidicae (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Praxidicae, I'm not going to comment on most of the above, only the portion which is related to this notification, which was the last bullet point. I assumed that we were permitted to userfy content that is currently at MfD, as another editor did the same in regards to another discussion currently in "old business." If this is not the case, I will request G7 deletion. My message to GoodDay was not a request to be involved in the MfD discussion, but rather just to mark the page in my own userspace as "reviewed." Doug Mehus T·C 16:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will request G7 deletion. My message to GoodDay was not a request to be involved in the MfD discussion, but rather just to mark the page in my own userspace as "reviewed." I cannot fathom why you would need to seek out someone to mark your userspace article reviewed and it seems like a thinly veiled way to canvas people to the MFD. The fact that you see nothing wrong with this or canvassing is a problem. And it's not just this instance, it's all the others brought up above (and more.) Also, you do not need to ping me to a discussion that I started. Praxidicae (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae, Absolutely not. My understanding is that all article and user namespace articles need to be reviewed including subpages. Since GoodDay and I have collaborated on articles relating to the Senate of Canada, I have GoodDay's user talk page on my "watchlist," to which it was near the top of my watchlist. I did note GoodDay's participation in the previous AfD and, judging from their arguments, they seemed to have more expertise on the subject than I, so they seemed as good as any page patrolling editor to reach out to see whether or not this was an appropriate userification and whether I'd done it correctly. Doug Mehus T·C 16:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the ping, but reply-link inserts it automatically, so I don't always remember to remove the username ping. Doug Mehus T·C 16:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I asked you above, now on your talk page, please stop pinging me to discussions I have started. Second, that doesn't address any of the other problems here. What value other than creating busy work, does patrolling a userspace draft have, that would lead you to seeking out a patroller to ask for it? Why is yours more important than any of the other thousands waiting for review? I genuinely don't understand the logic here or in any of the other conversations I provided above and I cannot for the life of me figure out how the first two canvassing warnings (which you acknowledged) were unclear. As far as replylink goes, this appears to be a significant problem for you and as I noted, you've been asked several times to stop. Perhaps you need to turn it off. Praxidicae (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain how this is canvassing, to request another editor review one's userpage. I simply didn't want to see it deleted, given potential for notability. Also, I could've misread Bradv's message to me, but it didn't seem like a "warning," as you've characterized it above, but rather Bradv's interpretation on the purpose of Draft: namespace. I noted that other editors in that discussion, with varying tenures, have disputed that view of draft namespace. As another editor forked a contested MfD page into their userspace, I assumed it was possible to fork this page. as well, provided I follow the requirements for tracking attribution to the original version. My purpose of messaging GoodDay was, since they were familiar with the subject and an experienced editor, they would be familiar with the requirements for userification and whether I'd done it correctly, so it seemed reasonable that an editor familiar with the page "review" it versus a random editor at some point in the future. I had zero intention of having GoodDay participate in the MfD discussion, so I'm not really certain how that's canvassing? Doug Mehus T·C 16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly debated even responding to this because I can't tell if you're genuinely not understanding or not listening to justify a multitude of incorrect and poor edits after multiple editors, including several admins have outlined relevant policies and guidelines and the most frustrating part is that you've acknowledged said discussions each time and continued the behavior. Praxidicae (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...At the present time, I do not have the time or bandwidth to break down the points of those discussions, but merely presenting them for review by other editors to make their own conclusions. (I'll probably be back to participate in this discussion at a later time.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dmehus has exasperated many of us by relentlessly offering the benefit of his inexperience with great confidence and a near-total lack of self-criticism or acceptance of feedback. I have no idea what to do for the best: a restriction to article and talk space is likely only to perpetuate the same issues in a more diffuse manner. Guy (help!) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Following a discussion with GoodDay, it seems like it may be best to wait at least six months before recreating this draft article in userspace, so I've requested speedy deletion. Moreover, I just noticed there is already another userspace forked version of the draft article, at the original location prior to it being moved to Draft: namespace, so this forked version isn't specifically needed. I have other things I need to do be doing, so it seems appropriate for me to actually self-enforce an extended wikibreak for a few months (noting Steel1943's encouraging comments to me on my talk page of the difficulty in "retiring"). I'm not going to retire, but the similarity is there in that it can be difficult to actually effect one's desired wikibreak. Doug Mehus T·C 17:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Dmehus, if you would like me to perform a self-requested block of a few months I will. That is one commitment mechanism for taking a wikibreak. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Barkeep49, I had hoped it wouldn't come to that, but yes, if you could block my account from editing all areas of Wikipedia other than my talk page(s) so I can respond to any messages as may be required, until I complete my diploma program—say May 15th or June 15th—that would be helpful. Following that, I would like to complete the NPP School curriculum, with either you or Rosguill as a mentor. Some modification of the curriculum may be needed, to focus on the areas which I seem to have less knowledge (specifically, userspace patrolling, editor relations, etc.). Doug Mehus T·C 17:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      "...my talk page(s)..." Huh? Could you clarify that? Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) ...Unfortunately, I do not believe that will be enough, especially since that resolution would be on Dmehus' terms and not the community's. Dmehus already had a few chances to prove that they could abide by terms set out by themselves, but most (if not all) such self-imposed terms were broken shortly afterwards. The community needs to have their consensus enforced at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Given the objections laid out by Steel and Praxidicae I will not make that self-requested block until this ANI thread is resolved. Doug - we can discuss this more at that point. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'm not going to reply further to this thread. Honestly, had I known about self-requested blocks sooner than the past month, I probably would've requested this back at the end of December / beginning of January. I think it's a reasonable outcome because, ultimately, the self-requested block, and this firm-as-possible, clear-as-mud warning at ANI should give me both the time I need to concentrate on other, offline priorities and also to reflect on the events which precipitated this discussion. I genuinely have positive contributions to make to Wikipedia, and I'm confident that this would find support among most editors on here. I seem to just need some guidance in areas which I'm obviously struggling to contemplate. Doug Mehus T·C 18:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...The problem with self-requested blocks (or really blocks at all for that matter) is that if an editor cannot get away from Wikipedia still, they may fall back on using sockpuppetry. I'm not saying that would happen here, but I've seen it happen before. There really needs to be additional terms set out to help identify what the community can do in regards to sanctions to hopefully put you in a better position to edit again either during the sanctions and/or when the block is over. (Also, in your context above, "...clear-as-mud..." probably doesn't mean what you think it means. But if it does, that sort of enforces any WP:IDHT concerns already voiced in this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in favor of giving a good faith but overly exuberant editor who has acknowledged their shortcomings-- and asked for a forced break-- the chance to try it. Dhemus himself would accept a very long forced break; that says a lot. The idea that they might resort to socking amounts to ABF. If they do, they will be blocked then. I am in favor of letting Barkeep49 and Dhemus give the forced break a try. A long time away from Wikipedia is often enough to change one's perspective, and Dhemus has admitted there are problems. This is a very good first step. (I don't support the mentoring idea; it is always too much work, this is a better alternative.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (after edit conflicts with JzG and Dmehus) Like Tavix above I was hoping that Dmehus would become a positive editor without being brought to ANI, but it seems that, as I was afraid might happen when I first encountered this editor several months ago, it seems that something more than a bit of helpful guidance is called for here. Every so often we seem to get a new editor who is full of ideas that are pasted all over Wikipedia pages, but who doesn't listen to advice from experienced editors. Sadly this seems to be such a case. What can we do short of a "competency is required" block? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confused-- you mention a new editor. Best I can tell, Dhemus has been editing since 2007. Is this a new behavior pattern, or long-standing? Dhemus, has something changed? I, too, was mildly frustrated at Dhemus shutting down a conversation I was having at SilkTork's RFB, while continuing off-topic chatter himself, but saw it as not such a big deal. I would like to know if there is a history, and for Dhemus to indicate if something has changed recently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've had an account for a lot longer than 2007 and 2007 may have been my first real edits, but haven't been editing regularly since around 2017 or so. As to the canvassing instances, in the two instances mentioned (the Canadian Tire Financial Services one), it was a piece of friendly advice. In the second one, it was determined in the discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson to not be canvassing since the editors I'd notified mostly held opinions in opposition to my own. At most, it was an inappropriate notification. I think it's a general misunderstanding of WP:CANVASS because my understanding is one can still neutrally notify a user, so long as they have no expectation of expressing a certain viewpoint. Part of the problem may be that the guideline, like so many, is open to interpretation. The 'thanks' log usage is just because I am serial thanker who wishes to express gratitude for edits on pages that I follow (my userpage even notes this). I was actually going to put together a 'Thanks Log Opt-out' page for editors to add their name, in my own userspace, to opt out of being thanked and/or pinged. Doug Mehus T·C 17:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have 11446 edits since 2004-01-25. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dmehus I think it would be beneficial for you to actually reflect on what is being said here before you decide to speak. Your above response is just as troubling as the others I've pointed out here in that you are explaining exactly what your problematic edits are (in fact, better than I and others have) but not actually addressing a single one of them. You are an experienced enough editor that others can have a reasonable expectation of competence from you without having to suffer through multiple diatribes with empty acknowledgements and continued disruptive edits. Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia They are relatively new, despite their registration date, they had no substantial edits until about 6 months ago, and those edits have been nothing short of problematic. Praxidicae (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks; fingers hurt and I didn't check closely enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just commenting here to say that I've seen this. I share the frustrations expressed above, and have talked to Dmehus several times about how to edit less disruptively. I'm fine with whatever solution gets proposed here. – bradv🍁 17:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Noting your reply was made as a result of an edit conflict, you may not have seen my reply. As I stated, given the recency of Tavix firm advice to me on my user talk page and the fact that I've proposed to take an extended wikibreak, I think this is the best solution here. Following my return from a wikibreak in several months, it might be useful to construct a modified NPP school curriculum with recommended essays on editor relations with which to read and be quizzed. Doug Mehus T·C 17:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And therein lies an issue: A few days ago, Dmehus stated they would take a 2–3 month Wikibreak, but then a few hours later, went back to editing as if the discussion never happened. At this point, I don't know if the issue is WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, lip service, or a combination of some or all of that. Whichever it is though, my confidence in Dmehus' capability of self-control is almost nonexistent at this point, and I strongly believe that the community has to do their part to enforce sanctions of some sort on Dmehus as they seem incapable of enforcing restrictions on themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As you stated though, when you've contemplated retirement several times, it is difficult. I had a number of pages still on my watchlist, so wanted to see those discussions through. I would note that I haven't nominated any pages or redirects for deletion, and don't plan to, until I come back from a wikibreak once this is settled. Doug Mehus T·C 17:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "I haven't nominated any pages or redirects for deletion..." ...But you did in the following edits after the diff I linked, and Tavix pointed that out to you in the same discussion on your talk page (User talk:Dmehus#Competency is required). When one says they are done, they have to be done, or at the least explain when and why they have changed their mind ... and you never did any of that. All of this seems to validate my lip service concern: You are trying to say what we either want or are expecting to hear, but then either not follow up with it and/or do the exact opposite ... which is why I'm in the belief that the community needs to do something in response to this since you seem to not be able to follow through with and/or control your actions. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)And as I've noted multiple times above, a promise of a wiki-break in this case does not stop the seemingly endless tendentious editing and mess you've caused, as with much of what's been discussed your promises to cease certain behaviors have gone unfulfilled. Why would this be any different? In the end, it just seems like a way to skirt any sort of fix or restriction so we will just have to re-hash this same exact discussion in 3 months. Praxidicae (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommended that Dmehus nuke his Draft of Kyle Kulinski on his userspace, so as to take some heat off of him. TBH - I personally have no problems with such a Draft existing in Demhus' userpace. He should be allowed to take the next six months to improve it in any way he can via 'better' sources, to make it more acceptable. Then be allowed to submit the draft to the community. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW - Dang if this 'case' doesn't have similarities to the previous case about Sm8900 :) GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    When I said above, "every so often we seem to get a new editor who is full of ideas...", that's exactly who I had in mind as the most recent case. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be opposed to an indefinite talk/Wikipedia-space ban, as Doug also makes positive contributions at forums like RfD. That having been said, Doug does need to dial back the volume of participation on talk pages, and recalibrate his understanding of what things are actually worth hashing out at length vs. creating busywork or using this website as a social network. The pinging of administrators to review articles or otherwise deal with non-urgent issues also needs to stop: there are proper noticeboards to request such actions (although I would note that to his credit, Doug has stopped pinging me to things quite so much following my request that he do so). signed, Rosguill talk 18:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: I'm only painting pictures, but I think it's that the policy page is to prevent articles being turned into an extension of FB, Twits, Insta pages etc (it's in the same section as WP:NOTWEBHOST after all), while the essay is advising editors not to treat the site as a social forum  :) ——SN54129 20:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    • Comment. Doug's commitment and dedication cannot be criticised. I do however question his judgment and his choice of areas on which to focus. I have been concerned by his editing piechart. When I first discovered that tool, I ran it on some experienced editors I respect. They all had articlespace percentages better than 90. In contrast, Doug is in the low 40s.
    Our goal is to build an encyclopaedia. An extremely important element of that is improving the 6M articles we have. Anyone can write a new article (and many of them, it seems, do). WP:XFD and other maintenance areas are necessary, but are relatively minor issues. I would like to see Doug develop his editing skills, get his articlespace percentage up somewhere towards a respectable number, and voluntarily hold back from the behind-the-scenes stuff for the time being. Other editors have suggested a couple of possible areas above. To those, I would add: any of the maintenance categories in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month which need cleanup (obviously not tracking categories such as Category:Use American English). Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take care with WP:EDITCOUNTITIS and how to use the edit count tools. I spent five years as FAC delegate, while also active at FAR, and a year building all those articlehistory milestones you see on every GA/FA, which involved a lot of deleted edits, so in spite of my heavy article contributions, my editing pie chart tells a worse story than Dhemus's.[74] Whole lotta Wikipedia edits per FAC and FAR. Use the edit count tool to begin to investigate where the problems are, not for raw statements. Look at whether Dhemus has specifically made good article contributions (I haven't done that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken. I forgot to include my planned sentence saying that such a pattern is unlikely to be unique. But, I've never seen any reason to look at your piechart, and still haven't done so. Also, the piechart isn't the only stat which that tool produces. I first looked at Doug's a couple of weeks ago, because what I'd seen elsewhere made me wonder what the hell he was doing. Narky Blert (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mentorship

    Having read all the concerns above, I recommend that Dmehus be given a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with this is that several people have tried to take him under their wing and the time and advice has been disregarded, the last edit by DM, in fact is great evidence of this. This is a collaborative environment and if someone is unwilling to hear the concerns of multiple editors, I don't see how mentorship would possibly help and has the potential to create an echo chamber. I was originally going to respond to DM's last comment as well, but it seems appropriate to do so here. It shouldn't require a self requested block for you to actually heed the concerns of other editors. What is to prevent this from happening in 3 months if Barkeep were to actually block them? The responses here seem to just be blowing off very valid concerns from multiple editors in a way that shows a blatant disregard for a collaborative project that leads me to believe a preventative block may be in order to stop continued disruption based on the WP:CIR/WP:IDHT/WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior and editing pattern. Praxidicae (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Was trying to add but ECd: perhaps a topic ban/restriction that only allows for mainspace editing and only on XFD's where DM's content is being nominated..Praxidicae (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Dmehus) What should happen here?

    Well, it looks like there's been an amount of evidence and concerns presented, and the discussion is beginning to get into discussing the recommended action(s) that should be taken in response to Dmehus' recent editing activity. So, to clarify things for what seems to be a discussion that is inevitably going to have a closer, I'm creating this section for simplicity for them. What action (block, sanction, editing restriction, nothing, etc.) should happen in response to Dmehus' recent editing activity discussed above? Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • As I stated above, I am in favor of trying the idea proposed by Barkeep49, and accepted by Dhemus, of a self-imposed break. Dhemus agreed to a very long self-requested block (longer than we would likely dish out); this shows good enough faith for me, and I believe it won't hurt to try this for an overly enthusiastic editor who admits they need a self-imposed break. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user should be indefinitely blocked as NOTHERE. If he wants to return later, he can make an unblock request when he feels he is mature enough to edit in a constructive fashion. The user is an annoying time sink and often disruptive, sometimes in such an insidious manner as it's hard to reject his edits. Many times, by the time he's done his damage, it's a bit late. If it were not for this discussion, I would block him myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless someone has diffs to present of problematic mainspace editing, it seems all complaints are centered around Dmehus participating too much in talk page discussions. A self imposed restriction to reduce posts-per-discussion would seem to solve the problem. Like any editor, Dmehus should be able to request a self block at any time from the admin who offer it. Going straight to an involuntary block seems overly harsh. There are a lot of editors I find annoying, and who find me annoying, but we don’t block people for being annoying. Some concrete volunteer commitment should be tried first. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree somewhat that an outright indef at this point in time would be inappropriate however I do not think a voluntary restriction is appropriate given DM's clear message here, while they intend to contribute productively, have no intention of addressing or changing the ongoing disruption. I feel that a self-imposed restriction is also inappropriate given the history here which demonstrates a wealth of empty promises and acknowledgement. Praxidicae (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • TBH, in my dealings with Dmehus, I never thought him to be disruptive. May have pinged too much, but that was a minor annoyance for me. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might as well state my part here too: I don't support any type of voluntary restrictions or sanctions since Dmehus has a proven track record of not adhering to such restrictions or sanctions; Dmehus should be subject to whatever the community decides. Even if the end decision lines up with something that Dmehus suggested, they should have no option to decide when the restriction is lifted or removed; the decision of when and/or if that happens should he made by the community. I mean, after all, Wikipedia is a community project, not a project that one editor gets to do ... basically whatever they want and don't have to stick by what they say ... which there is, again, ample evidence present above that they have done just that. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ...And as I have stated below, I think Dmehus should be blocked for 3–6 months, and then escalating blocks if the behaviors continue after the block. Any restrictions, sanctions, and anything voluntary will both be ineffective and a time sink for those who become involved with ensuring that Dmehus is following the restrictions/sanctions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've run into Doug a fair bit in the last few months, and not once had an issue. He's a bit long winded at times, and comments just to comment in some discussions, but if that's a crime then there's a lot of experienced editors who need a ban. If Doug seeks a self block, that's up to him. But I strongly oppose a community block. A restriction could be reasonable however, perhaps limiting talk/project space page edits to one a day a page (or whatever folks think is reasonable). Let's give Doug a chance to follow a simple restriction. If he follows it, bam, no problem and we lift it in like a year once he's learned his lesson. If not, then it's a CIR block. Easy. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I feel as though the self-requested block, to enforce a wikibreak while I work on offline activities, would have the dual effect of giving me the opportunity to reflect on what seem to be the main issues here—that is, my excessive use of the 'thanks' log and pinging editors with whom I've collaborated into discussions in which they were involved. I've recently seen Steel1943 and other editors make use of the {{noping}} template to hyperlink to a referenced user, in referring to their participation in a related discussion, without causing a {{ping}} notification. Following my enforced wikibreak, this should used almost entirely. While I have never intended to canvass editors into discussions to solicit a particular viewpoint—indeed, it is either because (a) I have valued their expertise and had a question or (b) I have valued their expertise in related discussions. While neutral notifications can be done, it seems prudent that I should limit my notifications to talk pages and the village pump. In merging discussions, a neutral talk page merge note to substantial contributors can also be done, which I have done for the proposal to merge small penis into penis (disambiguation), which generated no complaints. A combination of having a mentor that would provide between-the-lines guidance on appropriate and inappropriate notifications and my voluntarily curtailing notifications to users who had not already participated in the discussion at hand would alleviate any concerns. So, to address Praxidicae's and Steel1943's concerns of some sort of community-sanctioned penalty to accompany the self-requested block to enforce my wikibreak, it seems there is at least rough consensus to formally admonish me for my inappropriate, albeit good-faith, notifications and excessive use of the 'thanks' feature. Some guidance, from a mentor following my wikibreak, on specific instances when the 'thanks' should be used and to what frequency would also be helpful. And, finally, I will also institute an Opt-out page to allow editors to add their names to opt-out completely from 'thanks' and/or 'pings'. Doug Mehus T·C 21:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've seen Doug around quite a bit lately, and have a very similar impression of him that I do of many other users in their early days, including people in this very thread (and which, possibly, some others had about me). Doug seems to have fully guzzled the Wikipedia Kool-Aid recently, and is eager -- perhaps overeager, in some ways -- to be involved, to help out, and to understand. And he's looking around for all sorts of opportunities to do so (mostly in projectspace). I do not get the impression that he's not interested in learning, even if he does continue to make mistakes. As such, first and foremost I strongly oppose the suggestion above that this is a NOTHERE issue, or that an indef is at all needed. This sort of energy is something that needs to be helped/focused/maybe redirected, not shut down. From what I'm seeing here, the issue is more about a compounding tax on people's patience rather than any of the particular edits being all that egregious. I'd like to hear from Doug what sort of voluntary restrictions he would be willing to abide by, taking into consideration the various concerns above, but stopping short of a block (I really don't think that's in the best interest of Wikipedia). How about these for a couple possibilities: (a) a voluntary restriction to main, talk, user, and user talk namespace for a period of time; (b) voluntarily limiting yourself to 2 comments per discussion outside of those namespaces; and/or (c) maybe something unusual like editing fewer than 25 times each day (the idea being taking some time to reflect, etc. before saving, and so that if there are mistakes while you're learning, they don't overwhelm the other volunteers). Just throwing things out. I do feel like something voluntary is a good step here. I know it can be overwhelming to see so many people taking issue with things you're doing. I would take onboard what people are saying, but consider it part of the learning experience. You'd probably be surprised how many of the experienced, well-respected editors you see around today started out frustrating people in one way or another. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a big fan of Doug trying to set the terms here. Let's just block him for six months and then he can decide how to act when he returns. He doesn't need to tell us now. – bradv🍁 21:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I'm on board with this option. After seeing examples of what editing sanctions would look like for Dmehus, I feel like it's going to end up looking like the paragraphs of fine print in a contract; it would require too much of other editors' time to both make sure they understand the sanctions in their entirety as well as ensure Dmehus is following all of the aspects of the sanctions. Just block for 3–6 months, and deal with whatever behavior may arise afterwards. (I also agree that a indef may be too much at this point; do the 3–6 months, and afterwards, escalate appropriately if necessary.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in reply to Rhododendrites and Bradv's reply. To what Rhododendrites is saying where he writes that I am "eager, perhaps overeager, in some ways," I think that's hitting on the nail on the proverbial head. It touches on what I discussed on my talk page, whereby I feel as though I'm trying to be too involved in too many areas. I think I should limit my behind-the-scenes project namespace focus to a particular area after more fully absorbing related policies, whether that be at CfD, RfD, or MfD, rather than trying to participate in everything, sometimes poorly and without thought. So, maybe that means I focus more on our categorization of articles and guidelines and participate more at CfD, or maybe I understand the nuances and guidelines at RfD, and participate only in discussions in which I have a firm command of and understanding of the issues. If I don't understand the rationale behind keeping, or not keeping, redirects from foreign languages, then I should avoid that discussion. Similarly, there's clear consensus here that I need to focus more on my main namespace editing—I've expressed an interest in writing articles on Canadian provincial prisons, so perhaps that, combined with work in improving the categorization of articles and adding additions to articles would be beneficial at diversifying my editorial contributions by namespace. Taken together, by focusing my maintenance-related contributions to less areas of the of the project and only into discussions into which I have a firm command of the issues and on article space edits, which have been sound but just too sparse for most editors' likings, I will, in turn, have less time to socialize with editors or to request their expertise on various topics. Doug Mehus T·C 21:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • While a self-pause would be good, I just don't see their actions as warranting either an indef or a month+ community ban. CaptainEek's thoughts seem reasonable - a rate limit for wikipedia/wikipedia talk or some more nuanced form seems a good route to take. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure how easily the rate limit idea could be implemented, but this could be a very effective tool to limit my project namespace participation following my self-requested 2-3 month block to enforce a wikibreak. Something of, maybe, 10-15 edits/discussion contributions per day in either Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk. This could be in existence for, say, three months following my return in May/June, possibly tied in with a recommendation of a mentor who could assess a more balanced participation across namespaces and a more focused participation instead of trying to participate in too much, sometimes with less expertise than is required. That is, if the mentor felt a longer rate limit was warranted, then they would simply make a note of that on the applicable noticeboard, and the per day WP/WT edit rate limit would be extended on a rolling month long basis. Doug Mehus T·C 21:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thinking about this a bit more, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing for the development of this encyclopedia would be to block Dmehus for a considerable length of time. His editing is a time sink for other editors who would be more productive without him. I know he's always nice to everyone, but let's remember that our primary purpose is to be a workplace building an encyclopedia, not to be nice to each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awww...c'mon now. Doug is a good person, a bit overzealous/enthusiastic as bradv pointed out and definitely not beyond learning to assume the type of behavior expected of him by others in the community. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Levivich, Rosguill & SandyGeorgia also made good points, and I agree with all of them for the most part. Keep & userfy - dont delete. Atsme Talk 📧 22:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by your last sentence? This is a discussion about an editor, not an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I took from Atsme's last sentence was that she were using the !vote icons to signify what should happen to me. "Keep" and "Userfy" in this context means they're supportive of efforts to correct the behaviour that needs correcting (principally, the excessive 'thanks', excessive use of pings, and excessive participation in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces), versus "delete," which would mean a community-sanctioned block or ban. Doug Mehus T·C 22:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That takes quite a bit of mind-reading to get from Atsme's comment. Shouldn't we let the editor who made it explain the meaning, which is far from explicit? Or do you have some inside knowledge about that editor's thoughts? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I think it means that Atsme opposes a block ... at least from what I'm understanding, and possibly getting Dmehus a mentor. (Note, these are not my opinions.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Atsme, if he could accept that he lacks the competence to opine in the vast majority of places he turns up, it would be fine. But the entire reaosn we are here is that he doesn't understand that small but fundamental fact. Guy (help!) 22:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposals

    Seems there are a couple of things we could try at this point.

    1. Do nothing.
    2. Six month block.
    3. 12 month ban from project space.
    4. 12 month content-only restriction (no RfCs, moves on pages he was not already editing, etc).

    I'd be happy with 2, 3 or 4. Guy (help!) 22:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Striking, 2 should be the only option at this point based on this absurdly tone-deaf statement to the point I'd now also support option 5, an indef. We're well into WP:IDHT territory now. Should Doug return from that block, 3 and 4 should be required. Praxidicae (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to suggest that some sort of action wasn't necessary, but rather, other options were discussed above, and the discussion was continuing. So, we should be to assess from the discussion thus far in the above section what action(s) to take that would have broad community support from the editors who have participated. Doug Mehus T·C 23:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (a) Prefer three-month self-requested block to enforce a wikibreak accompanied by,
    Formal community admonishment for the excessive use of the 'thanks' feature, good-faith albeit, at times, unnecessary and excessive use of pings, and to pick an area or two on which to focus, hone expertise, whilst increasing article namespace edits, and,
    3-9 month (longer, if needed) daily rate-limiting editing restriction in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces to help to enforce the idea that I need to focus more time editing articles and limiting my involvement to one or two areas of the project namespace (this could be extended by either of the community or the NPP School "mentor"/coordinator); or,
    (b) Three-month self-requested block to enforce a wikibreak followed by,
    Option 4, Formal community admonishment, and/or 3-9 month (longer, if needed) daily rate-limiting editing restriction in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Doug Mehus T·C 23:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels like this lengthy comment is sort of indicative of the problem people are trying to point out to you, Doug. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand that, but there were only four options listed, even though other options were discussed above. So, it felt as though the four options presented were too constricting, and were trying to effect a desired outcome from a certain group of editors. So, I wanted to show that I'm open to multiple options, but not, specifically, the ones presented. To be honest, it's not clear this section was even needed; other editors have already expressed their views above, so we should be able to assess from that an outcome that meets the prevailing consensus of the sentiments expressed by all editors. Doug Mehus T·C 23:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You should never have to request formal community admonishment of yourself - if you recognize that you need admonishment and are continuing the behavior, then that shows that you are just not getting it and a formal community action won't change anything. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not support any form of admonishment, because this editor is clearly acting in good faith. I support a block as a preventative, not punitive, measure. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't even read this anymore. Option 2. – bradv🍁 23:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2. After requesting a block, Dmehus has since !voted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Recent. He does not have enough self-control, so nothing short of a block will work. -- Tavix (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Note, though, that I've requested a block to enforce the wikibreak due to the lack of self-control. In tandem with that, I do think some sort of editing restriction within Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces would be appropriate, but rather it shouldn't be limited to, say, 6, 9, or 12 months. It could be extended, if necessary. Ultimately, since blocks are meant enforce corrective action and not be punitive, a three-month self-requested block should do this just fine; it would enforce the wikibreak and, following that, an appropriate control measure to help ensure my time is limited in Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces would be much more in keeping with our guidelines. Doug Mehus T·C 23:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2, some kind of block even if not a whole 6 months. Based on the replies Dmehus has posted in this section it's pretty clear that he has no understanding of what the problem is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh. Still of the opinion I wrote above, which isn't covered by 1-4. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to prolong this, especially with Dmehus continuing to respond to almost every message. Blocked for 4 months — I know that many preferred six, but what can I say? I'm an optimist. El_C 00:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misread the timestamps. Carry on! El_C 15:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong opposition to a complete block I have been following Doug since November and have been offering him some advice on how to act in XfDs, one of these threads were even cited by Praxidicae in the opening statement ([75]). I've seen Doug improve over these months and have taken well to some formal suggestions such as when Primefac suggested they should stop closing TfDs which they haven't done since (link). This clearly shows that they have the ability to improves which makes me highly skeptical that a block would be the best way to handle this. Dmehus enthusiasm would be very beneficial as a content creator or new page reviewer and preventing them from helping in these areas would be more punitive then preventative since as far as I can see no concerns have been raised about their work outside of discussions. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. As I stated in the discussion, my preference is for a longer block. Dmehus's comments in this thread confirm that his conduct is disruptive and unacceptable. As for El C's closure, although it was done in good faith, it was wrong not only because it was way too early, but also because the closing administrator should judge the community's consensus, not reduce the block length because of their personal feelings.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per qedk's comment on my talk page, I am providing a brief statement on my thoughts on the "community block," particularly because I do not want to carry this on any further. I accept that my above my comment was too lengthy and, while I accepted that I do tend to overuse the 'thanks' feature, excessively ping experienced editors whom I know, and do tend tend to edit disproportionately in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces, El C's comment that I needn't have replied to every reply in a discussion that also focused on my bludgeoning of discussions was entirely on point. While not my preferred outcome in terms of it being characterized as a "community block" and while also somewhat longer than I would've preferred, I still think El C's closure was reasonable in that his rationale reflected the prevailing concern from the discussion—the bludgeoning of this discussion and previous discussions. I had contemplated 'thanking' El C for the closure or replying to his comments on my talk page, but took heed of his advice not to do that, to demonstrate that I was getting it. So, my preference would be, as I stated above, for a three- or four-month self-requested block (four months is actually fine as well) followed by a mentorship by a willing adopting editor. This mentoring editor could be the same as the NPP training editor or a different editor. A mentor would be particularly instructive in providing functional guidance on when it's appropriate to reply to other users' arguments in, principally, XfD and merging/move discussions and when it becomes too much. I should add that I'm willing to accept a daily rate limiting editing restriction in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces as suggested by Nosebagbear for a period of time following any block as may be applied (note I've requested at least a two month block to help enforce my wikibreak), but a namespace ban, I don't think, would be helpful because strikes me as punitive not corrective in nature in that it doesn't address the main problem—that of over-participation in that area. In contrast, a rate-limiting editing restriction would provide a governor to controlling my participation.Amended. Doug M. T·C 15:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Dmehus, I mean this in the nicest possible way: stop. Every time you comment here, you are showing that you are not listening to the feedback of the many editors who have already weighed in on this discussion. If you genuinely cannot stay away from Wikipedia without a block, then request the self-block. Come back in a few months ready to learn, but to be blunt, if you feel that you have to have the community impose a restriction on you in order for you to behave, then that shows a distressing lack of self-control. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Immediately following Creffett's edit, you decided it appropriate to make this addition to your prior statement which indicates to me that nothing short of a 6 month outright block, at minimum, is appropriate. This is absurd and a great case to provide at WP:IDHT as an example of this behavior and frankly your willingness to accept anything is irrelevant at this point, since it's clear the behavior isn't changing. Praxidicae (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I personally like Doug, yet I couldn't help but notice there was some problems with some of his conduct as well.
      (1) He pings a lot more than he needs to, and he should probably consider not pinging anyone unless it's an emergency.
      (2) He also has the bad habit of bludgeoning certain XfDs he takes a liking to, which I first noticed here (yeah, his bludgeoning saved a template I spent a significant amount of time using, but it didn't feel great seeing him respond so much in a single thread like that...). Should I have told him this at the time? Almost definitely... it's just well... I didn't want to break it to the guy that he was being disruptive since he's such a genuinely nice person.
      (3) I should also mention he also has a bad habit of accidently !voting multiple times in XfDs he's in (see this RFD for example).
      I think he could just do with a formal community warning, but I'm so obviously biased here that my opinion on the matter should be disregarded. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed close

    Trying to thread the needle between too mean and too kind, and trying to figure out what to do when there is clear consensus to do something but not a clear consensus on exactly what, and balancing between current disruption and potential future positive contribution, is difficult. I don't want to supervote. Unless a clearer consensus (or a better idea) emerges, I'm planning on closing as follows when 24 hours from Guy's proposals are up; I think this proposed close comes as close as possible to reasonable compromise of current opinions. But I want to know if there is significant objection that this is too far from community consensus:

    • Doug is blocked for 4 months. This is not a self-requested block; since this is a community discussion, it would require community agreement to unblock earlier. (Doug, as an aside, I am very confident that the community would not agree to that, and strongly recommend against trying.)
    • Upon his return, he will be indefinitely banned from the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces, except to participate in discussions started by other people about (a) articles he has made significant contributions to himself, or (b) about him.
    • If disruption switches to other namespaces, an admin can block indefinitely.
    • If there is no disruption to other namespaces, Doug can request a loosening of this restriction at WP:AN. (Doug, as an aside, I am very confident that the community would not agree to that if you request it sooner than about 4 months after being unblocked, and strongly recommend against trying.)
    • A strong suggestion to make a loosening more likely, but not a requirement, is that Doug find an established editor willing to mentor him prior to requesting a loosening of the namespace restriction. Another strong suggestion, but not a requirement, is that Doug request being able to contribute to only one or two types of WP/WT space discussions at a time, and see how that goes before trying more. But of course the exact type of loosening would be determined by the community discussion when it happens. (As an aside, I'm hoping the community would simply defer to a mentor's judgement, if there was one, rather than micro-manage restrictions.)

    Thoughts? And Doug, please, for the love of all that is holy, don't comment on this with anything longer than 3-4 sentences, and only comment once. And don't ping anyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This addition made after comments below started: This isn't intended to be a continuation of asking what people think should be done; it's intended to ask if people think this is a reasonable interpretation of consensus above. Kind of like the distinction between DRV and AFD. If you want to comment on what you think should be done, feel free to comment in section above, which I'll re-read before closing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • support as written, and I second Floquenbeam's aside to Doug. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as written, as it functionally meets what I've suggested with a firmer restriction than the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespace edit restriction. Doug M. T·C 17:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blocking the guy for any length of time, unless he shows he ain't gonna abide by the concerns of others in this ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support it's a start. Praxidicae (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Seems like a good summary of the consensus here.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I disagree that a block is needed I think this is a fine reading of the consensus. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      With more comments making good arguments against the proposal I don't think this would be a good close, at least not yet. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query 24 hours, Floquenbeam, I apologize for not having done the math, but did you add on the 15 hours per EL_C's premature close and the need for a 24-hour period for community bans or blocks? I ask because, after Dhemus continued to ... over-respond here ... I decided to hold off on forming my final opinion. Where are we on the 24 hours? The failure to adhere to the 24 hours (besides being one of the problems one fequently sees at ANI) really messed up what I was hoping to observe vis-a-vis Dhemus's behavior and response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My thought was to close this 24 hours after Guy posted his proposals, i.e. in about 5 hours (22:45ish); the 1 hour interruption from El C's block was not included, that hour seems like noise in the signal. The thread as a whole has been going on for longer. Are you asking to postpone closing past 22:45? For how long? Especially in a case where the target of the sanction is agreeing with the sanction... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Floquenbeam: I thought it was a 15-hour interruption; what am I missing? If it was only one-hour, yes, I agree we should proceed. My thought was that the premature shut-down didn't permit adequate observation of whether Dhemus would adjust behaviors (and didn't allow me to adjust my position accordingly). If my math is off, please do ignore me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry, it's my math that's off. I looked at QEDK's timestamp, not El C's. You're right. I'll pause the clock during El C's block, where no new discussion happened. I'll do the math later, but for now, I'll make sure the thread has been open for discussion for at least 24 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry again for disrupting the process due to my misreading the timestamps. I thought it has been over a day, but obviously I was in error. El_C 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Not a problem; I obviously misread timestamps myself. I did the math, and, I won't close this before 13:40 (UTC) on 5 March. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks to both. The unfortunate thing (for me, at least) is that the premature shutdown really did stop me from observing what I thought needed to be observed vis-a-vis the problematic behavior and whether it would continue or moderate. Considering that, I will refrain from lodging an opinion now; I feel we unfairly prejudiced the discussion, and I can't go backwards on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest re-writing indefinitely banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk space as indefinitely banned from the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces or similar. The way it's currently worded makes it sound like Doug would be banned from editing Wikipedia after his block expires, which is contradictory. Otherwise, this seems reasonable. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
       Done, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per nom. Honestly, with the best will in the world it seems as if Dmehus can't help themselves. Perhaps this will? In any case, since it's not much more in duration that he was willing to voluntarilly undertake, I hope it wil be useful rather tan painful. ——SN54129 19:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support; this is reasonable and a good read on the overall consensus above, I think. I've personally had good experiences with Dmehus and I'd potentially volunteer to be a mentor upon his return if he does want to get back into projectspace editing; but it's pretty clear that people who've dealt with him in more discussions than I have are now very, very tired of his behaviour. A block is clearly warranted by the consensus above; I'd have no issue helping Doug out afterwards once it's blown over. ~ mazca talk 20:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I believe that Floquenbeam's assessment of current consensus is fairly accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Dmehus has been editing in the "Wikipedia:" namespace for the past few hours now. 1 2 etc. For this reason, I believe the block should be extended to 5–6 months due to their apparently lack of self control even when an official sanction/block is not present. Or, if the community sees fit, indef block per Ivanvector's suggestion below. Other than that, I agree with the assessment of the consensus ... there has to be a block as part of the resolution for the reasons I've already stated above. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, this is an excellent threading of the needle. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per... well, really per Dmehus. I can't remember a more convincing demonstration of the Law of Holes. Guy (help!) 00:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am of two minds here. Mind one: I think this remedy is more appropriate than anything that was being mooted before El C's close. Mind two: I think this is a subversion of our process (this remedy is being presented as reflecting the consensus of the discussion which it didn't have but by proposing it in this way garners it consensus it didn't have before) and we're telling someone who had accepted their block without protest "you know what we didn't get a chance to make things bad enough for you, so we're going to reopen things so we can impose a stiffer sentence." I think it's a poor way to treat the human on the other end of this. But I really do think that this is a better remedy for the project. So there are my two minds. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with the 4-month block, but I don't think we should be setting restrictions at this point. As I said before, he can decide how to behave upon his return. – bradv🍁 02:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either set the restriction or do the block, both just seem punitive and honestly, way too harsh for a good-faith editor, Floq has completely missed the aspect where multiple editors (Atsme, Rhododendrites, Trialpears) have stated that the correct way is to refocus their efforts into something productive, this seems to be somewhat of a pattern after another two editors were dragged to ANI over the same thing, while I am perfectly fine with the community drawing a line and saying "stop", this "stop" seems to be more like a "we didn't like you tried too hard". Also, read Barkeep49's apt summary above. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Fwiw, I recommend letting it run for a while so we can get concrete consensus, as it stands now any administrator can probably supervote this to a close without opposition I'm sure, but that would be unfair to the editor concerned, imho. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with qedk: it seems odd to do both a longish block and a bunch of restrictions; if the restrictions will work, they'll work without the block. --JBL (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, QEDK, Joel B. Lewis, and (partially) Bradv have now expressed the concern I have about how we are treating a good faith but overly exuberant editor. Thanks for letting this thread run longer, as we have now been able to see that Dhemus has backed off and has gone about productive editing elsewhere. One only need look at some of the egregious diffs surfacing on RFAs to know that other editors are not even warned over extremely serious behaviors, while we are looking to hand out a pretty stiff penalty to someone who has been a good faith pain in the neck. More than ten years ago, I mentored a very difficult editor who was occupying my time almost 'round the clock, and seemed to be incapable of turning around or demonstrating CIR. Today, she has a GA, and is still productively editing. We can take greater care in how we treat editors who are acting in good faith, particularly when they acknowledge the issues. Dhemus requested a block, acknowledging perhaps that they have a hard time pushing back from the computer; we don't need to add on scorn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I don't think there's any doubt about Doug's good faith here but there comes to a point where we have to expect a certain level of competence and self-control and I know I'm repeating myself at this point but he has demonstrated an inability to take constructive criticism (as JzG and bbb23 pointed out) and self-control which is why I think people feel so strongly about a block over starting with restrictions, especially when they're still making edits like this, despite this very ANI and their promise to stop doing such things just hours before. Not only is the request quite absurd, since that is the French spelling, it is completely frivolous to take something (uncontested, at that!) to RFD with the rationale I'm not advocating deletion, which is the theme of the underlying behavior, speaking to hear oneself speak. yes, I've voted there because I came across it while de-spamming Butcher Praxidicae (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If we "have to expect a certain level of competence and self-control", we should expect the same of all editors opining here in other recent examples, where some of the worst diffs I have ever encountered on Wikipedia are in plain sight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any issues with Doug's edits outside of discussions? If not I really don't see why a block would be necessary when editing restrictions would be sufficient. Doug stopped closing TfDs when firmly instructed to and has clearly shown that his behavior can improve. I don't see any issue with the RfD you linked either. He wants a discussion about how we should deal with the redirect since he isn't sure what the best course of action is and started a discussion at an appropriate forum. The request isn't frivolous since disambiguate is a perfectly plausible outcome based on Doug's nomination. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Doug needs time away from Wikipedia but I think that for Doug not the project. I think the best thing for Wikipedia is for Doug to have clear editing restrictions. As such, I would prefer for this thread to close with the editing restrictions and Floq's were good ones which is why I said I liked this better than anything being mooted before. If Doug can't abide by those he's going to end up blocked anyway. I think Praxidicae's example only provides more evidence for restrictions over just a block. Doug could then have the option of requesting an enforced wikibreak via block and I'd advise him to take that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Praxidicae, for the love of all that is holy, chill out, cut DM some slack, we're all volunteers and it's pretty damn cheap to be nice to each other. It is very obvious from that request that DM just wants the redirect to be retargeted to something more apt in their opinion. I wish you meant it when you say I don't think there's any doubt about Doug's good faith because each time you comment here, it is so obvious that you'd rather see them blocked than have them contribute, not allowing room for any improvement on their part, what kind of editor retention are you even trying to advocate here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (literally) small segue: Following up on SandyGeorgia's comment, if civility was enforced as easily as we were handing out blocks against clearly good-faith editors who have been unintentionally disruptive, this community would be much better off. I'm saying this particularly because so many of our amazing contributors don't start off well but they atleast try and they remain civil throughout the process. This is a difficult community (explains our terrible editor retention) and we have a responsibility to cut people some slack for people who have difficulty in getting it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a time-limited block followed by restrictions. If the restrictions purport to solve the problem, just do that. If the restrictions address the problem, then there is no need to force the editor to sit in the penalty box for a set length of time other than to punish them, and we don't do that. If the restrictions don't address the problem, then block them and don't set an expiry; enough time has been wasted. I separately oppose the second bullet of the proposal as it's currently worded, because it would ban the editor from venues like dispute resolution and noticeboards like this one unless they're being dragged there by editors they're presumably in conflict with, which can only lead to drama. Honestly I agree with what Steel1943 said a while back in the discussion that the set of restrictions that would address this behaviour without being overly restrictive will be too much of a burden on other editors to patrol. Also, Doug has separately stated, maybe more than once and not in these exact words, that he can't help himself. Really the only plausible approach here is an indefinite block, which may be appealed at any time to the community if and when Doug figures out a plan on his own for how he will constructively participate here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Barkeep’s second mind, Sandy, Trialpears, QEDK and Atsme, and also per Doug editing elsewhere and not replying in this thread anymore. Those editors worried about timesinks have now spent more time on this thread than the amount of time Doug has cost them. And oh that incivility were treated with as much vigor as verbosity! Doug did WP:PEPPER too much but seems to have taken that on board now. Seems to have resolved itself. I oppose an indef also. El C’s premature block may have done the trick (good job El C!). Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Levivich: "Those editors worried about timesinks have now spent more time on this thread than the amount of time Doug has cost them." ...This thread hasn't been open for over five months. Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • And Doug hasn’t cost you five months. One option open to you is: do not read what Doug writes. Just skip over it and keep scrolling. There are plenty of editors whom I just skip over like this. I don’t ask them to be sanctioned. Ymmv. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately, I disagree with that, especially since that plan of action doesn't work in XFD forums. Lately, I've had to be more selective where I have been editing thanks to Dmehus' behavior. Considering that unless I did work in a space that didn't turn into an apparently repetitive WP:IDHT discussion time sink, yes, I count that as time lost from portions of Wikipedia I am more productive. So, to each their own interpretation. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware of, and have considered, the later opposes, but there is still a consensus for this remedy, with some tweaks. And, not to get too meta, there's a consensus that this is a fair reading of the previous consensus. Including from Dmehus himself. Several people say they want to leave this open to get a better consensus, but no new suggested remedies have been proposed in the last 24 hours (except a renewed call for an indef block, which is actually harsher than what others who oppose this want, and comments that one or the other remedy is punative, which I have considered and address below).
      1. It is extremely clear that there is consensus for some kind of editing restrictions, and we have to pick some scope, even if there is not uniformity on what it is, and this is as close to a compromise of all the proposals I've seen as I can get. It also has the benefit of being simple. This has been discussed a lot now; it doesn't make sense to only block for now, and then discuss specifics for the editing restrictions all over again when the block expires.
      2. There is a less-clear-but-still-there consensus for a block of some duration, from 2 months to indefinite. Both to give the community a "break", and because Doug has said several times he is fine with (and actually wants) a time-limited block to force a wikibreak. I'll shorten the block to about 3 months, June 15th which Doug initially requested, but it's still a community block. Both in deference to the consensus for one, and because an optional one doesn't actually force anything.
      3. Also, a shout out to User:Mazca, who has offered above to mentor Doug upon his return. IMHO this offer has contributed more to a potential long term solution than anything else in the thread. Thanks. Because of this, I'll tweak the wording to say that rather than waiting 4 months to appeal the editing restrictions, that if he has an experienced mentor, he should appeal as soon as his mentor thinks he's ready, and that if he doesn't, he should probably still wait 4 months for it to have a decent chance at being successful.
    Closing momentarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Floquenbeam: Regarding "... waiting 4 months to appeal the editing restrictions..., may need some clarify on that in the close. Is that 4 months from now, or 4 months after the end of the block (or something else which starts the 4-month timer)? Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Non-communicative User: Whatiskeptinname

    Whatiskeptinname (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is apparently an SPA for Tauthali and related topics who only comes back to revert/fix edits that they do not like in a few articles that they created/maintain, which is evidenced by the fact that they have not edited for months since I stopped reverting them at Tauthali. Attempt at communication at one of the article talk pages and their user talk page were both unsuccessful. I was advised to take our disagreement over how Tauthali should be maintained as a content dispute and to refrain from reverting them. Since they do not come back but to revert, I don't know how to make BRD work. This is probably too minor for ANI, but I am out of ideas. Please help. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to give conflicting advice to whoever told you to stop reverting. So maybe check with them first, or direct them here. But based only on what you've said, without investigating further, you should be able to revert back to your preferred wording if they have stopped editing. If that causes them to return and revert, without discussion, I'll block them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Floquenbeam, now that I've benefited from your reply, I should clarify that the advice to stop reverting that I got was not in exactly the same context as I have presented here. That "they have stopped editing" is the principal difference, although I'm sure that is only because I took the advice. Plus, I was also told to do as I saw fit except edit-war. So, I'll revert back and see if the editor comes back again. Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Within the last hour or so (since around 20.00, 4 March) many new authors with no user pages, and a sampling of their contributions suggests WP:SPA, have started some huge changes at the usually quiet Epistle to the Galatians. This doesn't feel right. Could you advise, please, and possible take action? (My preferred action would be roll-back to before this action accompanied by some sort of page-protection.) Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Feline Hymnic, from a quick look at the history, I'm guessing class project or something similar (see the edit comment in Special:Diff/943949348). Recommend a friendly message on their userpages about sourcing, etc. to start. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits do indeed appear to be in GF, and given the timing It looks like a US class, as suggested. Later edits did start adding citations, though heavily primary as is common with new editors. I've watchlisted and will drop a line if it looks more than a flash in the pan. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a note on the talk page asking the students to have their instructor register the course with Wiki Education, so they'll get training and support from us. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ownership and competency issues on Silver Ghost

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

    @Eddaido: has made a series of reverts on this page, apparently on the assumption that $30 million 2005 dollars of “agreed value” (i.e., a claim of insurance valuation) are unequivocally larger than an actual cash sale for $48 million 2018 dollars. A quick look at the recent history of the article will show the certain questions of competence that spill over from his editing on Concord coach and Stagecoach in the past. Qwirkle (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would recommend a warning on their talk page first and requesting them to self-revert. Not only have they been edit warring, they've surpassed WP:3RR. I count seven reverts. If they don't self-revert, then perhaps a short block may be in order. Amaury • 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have never had reason to question Eddaido's competence, nor often any particular sense of ownership to articles; however their refractory obstinacy is legendary. Their is little likelihood of any success in attempting discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On the Concord coach article mentioned above, he edit-warred to restore a claim he knew to be wrong, and added multiple cites to the talk page which explicitly contradicted his position. Perhaps this isn’t typical. Qwirkle (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's typical. EEng 06:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thucydides411

    Thucydides411 is essentially a single-purpose account dedicated to obscuring the fact of Russian interference in the 2016 US election, most recently in respect of the GRU's use of WikiLeaks as a conduit for publishing stolen DNC emails. He was blocked for a week in Fen 2017 for violating AP2 restrictions and TBANned from all edits pertaining to US-Russia relations for three months in November 2017 - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive221 § Thucydides411 - due to disruption and personal attacks at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and its talk page. Rather than continue editing in other areas, he essentially did not edit during that period. He has under 4,000 edits in total but is the third most prolific contributor to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (and first by volume of text added), fifth most prolific to talk:Julian Assange (and second by volume of text added), third to White Privilege and second by volume added, and third to talk:Useful idiot, again first by volume of text added.

    So for the four pages he edits most often, despite having a remarkably low total edit count, he dominates discussion. In as much as a POV can be discerned in the absence of a direct statement, his edits clearly show a personal rejection of the established facts of Russian interference in the 2016 US election (e.g. [76], which changes a statement of the Mueller conclusions to frame it as Mueller having "asserted" Russian interference or this in which he quibbles with the fact that Mueller "demonstrated" Assange's knowledge that Seth Rich was not the source of leaked emails by continuing to correspond with GRU operatives after his death, and, based on that asserted quibble with the wording, removes the entire paragraph noting the established fact that Assange did indeed continue to contact Russia after Rich's death). This is a fringe POV, and in my view his continued advancement of this POV through talk page statements that assume its factual correctness is unacceptable.

    Basically, I think he's here to Right Great Wrongs. Reversions are a prominent part of his content editing, and lengthy comments on Talk are the norm. This can be fine in someone with wide interest in improving Wikipedia, but here it is narrowly focused on a handful of articles where he consistently dominates debate through stonewalling. Guy (help!) 10:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon me for asking, but is there any actual indicent being reported here? Is there any actual misbehavior? It looks like Guy is just complaining about me generally, as an editor they dislike.
    Guy cites precisely two diffs: one in which I restored long-standing, well-sourced and DUE material (an opinion article by Glenn Greenwald that received secondary coverage in the Columbia Journalism Review, the Washington Post and Salon); and another in which I removed a recent addition that I think was worded in a POV manner and was UNDUE. Neither of these edits is particularly noteworthy.
    As for the accusation that I don't have a large enough edit count, I don't see what Guy is getting at. Yes, I don't edit Wikipedia for a living. Is that an offense? I've been editing for over a decade, focusing on different subjects at different times, including American history, astronomy and physics, and American politics.
    I'm actually quite proud of some of the contributions Guy complains about. At Useful idiot, I worked to reorient the article around what reliable sources on etymology, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, actually say about the term. Before I began editing the page (November 2017 version), it prominently reported what is apparently an incorrect etymology of the term (attributing it to Lenin). Compare that with the page now: [77]. I think it's clear that the page is much better organized, has better sourcing (including the OED, which I added to the article), and that it gives a clear explanation of the status of the popular attribution to Lenin (i.e., that the attribution is often made, though there's no evidence for it). In other words, I left the page better off than when I arrived. This took a lot of discussion on the talk page (something Guy is faulting me for). Sources had to be evaluated and discussed. References had to be tracked down (for example, I tracked down the origin of a reference that another editor claimed was from the Soviet Union, showing that the book was actually written in France - the question was whether the reference demonstrated usage of the term "useful idiot" in the Soviet Union, which would contradict what the OED claims about the term: see [78]). In any case, this is all to say that Guy is faulting me for using talk pages to discuss sourcing, edits, etc., which is precisely what talk pages are for.
    The background to this complaint is a content dispute at Julian Assange, about whether to mention an appeal by 130 of the most prominent figures in German politics, journalism and media calling for Assange's release. I criticized Guy for referring to "Assange cultists" ([79]) and "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more" ([80]). It's still unclear whom Guy meant to describe with these epithets, but I felt they were out of place and said so. The current ANI complaint appears to be the result. I think Guy's complaint is vague (I'm not actually accused of any violations of Wikipedia policy or of any concrete forms of disruption), and should either be speedily closed or boomeranged. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thucydides411, if it was specific it would be at WP:AE. My issue is more general: you are a single-puropose advocacy account pushing a fringe POV. You are also abusing Wikipedia process to gain advantage in content disputes, notable with respect to SPECIFICO and BullRangifer (and also Calton, who you managed to get blocked for three days). All three of these have massively greater contributions to Wikipedia than you do, yet you seem to think you have greater understanding of our policies based on your <4000 edits to a handful of closely-related articles. Guy (help!) 12:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't rank editor value by the number of their edits. This is a volunteer project, and participation is not required. I interacted with this editor at the Casualties of the Iraq War page, where they made clear improvements. Bringing up Calton is irrelevant - they broke a sanction in place, were given ample time to revert, and were blocked after they ignored it. If you have a problem with that you should seek to have the sanction removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This report alleges no wrongdoing. It is perfectly ok for editors to edit where they want to. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr Ernie, no, it is not "perfectly OK" for single purpose accounts to dominate articles. Guy (help!) 12:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but that's not what I said. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy's concerns are not frivolous, but are legitimate and very relevant right now.

    A current issue is now at BLP/N, where Thucydides411 is making personal attacks against SPECIFICO and me in an abuse of the BLP/N drama board:

    Thucydides411 has made seemingly false accusations against us but presented no evidence of wrongdoing. Now they refuse to respond to pings to resolve the matter. Accusations without evidence are just personal attacks, and unresolved personal attacks that are escalated, rather than withdrawn, demand sanctions.

    What should have been a minor blip of no consequence was made major by Thucydides411 when he made it personal and actively escalated the attacks from Talk:Julian Assange, to User:Drmies's talk page, and then to BLP/N. At each step he was rebuffed by multiple admins who saw no BLP violation. Rather than retract the personal attacks, he escalated and expanded on them, and that is what made it serious.

    As near as I can tell, SPECIFICO did not use the word "conspired", as accused. Thucydides411 is the one who did that in his seemingly false straw man accusation against him. And as for his accusation against me, he hasn't yet provided any evidence that I said anything that is not factual about Russian interference or Assange's involvement in the Russian interference. A BLP violation occurs with the statement of negative and/or false information that is unsourced, not the statement of "sky is blue" facts backed up by several whole articles exclusively on the subject that are based on myriad RS. That's where I'm coming from. I believe the narrative in those articles and RS. Thucydides411 has often made it clear he does not like the narrative in those articles or their RS.

    Thucydides411's personal attacks seem to be rooted in his well-known denialist and fringe attitude toward the well-documented "sky is blue" facts that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections and that Julian Assange was involved with GRU agents in their criminal dissemination of stolen documents and emails. The Mueller investigation established that Assange=WikiLeaks was a key player in the Russian interference. Twelve of those agents are now under criminal indictment for their crimes. The issue of Assange's culpability has not been addressed (by me in this dispute). He did not have to know he was dealing with GRU agents or know that he was involved in the commission of crimes to have been involved. I have made that plain. Mueller, OTOH, details how Assange and GRU agents planned, coordinated, and lied about their efforts to share and release the stolen documents and emails. They didn't just lie about it, they sought to shift the blame from Russia and the Trump campaign (which welcomed the efforts) to the Clinton campaign, Seth Rich, Democrats, Ukraine, China, and just about anyone other than the ones involved, which were Russia, Assange, and the Trump campaign, with Rohrabacher personally delivering (according to Assange's lawyers) a message to Assange from Trump that Trump would pardon him if he covered up Russian involvement by denying it. Assange obeyed, denied, and shifted the blame, but the pardon....well, that hasn't happened yet, but may well in the future.

    I have repeatedly made it clear to Thucydides411 that I will gladly retract/revise any incorrect statements I have made, revise my thinking, and thank him for the enlightenment, if he will just explain what I did wrong, but he refuses to respond to pings or explain. He just made the accusations and left them at the three venues. The last one at BLP/N is a serious enough venue that it must be dealt with.

    Do we want editors who still deny these facts editing in the AP2 area, especially after their previous sanctions and warnings? They just make trouble. We want editors who believe what RS say, not those who deny them. Such denialist attitudes strike directly at the RS policy itself and the heart of our required basic skill set, the ability to vet sources for reliability. Any editor who favors misinformation from unreliable sources and denies RS should not edit in the relevant areas, and some would say they lack the skills to edit here at all, at least on controversial topics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @BullRangifer: Your description of what happened at WP:BLPN#Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy is inaccurate. I raised concerns about editors using talk pages to imply that Julian Assange is involved in some sort of criminal conspiracy, by referring to GRU agents as his "accomplices". You then posted at length, explicitly stating that Assange committed crimes in 2016, for which he supposedly deserves to be indicted. You stated, "It is not just an 'implication', but a legal fact, that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime. Why Assange hasn't been formally charged, unlike the GRU agents, is a question you'll have to ask Trump and Rohrabacher, who actually made a quid pro quo offer of a pardon, rather than a justified criminal indictment, to Assange, in exchange for a cover-up and denial that it was the Russians who hacked and leaked the emails" ([81]). I responded, "You should not be making these sorts of statements on Wikipedia. They don't serve any purpose related to editing the encyclopedia, and they violate our WP:BLP policy" ([82]). Your response has been to repeatedly ping me and post to my talk page, demanding that I answer your theories about Assange. As I told you at my talk page, I'm not interested in getting into political debates on Wikipedia.
    Anyone is free to look at my edits to article space and see that they're almost always sourced to multiple high-quality reliable sources. For example, the content dispute that Guy and I are involved in at Julian Assange began with this addition that I made, which is sourced to three high-quality reliable sources. There is an ongoing RfC about this addition, in which a plurality of editors so far have supported my addition, which suggests that it was a reasonable edit. I take WP:RS very seriously. If you have any problematic diffs, you're free to raise them. So far, I don't see any in your complaint. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Let the battleground come to ANI, and the fighters take their corners. I'll be honest, I think ANI is the wrong venue for this. It really should be brought to ARBCOM. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Funnily enough, I was just writing up a topic ban warning for Thucydides. They have been trying to interest admins in what they call SPECIFICO's "very serious BLP violation" in using the word "accomplices" for GRU agents [83] at Talk:Julian Assange, then User talk:Drmies, then WP:BLPN. They don't seem able to find one that agrees with them. It's time you dropped the stick, Thucydides. Furthermore, while I know Drmies suggested you try WP:BLPN since you wouldn't accept the opinions of three admins (including Newyorkbrad of all people) on his page, it's time you stopped ascribing terms like "criminal conspiracies" to Bull Rangifer and SPECIFICO. You yourself are the only, single, solitary person who has mentioned conspiring/conspiracies in the context. Are you trying to exhaust your opponents by repeating it over and over and consistently ignoring both denials and questions about it? Your discussion style is disruptive, and you are coming close to a topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 US election. Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Drop what stick? I stopped commenting at WP:BLPN two days ago, despite being pinged several times there (and messaged on my talk page) by BullRangifer. I only mentioned BLPN here because BullRangifer raised it. Given that I "dropped the stick" days ago, should I go further and bury the stick underground? What, exactly, am I supposed to do to avoid this topic ban you're swinging over my head? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking about your dedication to denying Russian interference in the US 2016 election, not just about BLPN. I make it 19 hours since you took an opponent to AE for reverting you (on that subject) at Julian Assange. Bishonen | tålk 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    That AE report was in response to a straightforward violation of discretionary sanctions. I notified the user in question and gave them ample time to self-revert before filing the report. The user got blocked. Are you suggesting topic-banning me for filing a straightforward complaint that the admins at WP:AE decided was valid? Why would you criticize me for that, of all things? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is just a terrible edit and I don't understand why someone would raise this hill to die on, because it is the kind of edit that screams "topic ban"--and so does the edit summary, "Mueller Report could be mentioned with more neutral wording". It is hard to imagine more neutral wording than "This [Russian interference in 2016] was subsequently confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his report on his investigation and summarized in his 2019 testimony before Congress". If the argument that this is part of a pattern is borne out (I know not if't be true), then a topic ban is in order. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "concluded" would be a more neutral wording. I didn't decide to "die on this hill", though you seem anxious to topic ban me for that edit. Part of that edit was restoring long-standing and well-sourced content: Glenn Greenwald's commentary on the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which was covered by Columbia Journalism Review, the Washington Post and Salon. Topic banning someone for restoring long-standing content and suggesting that more neutral wording could be used for another sentence is sort of an overreaction, don't you think? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't deflect by focusing on what you restored. Drmies is talking about what you removed, which just happens to be something you don't want to accept, that the Russians interfered in the election. There was no justification for you to remove that content. None at all. They were not "POV edits". They were properly-sourced facts you don't like, so you removed them, with the source. That's an egregious NPOV violation. You allowed your personal fringe POV dictate the fate of properly-sourced content. Shame on you. BTW, that content was restored and is still part of the article, as it should be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't misrepresent my edit. I asked for more neutral wording, and said I was okay with inclusion of the Mueller Report. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thucydides411, "dropping the stick" isn't exactly the right description of what you've done. You stabbed SPECIFICO and stabbed me, then you escalated the matter (repeatedly restabbed and twisted the knives). By refusing to withdraw your personal attacks, you have just left the knives in place, and only you can remove them.

    Please do so by either providing evidence of our wrongdoing (repetitions of your objections above is not evidence) or by publically withdrawing your accusations. Right now you have just made them again, instead of withdrawing them. Do the right thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "stabbed me", "repeatedly restabbed and twisted the knives": Such violent metaphors! I didn't stab anyone. I suggest you move on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I find Bishonen's and Drmies' commentary here to be highly partisan, if not dishonest. As admins you might expect them to intervene in defense of this biography of a living person, per our very clear policies at Wikipedia and protections for the subjects of those biographies. BullRangifer has stated plainly that Assange has committed a crime [84]:

    It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

    SPECIFICO has stated that the GRU were Assange's "accomplices" [85][86]:

    The prosecution of his accomplices is entirely suitable for a brief lead mention.

    In this context Thucydides411 is of course wholly correct to complain about Assange being described as a criminal, since he was accused in a court of law, and the accusation was dismissed with prejudice [87]:

    The ruling terminated the DNC’s claims against... the document disclosure group WikiLeaks and its leader Julian Assange for releasing material stolen by the Russian hackers. [Judge] Koetl said the Constitution’s First Amendment protects those defendants from such a civil legal claim, just as it protects “press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained, so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.” Koetl dismissed the lawsuit, which was filed in April 2018, “with prejudice,” which bars the DNS from bringing the same claims against the defendants in another suit.

    Without getting into details about Assange, Drmies has implied that SPECIFICO and Bullrangifer's opinions about Assange are correct [88][89]:

    Sorry, but how is that controversial?

    They're controversial because the Judge ruled that Assange did not commit a crime. Drmies can be forgiven for not reading the news. However as wallyfromdilbert and PackMecEng point out, it's hypocritical for Bullrangifer and Guy [90] to ask to sanction Thucydides411 for raising the issue at WP:BLPN right after Drmies told Thucydides411 to go there [91]:

    you should consider BLPN.

    There are strong indications that the very admins commenting here are not acting to enforce legitimate BLP concerns at Talk:Julian Assange and are instead encouraging departures from sources and policies. For instance JzG wrote recently at Talk:Julian Assange that

    the Assange cult has promoted this letter of ocncern, but that it is just one letter of concern, a single incident in the news blizzard around Assange that is driven by an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more. There's no actual evidence that Assange was treated any differently form anyone similarly situated.

    This kind of incoherent and unsourced language would be considered inappropriate from any editor on a BLP, but JzG is the most active admin on the page, having placed DS sanctions there. The sources editors were discussing in that case (including famous German investigative journalists and politicians, Die Welt, the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) would be surprised to learn that their activities and reporting were being promoted, according to a Wikipedia administrator active at Julian Assange, by "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more." Moreover, numerous American and international human rights groups have described Assange's treatment as extraordinary, directly contradicting JzG's assertion. For example here is the United Nations special rapporteur's recent description of Assange's treatment in the UK [92]:

    [In the UK Assange] was suddenly dragged out and convicted within hours and without any preparation for a bail violation that consisted of him having received diplomatic asylum from another UN member state on the basis of political persecution, just as international law intends and just as countless Chinese, Russian and other dissidents have done in Western embassies. It is obvious that what we are dealing with here is political persecution. In Britain, bail violations seldom lead to prison sentences – they are generally subject only to fines. Assange, by contrast, was sentenced in summary proceedings to 50 weeks in a maximum-security prison – clearly a disproportionate penalty that had only a single purpose: Holding Assange long enough for the U.S. to prepare their espionage case against him.

    As for Bishonen, they were quick to block Jtbobwaysf [93] for their 1RR violation at Julian Assange just days ago, and are quick to appear here threatening a topic ban against Thucydides411. However they said they would not block Calton for a similar, DS violation at Julian Assange introducing a long opinion piece quote against him without in-text attribution [94], and apparently believe that calling Assange a criminal or criminal accomplice is not a BLP problem, even if a US federal judge has ruled that Assange's actions and similar actions by news organizations are protected by the first amendment. -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darouet, that's the wrong case. That was the DNC's civil case. I have always been referring to Mueller's criminal case against the 12 GRU agents who committed crimes where Mueller found that Assange was an accomplice in the illegal dissemination of their stolen documents and emails. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Darouet (and Thucydides411) object to what Darouet words as "calling Assange a criminal or criminal accomplice". They see that as a BLP violation. Maybe or maybe not, but I have not said that. I have not called Assange a "criminal" or a "criminal accomplice". Words matter. Exact quotes matter. I have mentioned the proven facts that crimes were committed and that Assange was involved with GRU agents in the commission of those crimes. That is not the same as using the words above. I did not use those words.

    For some reason, both Darouet and Thucydides411 fail to accept what I have repeatedly stated, and that is that it is possible for a person to not know they are involved in the commission of a crime, but that does not make it any less of a crime. Focus on the crime, not the person. That is my focus. It is not a BLP violation to state proven facts.

    So far, neither editor has provided any evidence that what SPECIFICO or I have stated are counterfactual or not supported by the many RS used in our articles on these subjects, or the findings in the Mueller Report. This is "sky is blue" stuff, and there should be no objection to stating the facts that crimes were committed and that Assange was an accomplice with GRU agents in the commission of the crimes of disseminating those stolen documents. Mueller clearly proves that Assange coordinated these acts with those agents and lied about it. He didn't even have to know they were Russians. The crimes still happened, and Mueller has indicted 12 GRU agents for those crimes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    BullRangifer, you write I have not called Assange a "criminal" or a "criminal accomplice". What you said is [95]:

    It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

    I understand you don't want to talk about the fact that the DNC accusations against Assange — which you are asking us here to accept as truth, or be topic banned — were thrown out of court in the United States and declared to be false [96]:

    “The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.”

    The judge specifically compared Assange and Wikileaks' publication to that of the Pentagon papers:

    Citing precedent from the the Pentagon Papers case, Koeltl held that treating WikiLeaks as an accomplice “would render any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a co-conspirator in the theft.”

    Perhaps User:Newyorkbrad doesn't think your statements about Assange are a BLP violation. That's fine. But if I agree with John G. Koeltl in his finding that Assange is not guilty of a crime for publishing DNC documents, should I be topic banned on Wikipedia?
    Lastly, since you write that "Exact quotes matter," contrary to what you write I have not used the term "BLP violation." I have raised BLP concerns: part of our normal editing task if we are trying to improve a BLP. -Darouet (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darouet, I already told you that you are linking to the wrong case. That is the DNC's civil lawsuit. I am talking about Mueller's criminal case against the 12 GRU agents.
    Your statement is also misleading. The civil lawsuit was not dismissed because it was "false", but because "the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act foreclosed him [the judge] from holding it liable for the DNC server hack."
    The judge even called the actions illegal: "The primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal enterprise is undoubtably the Russian Federation, the first named defendant in the case and the entity that surreptitiously and illegally hacked into the DNC’s computers and thereafter disseminated the results of its theft."
    So you're barking up the wrong tree.
    As far as your "BLP concerns", what have I written that is factually wrong? Thucydides won't tell me. Will you? If you have such concerns, then you should be able to elucidate them. As I have repeatedly written, if you can show that my statements are false, I will gladly retract/revise them, revise my thinking, and thank you for the enlightenment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darouet: I'm sure I am not the only one surprised to see your words above ..accusations against Assange — which you are asking us here to accept as truth, or be topic banned Topic ban us? Are you expecting to be TBANned along with Thucydides411 here? Are you now acknowledging the tag-teaming that you've long denied? Yes, your repetitious one-two punch in Russia-related threads has worsened the disruption, but my understanding is that this ANI is just about Thucydides411. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SPECIFICO, you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS: I've long been active at Julian Assange, am proud of my work there, and will continue to improve the article. Anyone can similarly pull up editor interaction reports for you and plenty of other editors, e.g. a longer list of your interactions with me (100 articles) [97], or BullRangifer (319 articles) [98], or Bishonen (214 articles) [99].
    BullRangifer, I'm not misrepresenting the sources. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act prevented the judge, Koetl, from having jurisdiction over Russia or the GRU's actions. On the other hand the judge found no evidence that Assange or Wikileaks participated in any crime including the theft of DNC documents, and is like other media organizations is protected by the first amendment in publishing them. Koetl further ruled that Wikileaks is protected even if they know the documents are stolen, so long as the documents are in the public interest (he ruled they were), and Wikileaks did not commit a crime by stealing the documents themselves (he ruled they didn't).
    I have real life work so I'm going to keep this brief, but my objection to your comments re Assange are straightforward. You have said that

    It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

    However a US court, without challenging (or at all times necessarily endorsing) the factual basis of the Mueller Report, has unequivocally declared that Assange's receipt and publication of those documents was not a crime and protected by the first amendment.
    I don't personally think you should be sanctioned for your statement — and again User:Newyorkbrad is a better expert here than am I — however I do think that your false opinion has an impact on Assange's page. For instance, many editors at Talk:Julian Assange have been arguing that an entire lead paragraph in our biography of Assange, dedicated to the DNC and mentioning the GRU, is undue. If you don't acknowledge the ruling that Assange's publication is protected by the first amendment [100], that will contribute to your desire to give undue and misleading attention to this issue in the lead of his article. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darouet, I have never said or implied that Assange or Wikileaks participated in the theft of DNC documents, or that WikiLeaks committed a crime by stealing the documents themselves. The theft of the documents was a crime committed by the GRU, and Assange was involved in coordinating how to use those documents. Trafficking in stolen documents is generally considered a crime, but courts waffle on that one and won't always convict. Since his coordination with the GRU involved much deception by Assange (read the Mueller Report), he might end up getting indicted and convicted for that. Time will tell. His statements to the public were obviously deceptive, but are likely not actionable.
    BTW, I used to be sympathetic to Assange's efforts when he acted like a journalist, and journalists do need protection. When he started acting in a partisan manner by selectively releasing only content that hurt America, DNC, and Clinton, and not releasing the documents he had which could hurt the GOP and Russia, he started to act as a Russian asset who does not deserve protection or respect.
    Now please explain what part of what I have said (from before the beginning of this thread at AN/I) that is not factual. Thucydides won't tell me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait a second: you're accusing me of not accepting established facts, but here you are trying to argue that Judge Koetl's ruling is incorrect and somehow amounts to "waffl[ing]". Do you understand the law better than the judge? Who's really denying facts here? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thucydides411, I did not say that their ruling was incorrect. Courts deal differently with issues that might, in some way or another, touch on First Amendment issues. The case is complicated, and one judge might focus on one aspect of the facts and acquit, and another judge might focus on a different aspect of the same set of facts and convict. That's the way it works. Again, I did not say what you claim I said. Words matter.
    This was also a civil case, not the situation I have been referring to the whole time.
    Now explain what was so factually wrong with the statements I had made that made you attack me at BLP/N? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BullRangifer: on the 29th of February you directly stated that the GRU helped Assange commit a crime [101]:

    It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

    Do you acknowledge that you made this statement at BLPN?
    United States federal judge John G. Koeltl clearly ruled that Assange and Wikileaks, per clear precedent established in many cases including those surrounding the Pentagon Papers, did not commit a crime [102][103]:

    Koeltl ruled that the U.S. Constitution protected them from liability related to disseminating stolen emails. “The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place,” the 81-page opinion states. Citing precedent from the the Pentagon Papers case, Koeltl held that treating WikiLeaks as an accomplice “would render any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a co-conspirator in the theft.”

    Do you acknowledge that Koeltl ruled in this way, and that his ruling directly contradicts your assertion quoted above? Or, do you retract your statement and acknowledge you were incorrect, as you have repeatedly stated you would be willing to do? It's unclear what else you're looking for. -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darouet, I want to thank you so much for finally being the one to actually explain this, rather than like Thucydides411, who falsely asserted that SPECIFICO and I claimed "that Assange criminally conspired with GRU agents". That false claim still lingers at BLP/N.
    But now, YOU are the one who has done the right thing, stepped up to the plate, and actually explained your exact concern(s), and for that I am very grateful. You have done the honorable thing. Why didn't Thucydides411 do this a long time ago? They were the one making all the accusations and implying that Assange is somehow innocent of any wrongdoing. Assange isn't innocent of wrongdoing. He did many bad things. Mike Pompeo said it well: "It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia." Assange is not a whistleblower or a journalist. He's a witting or unwitting Russian asset. the end result is the same.
    My focus has always been the commission of proven hacking and theft crimes by the GRU (which Mueller has charged them with), and since Assange was then involved in the planning, coordination, receipt, and distribution of those stolen documents, and lied about it, that Assange's actions were (tangentially) involved in that crime, with the distribution being HIS crime, even if he did not commit the hacking crime itself. It was always in that sense my statements should be interpreted. The statement above is indeed my statement, and I can now, in the light of the judge's reasoning for throwing out the case, see what you mean. It does look like an overstep on my part, and I apologize for that. I see what you mean about how this civil ruling can relate to that, as the judge has applied the First Amendment to Assange's distribution of the stolen documents. A different judge might have ruled differently, but we do have this case, which was tossed, rather than tried. I wonder what would have happened if there had been an actual trial, a criminal one, rather than civil one?
    I'd like to go back and look at my statements to see which ones should be stricken/altered. Will you help me by pointing to exact statements (with diffs)? I'd really appreciate that. I need your perspective to see it. I'm too close to the subject! Help me fix this. We should probably do this on my talk page, and then I'll go to BLP/N and fix whatever needs fixing. Fair enough? Thanks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please topic ban Thucydides411 from subjects related to Russia. I completely agree with the assessment by Guy. Thucydides411 does POV-pushing on pages like Useful idiot, Assange and some other pages related to Russia. He usually removes well-sourced information and edit-war in a "team" with user Darouet, who just commented above. For example,
    1. removal of sourced info by T.,
    2. removal by D.,
    3. removal by another user (who is a Russian SPI [104], possibly a sockpuppet account, and again), then
    4. removal by D.,
    5. removal by IP (who was blocked), and
    6. removal by well known user Altenmann.
    Since then, I never edit this page, and I also stay away of page Assange after massive reverts of well sourced info by Darouet (he removes large section "Timeline of Julian Assange involvement in the United States elections"). Needless to say, discussing anything with Thucydides411 is nearly impossible. In my opinion, he should not edit anything related to Russia (like Assange). My very best wishes (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MVBW, When you tried to add a massive timeline to the Assange article, four editors commented on talk [105]: JFG and Jack Upland and myself all opposed your addition. Your comment here suggests I was POV-pushing, when consensus roundly rejected your addition.
    Similarly, at Useful idiot, dozens of editors have commented there over time, per the NYT [106] and Oxford U press [107] supporting the view that attribution to Lenin is false.
    So having lost both content disputes, now you'd like to ban Thucydides411 for having both sources and consensus on their side? -Darouet (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is strange. I was watching the Useful idiots page since 2005. Suddenly in 2017, a massive debate erupted, ostensibly about etymology, with editors like SPECIFICO arguing that the Oxford English Dictionary was not a RS. There were hints that the real issue was the Trump-Putin nexus, but I could never see the relevant. When Assange was dragged out of the embassy I started watching his page, and found the same groups of editors fighting each other: Thucydides411 and Darouet vs SPECIFICO and BullRangifer and My very best wishes. I think Assange has had a diverse life, and I don't think the 2016 election is the most important issue. I don't think JzG's intervention is helpful. I can see no sign of men's rights activists editing the page. Incidentally, Guy recently used the phrase "useful idiots" on the Assange page. However, it does seem that editors are using various articles as battlegrounds to fight over issues I don't understand.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Jack that's a pretty shoddy misrepresentation of the discussion at Useful Idiot. You started an RfC relating to whether a particular bit of article text should be cited to Oxford English Dictionary. Your misrepresentation of my view that I claimed OED is not a RS is just false, and in fact the RfC was closed as no consensus to cite fact to OED without attribution, as it related to the proposed article text. Don't misrepresent other editors' views, particularly in an ANI thread. Do better, especially when you refer to an article in which you participated so heavily. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I think editors can look at the "useful idiot" discussion and judge for themselves. It is clear that on 12 December 2017 you said "No", the OED was not a RS. No one was arguing we should cite the OED without attribution. I do think there is a WP:BATTLE going on here, where improving the articles is unimportant, where factions are warring over multiple articles only tangentially related to their cause, and where editors espouse completely irrational opinions, such as that the OED is not an RS, merely because they believe it supports their cause. Are these warriors are here to build an encyclopedia? However, my previous post was misleading, as I implied that this battle was raging at the Assange page in April last year. In fact, it has developed over time, and BullRangifer has only joined in recently.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Formal proposal

    For being a single purpose POV account intent on obscuring the well-established fact that Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential Election of the United States, and thereby making Wikipedia less factual and informative, Thucydides411 is indefinitely topic-banned from all subjects related to any Russian involvement in American politics, very broadly construed, including anything remotely related to Julian Assange. This topic ban can be appealed at WP:AN after a period of six months from its imposition has elapsed.

    • Nothing personal in this -- I don't know the editor from a hole in the ground. It simply seems to me to be a well-focused solution to the problem presented. If others have alternate proposals, they are free to suggest them in separate sections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose POV-pushing ≠ disagreeing with my point of view. Examining the diffs, none of them proves that the editor is POV pushing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There's a lot of editors here who only focus on political topics and have a particular POV. If they follow the policies they are perfectly entitled to edit where they want. This proposal does not document any diffs to back up what the proposer says. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is a rediculous proposal. The account in question was opened in 2006. Are we to assume they were a Russian sleeper account? A lot of the back and forth here looks like a case of editors using ANI to try to deal with content disputes. If there is a real issue here it needs to be made in a clear and concise way else this topic should be closed. Springee (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I interacted with Thucydides411 on several occasions, and it was impossible to agree with him about anything. Hence I decided not to edit any pages that he edited. Please also see my comment with supporting diffs above. His behavior has nothing to do with using good sources or consensus building. Quite the opposite. He removes well sourced and relevant information and does not work towards building consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. We have enough trouble in this area without single-purpose accounts. Oppose opinions above frame this as a difference of opinion. It's not. The facts are well-established. It would be equally bad if he were advancing any other conspiracy theory beloved of the left, such as the idea that GMOs cause cancer. Guy (help!) 20:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What facts am I denying? There's an ongoing RfC about our current content dispute at Julian Assange - the one that motivated you to come here and try to get me banned. The plurality of editors currently agree with my proposed content in that RfC. Only a minority agree with your vote there. But if you're losing the content dispute because uninvolved editors find your arguments less persuasive than mine, I guess you can run to ANI and try to get me banned. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request rewording - we don't need a thesis statement in the topic ban or the emphatic "very broadly construed" bits. Suggest cutting it down to "Thucydides411 is indefinitely topic-banned from Russian involvement in American politics and Julian Assange, both broadly construed. This topic ban can be appealed at WP:AN after a period of six months from its imposition has elapsed." That shouldn't change the meaning and is more neutrally phrased. Alternatively, could change this to a standard AP2 topic ban, since everything here seems to be a subset of AP2. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As a note of order, user Thucydides411 has been previously banned on AE from all edits and pages related to US-Russia relations for three months. Please note his response: "@GoldenRing: What do I care?..." and so on. He was also previously discussed on ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I am not seeing anything much worse than the people pushing for sanctions. MVBW gives diffs from a content dispute two years ago where several people disagreed is reason for a sanction? No. Heck JzG is pretty much forbidden from acting in American politics because of their bias so maybe not the best choice on dealing with bias in American politics. BullRangifer is basically a SPA at this point with anything to do with Russia. This is all just getting a little out of hand and silly. PackMecEng (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this sanction as written. It seems personal and vindictive as written. Please propose something simpler and less attacky. Creffpublic has a better idea, IMHO. --Jayron32 20:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this is a bitter, baseless, politically-driven proposal. - DoubleCross (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support First off, remember that Thucydides411 was already TBANned for this Russia-related disruption as an Arbcom Enforcement action. So it's all the worse that he still appears to be incapable of constructive interaction and discussion on articles or talk pages. He puts up walls of text, mostly devoid of meaning but full of insistence. He introduces personal disparagement and attacks, e.g. at @MrX: here or various Admins on the recent BLPN thread. Instead of responding to the views of other editors he repeats his own personal opinions over and over. And over. See e.g. that BLPN thread or the related thread earlier on Drmies' talk page. Typical of POV pushers, he often insists on cherrypicked, fringe, WP:RECENT or primary sources. A few editors have said they do not see any single diff that warrants a ban, but the problem is the hundreds of repetitions, disparagements, and WP:IDHT disruption on every article he edits, e.g. when he was promoting denial of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (see his nearly 100 posts in Talk Archive 8). I think it's actually broader than the Russia-related content. Please, see this thread. 76 repetitive, adversarial, and dismissive posts in a 9 day period. (Scroll down} apparently related to Marxist sensitivity over Critical Race Theory - the Russia thing again, maybe. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised to see you voting here, given that you've been stalking me for years now on Wikipedia. By that, I mean periodically looking through my contributions and reverting my edits. How else can you explain that you showed up at Near-Earth Object Camera, an article completely outside your normal editing area, to revert my contribution there? You've also followed me to Casualties of the Iraq War, Useful idiot and Alliance for Securing Democracy.
    Despite how you describe my contributions, the consensus often ends up supporting my proposals, as opposed to yours. This is what happened at Useful Idiot, where you attempted to remove the Oxford English Dictionary as an etymological source; at Casualties of the Iraq War, where you attempted to downplay the most rigorous peer-reviewed research (the Lancet papers) on the subject; and is now occurring at Julian Assange, where you are arguing to exclude well-sourced material that I introduced, against what appears to be a forming consensus in favor of inclusion. If I'm such a fringe POV-pusher who uses weak sourcing, why do uninvolved editors so often back my views against yours? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this so-called "stalking" supports my point about WP:BATTLE. These people are warring over multiple article, and I think that is a concern.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a TBAN from AP2, as his influence everywhere has consistently tended toward denial of Russian interference, which is contrary to the facts. The Russians did interfere, and Assange was a key player:
    "The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process."[1]
    He's basically an Assange SPA who blocks progress on that topic, guarding the Assange article with extreme zeal so that it's hard to make any improvements if they show Assange in a negative light. (He deleted the quote above, and it still needs to be restored.) His deletions of such content are often later restored and become part of the article, showing that he was on the wrong side of RS, consensus, and history. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, here is what had happened just a couple of days ago. In this edit, Thucydides411 removes the following info:
    The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process.[1]
    This is correct, very important and well sourced view. However, Thucydides411 goes to AE to block a contributor who included this information. I do not think WP community should endorse such behavior. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    May as well notify that contributor, @Calton:, now that you've mentioned that matter here. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)'[reply]
    I agree. But it matters what view, exactly. He cries "BLP violation" on pages like Assange and Maria Butina [108], and makes misleading comments in the process. For example, no one removed the fact that Butina founded "Right to Bear Arms.", etc. Same misleading claims about editing of "Useful idiot" where he just removed content of the subject sourced to highest quality sources like books by Yale University Press, etc. [109]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with the book published by Yale University Press was that it didn't mention the phrase "Useful idiot". The paragraph you added to Useful idiot that cited this source was synthesis: [110]. You used two unrelated quotes that the book discusses to make your own argument about the phrase "useful idiot", which the book does not mention.
    Sloppy use of or disregard for sources was a recurring problem at Useful idiot. SPECIFICO created a talk page section titled, "Screw Saffire", in which they called William Safire a "NYTimes token Nixonite" and argued for disregarding Safire's article on the origins of the phrase "useful idiot". Just so that editors here understand, William Safire wrote the most in-depth article on the etymology of the phrase "useful idiot" that any of us editors was able to locate. The reason SPECIFICO wanted to "Screw Saffire" was that Safire came to the conclusion that there is no evidence linking the phrase to Lenin.
    For anyone who finds all this back-and-forth bickering difficult to parse (I wouldn't blame you), I strongly recommend just taking a read through the talk archive of Useful idiot. Uninvolved editors can then form their own opinions on who reads sources carefully, who conducts themselves within the rules of Wikipedia, who tries to remain civil and reasonable and who doesn't. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, have you looked at the threads at Assange, Drmies talk, and BLPN? Do you think that the purported BLP violation, personal disparagement, etc. were all about to be validated up to the last of those dozens of accusations, repetitions, and equivocations? If no, that is what's called disruptive and actionable, as JzG has explained. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, I happened to see a link to a similar thread of Thucydides411 abusing BLPN at this link.
    And this thread, in which an RfC was posted to resolve Thucydides411's denials of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. As soon as a few editors rejected his view, Thucydides launches personal aspersions against several other editors.
    Here he is scolding @MelanieN:, again over Russian interference. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources

    1. ^ a b Stanger, Allison (April 22, 2019). "The Mueller report confirms it: Assange is not a whistleblower or a journalist". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 2, 2020.

    Boomerang Question

    I think there are WP:BOOMERANG issues that need to be looked at here. It appears me that Guy JzG (talk · contribs) is too close to this Assange issue (or maybe AP2?). Is he using admin privileges to frame an already battleground ridden article, or simply acting as an impartial admin? He warned me on my talk page with this warning which I felt was unusual. I felt it would be normal for an uninvolved editor or admin, but for an involved admin, I felt it was a bit much. Thoughts? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don’t think JzG (talk · contribs) is subject to WP:BOOMERANG? 207.38.146.86 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All of them, possibly. An admin’s status affects the wikiteurs around them, with a very few honorable exceptions. The recent debacle with Kudpung underlines this. Persons in authority are often quite clueless about the power imbalance spilling over to unrelated things. Qwirkle (talk)
    But that's not Guy; that's other people. As long as admin—any admin—doesn't misuse their tools, it's up to other people how they react. ——SN54129 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We’ll have to agree to disagree on this, I think. Any case of power imbalance leaves the person on the lower side more conscious of it than the one on top, and that’s a common problem here.

    While i’d disagree strenuously that there is something worth a boomerang here, that has nothing to do with actual use of admin tools. Qwirkle (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, I heartilly agree with you about power imablance, and I'm certainly not saying it does not exist—far from it. But a lot of the time editors perceive (operative word) admins as more "powerful" than they actually are. Anyway. Happy Saturday! ——SN54129 20:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129, 2 of the last 3 arb desysop cases demonstrated no misuse of tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about how people react to admins, not arbcom judgmenets which are (thankfully) two very different things. ——SN54129 20:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, the argument appears to be that JzG is respected as an admin and therefore his editing of articles should be limited because respected editors hold too much sway. So, we should limit admin editing (and perhaps any editor that is respected) and make admin recruitment more difficult. O3000 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that argument would be your strawman. Mine differs on three points. First, this isn’t about this particular admin, but a generalization about them, or a perception of them, as a group.

    Next, it has nothing to do with respect, but with power.

    Finally, it says nothing about restricting scope of writing, but that those in power should be taking care not only to not abuse one’s powers, but to be seen as not doing so. Qwirkle (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins don't use their tools on articles in which they are involved. O3000 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Admins aren’t supposed to use their tools on articles in which they are involved, a substantial difference. Qwirkle (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had very few limited interaction with this admin but he makes inflammatory comments and he does that with the intention to be provocative.
    • My first interaction with this admin was in this deletion discussion the admin made many comments saying "oranges" instead of origins just to mock Trump, here is some examples, an editor says it is POV fork, Guy response with POV fork of what, exactly? I mean, I know the "oranges" theory is a POV fork of reality, but of which Wikipedia article is this a POV fork?
    • My second interaction with this admin was in this ANI thread here he calls other editors OK, so the RT fanclub is out for Philip Cross' blood again. Cool, cool. [111] totally provocative comment only just to provoke.
    • My third interaction was yesterday, the editor made a totally uneutral invitation to an RfC in WP:FTN, you can see the discussion, I have explained there how it is uneutral invitation while the admin didnt respond and ignored what I am saying.
    Note, this is just with the limited interaction, imagine if I was an editor who has to deal with this provocation all the time. Recently many admins were reported in AE and their adminship was removed and I feel that what they did was nothing comparing to this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironic to see all this Wiki-identity politics chat -- what might be called "Admin privilege". As cited, one of Thucydides411's many disruptions is on the White privilege article, in which he has bludgeoned the talk page with 76 posts on the current version, including Marxist and other denials of the phenomenon. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Generative grammar

    Discussion has been moved to Talk:Generative grammar. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to ask for administrator attention on the generative grammar article. User:Weidorje has been making POV edits, most of which do not accurately reflect the sources cited. For instance, the user added the sentence "Consequently, it is stated that generative grammar is not a useful model for neurolinguistics" cited to a source which does not mention generative grammar at all. I have attempted to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, but this user has refused to engage seriously with my concerns. See, e.g. their comment "it is not possible to remove well-sourced information only because it is uncomfortable". Botterweg14 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps I should add that there seem to be similar things going on at the Syntactic Structures article. Botterweg14 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not real up on the technical aspects of linguistics here, so I can't speak to who is 'right' (and that's not an admin's role anyways), however the page history shows a clear two-way edit war between yourself and Weidorje. I would advise strongly that BOTH of you desist from editing the articles under contention, discuss the matter on the article talk pages, and seek outside help from somewhere like WP:DRN or WP:3O if you can't come to an agreement. Also, you're required to notify someone when you start a discussion about them here. I have done so for you this time; in the future please let people know when you've brought them here. --Jayron32 15:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for notifying the other editor-- and my apologies for not doing that myself. My concern isn't who is right about technical questions of linguistics, it's that the other editor is not responding constructively to comments on the talk page and that their edits do not reflect the sources they are citing. I have already attempted to discuss the issue, with detailed source-backed comments, but the other editor is responding by mischaracterizing my edits and telling me to stop editing the article. (I have also already raised the issue on 3O.) Botterweg14 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jayron. Botterweg14 is confused because he doesn't realise that the two articles are from the same researchers. They made a study in 1993 which showed no validity of the generative grammar claims, and then comment on their research in 2015 stating they never used the model again. Botterweg keeps deleting the sources without reading them – for me it's extra work for nothing on my special day. The issues could be discussed one by one and one at a time on the talk page, but we're not quite there, yet. Weidorje (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, it appears you're both already commenting on the discussions at Talk:Generative grammar. If you can also both agree to avoid editing the article text unless and until the matter is resolved at the article talk page, we can consider the matter closed here. Can you both agree to let the discussion play out, seek consensus, and ask for additional help as needed before editing the article again? --Jayron32 16:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be very happy to do that. I have laid out my specific concerns about specific sentences from the article on the talk page. However, before we close the issue here I'd like some assurance that the discussion will address on the substance of my comments. In particular, where I've raised concerns that the article doesn't accurately reflect the citations, I would like the discussion to focus on specifics of what is and isn't in the citations rather than blanket statements that I am wrong or accusations that I have a hidden agenda. Botterweg14 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think those are reasonable ground rules. If @Weidorje: can agree to comment ONLY on the content of the citations, and not on Botterweg14 or their motivations, we've come a long way towards resolving this. --Jayron32 17:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I've compiled my concerns in a new section of the talk page in the hopes that this will help focus the discussion. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or advice. Thanks! Botterweg14 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's try that :) Weidorje (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Weidorje, should I understand this comment as agreement with the proposed ground rules? Botterweg14 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. I'm working on it but I might not be able to finish tonight. No hidden agendas! I'll actually be quite grateful if the whole generative community is not activated (because it was a nightmare when I worked on the Neuro-linguistic programming page back in 2006 through 2008). So, there will be a critical section, and we'll check together that each claim is accurate. I think there will also be a little room for a critical spoiler at the end of the lead. Weidorje (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Weird attack

    I don't know what this editor is doing or what they are on about, but it seems like it might be intended as an unhinged and pointless personal attack on myself and another editor from Doncram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Warrowen_massacre#Nyah Perhaps they are having a mental health issue? Or someone has hijacked their account? Either way it's wierd, especially from an experienced editor. I don't really know what to make of it. Bacondrum (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It is weird but I don't think I'd call it an attack. It seems more like what I call "editing Wikipedia when one should be sleeping". It is sometimes revealing to consider what time zone the editor is working in...it could be the middle of the night. That's my polite interpretation from years of interacting with editors from all over the globe. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently contacted Doncram about other problematic AfD edits they made, including attacking other editors[112]. They disagreed, but if they now start mocking people because an AfD ended with his prefered keep instead of delete, then it seems that the problems continue. Looking at e.g. this from today, containing gems like " If others support a good resolution of this AFD, please join into the edit war on the side of keeping some definition there! ", it seems like there really is a continuing problem with Doncram's comments at AfD and AfD talk. Fram (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Bacondrum's suggestion, I am not seeing any indication that this matter needs to be handled with reference to Doncram's mental health, let along as a mental health emergency. Should I have missed something, I would ask users to immediately contact the Arbitration Committee which is a better vehicle for intervention than ANI. AGK ■ 08:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I had a dollar for every time some keep !voter was gloaty and obnoxious I'd be able to host my own encyclopedia on my own servers. The higher your keep percentage at AfD, the more exempt you are from WP:CIVIL. This is a double standards issue, not a mental health one. Reyk YO! 09:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that I don't think this should be considered in the purview of mental health issue. But I would say that this is not a preferable or even necessarily acceptable level of decorum between editors. It's a mild WP:CIVIL breach but not a sanctionable one. Just something to make a note of and keep for later if another issue ever arises with this editor. WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will note, regardless of whether or not we do anything about it, that this is not a new nor unexpected behavior for this user. A check of the blocklog going back almost a decade shows a clear pattern of tendentious, disruptive, incivil, and combative behavior. Whether or not we, as a community, want to keep encouraging such behavior is perhaps up for discussion, but this is NOT out of character, and fits in exactly in with the kind of behavior this user has exhibited continuously and without remit for pretty much their entire history here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 14:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Jayron32 said. Doncram's obsession with the idea that he's infallible, and consequently if other people disagree with him it's evidence that they're disruptive and consequently deserve to be punished, has gone on literally for years. (His current talkpage from this point onwards is a decent example of his typical "throw a tantrum until everyone else gives in just to shut him up" approach.) This is definitely not a compromised account or out of character; what would raise eyebrows would be if he wasn't being disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 14:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like Doncram should be blocked. Those 24 and 48 hour jobs don't seem to have worked though. ——SN54129 14:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Even a six-month block didn't have any effect; because he genuinely believes that he's perfect and all the rest of us are engaged in a conspiracy to bully him into submission, he just interprets any block or any other sanction as proof of the bullying. Since blocks don't have any effect (other than giving the rest of us a brief respite) and "civility parole" never works since civility is such a nebulous concept, only an indefinite block would have any effect, and although it could be reasonably justified given that Doncram is basically a one-man chilling effect, it would be extremely controversial and almost certainly end up at Arbcom. ‑ Iridescent 14:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I hate to think that a Super Wario effect exists for repeat offenders, in that an offense has to rise to the grievous threshold indicative of an indef, before they can be blocked. But you're right, that's where we are; this seems to be something where the community simply cannot resolve the issue and this has to go to Arbcom. Blech. That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.--WaltCip (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      On the contrary (and I've argued this for years!) because the cornerstone of the blocking policy is "blocks are preventative, not punitive", all blocks should be indefinite and contingent upon the blocked user giving proper recognition of the problem that got them blocked, and proper assurances to change their behavior. A time-limited block on a registered account is, at its core and without any distinction from, a pure punishment. Since it self-expires, there is no motivation for the blocked user to self-correct or to learn how to be better, instead it is just putting someone in Wikijail for a short while. That serves no preventative measure beyond punishing the user and hoping the punishment makes them learn their lesson. Time-limited blocks should be reserved for IP addresses which may change after a time. If a registered account does something worthy of being blocked, they should have to establish that they intend to fix the problems that led to the block, that would emphasize the preventative nature of the block. --Jayron32 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree; there are plenty of occasions where "have an enforced few hours off to calm down/sober up/avoid saying something that would get you in more trouble" is a perfectly sensible move. The trouble with indefinite-until-appeal is that it then leads to a back and forth between supporters and opposers of the block, which ends up making what began as a straightforward dispute turn into a full-scale multi-party flareup. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doncram is one of the hardest working, most experienced, and active editors on the project. In my opinion, it would be very problematic to indefinitely block him solely because he is sometimes intemperate and often long winded. I understand that many people find interacting with him to be annoying but no one can question his commitment to the project and the sheer breadth and depth of his contributions, including his yeoman's work at AFD, DYK, and other areas that are critical to the project. None of that makes him immune to rules, of course, but he should not be hounded off the project either. Michepman (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So, instead we should allow him to hound everyone else off the project? How many good editors have to wander off not wanting to deal with his crap before his "good contributions" become a net negative? I'm not saying we should block him, but the "cut him some slack, he's produced a lot of good content" argument is a non-starter. Other editors produce good content too, and they should not be bullied out of the project by this kind of intractable rudeness. --Jayron32 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely understand where you are coming from. To be clear, I am not saying that nothing should be done to address the issues you laid out, I am just encouraging caution before going to the extreme step of an indefinite block. While I agree with you that the block policy should be reformed, from what i have seen indefinite blocks are not really better than time blocks; they just appear to. Before taking that heavy step I think more effort should be made to resolve the issue using less restrictive means than either time limited or indefinite blocks. Michepman (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly did you have in mind that hasn't been tried before? To reiterate, we're not talking about a generally-good editor who's having a bad day; we're talking about a straightforward long term abuse case who intersperses his disruption with the occasional period of adequate editing (although in my experience, even his non-abusive edits tend to be a mess that end up needing to be cleaned up by someone else). If you think you can persuade him that "rules are only for the little people and don't apply to me" isn't actually true, feel free to give it a go, but this is the adminstrators' noticeboard not a general chatroom, and since the administrators are the ones who've spent the past decade+ trying to clean up after Doncram you'll I hope forgive us for not sharing your optimism. ‑ Iridescent 19:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given his last PA block was in 2011 IMHO a stern warning should given although others above know his behaviour better than I do, I'm lost on the dickish reply on the AFD considering it was closed in his favour..... –Davey2010Talk 20:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) He's had 5 blocks since 2011. His last block was two months ago for disruptive editing. (post EC comment). Since you've clarified, how is a warning useful? Are we presuming he was never informed of the civility policy? That he somehow had no way of knowing that he shouldn't behave this way?--Jayron32 20:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Hey, this is a surprise and seems to me unwarranted as an ANI issue. This is about my making a silly comment at a Talk page, after a couple editors had completely dismissed me in an AFD. In my silly comment, i even self-identified it as being silly. In this AFD, it happens I was the first in the AFD to argue for "Keep", based at first on my instinct and sense of the matter as developed in the AFD, informed by my particular life experience. In many other AFDs that way, I have gone on to do heavy work and find sources and otherwise make a convincing argument that carried the day. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Bagh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of caves of Maryland are two that I find in my history. In this AFD, it was others who did the work, but it happened my sense of the matter arguably was borne out, and the article was Kept. In many other AFDs my early or late arguments for Keep or otherwise have carried the day, and in many others they have not. Many times I have been convinced by others arguments and eventually reversed my !vote. I don't see anything wrong with any of this so far. I could confess that I don't like to be completely dismissed, either, whether in AFDs or in an ANI proceeding. In this AFD i was written off as having "bad reasoning" in a series of comments by the two editors; it wasn't especially insulting, either, but a bit randomly I happened to choose to say "nyah" this time, pushing back a wee bit that maybe my reasoning/judgment was not so bad. It is not usual for me to do anything like this; I don't recall ever commenting at an AFD talk page this way before. But I think most people probably don't like to be dismissed completely, or criticized as has gone on here.

    Here in this ANI there are a lot of personal attacks ("Unhinged", "mental health", assertions that I was attacking other editors, "Doncram's obsession with the idea that he's infallible, and consequently if other people disagree with him it's evidence that they're disruptive and consequently deserve to be punished", and more) which I rather completely disagree with. It is absolutely not true that I think I am infallible; I often have made mistakes and I do not deny that, and I often make apologies. I do things like setting up notes sheets at wp:NRHPHELP and other places explicitly to help me and others remember how to do various things purely because I know that I am fallible, that I often don't remember how to do lots of things. I don't see how others who actually know me could think that I think that I am superior, or anything like that. There are perhaps a few technical things that I do know about, but I certainly did not and do not assert that I actually know more about 1800s Australian history (the subject of this AFD) than others.

    I don't read my own recent comment as representing a personal attack (it would be a stretch to call it even a mild rebuke, certainly not containing anything amounting to a personal attack, certainly not on the level of comments against me here). Certainly it didn't count as an insult, or abusive, or in any way a legal threat, or derogatory, or comparing anyone to terrorists, or using "someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their view", or any of the other kinds of things listed as types of personal attacks at wp:NPA. The bottom line at wp:NPA is saying that even if something is not included in the list of examples there, that if it is nonetheless "insulting or disparaging an editor" it is a personal attack. I don't see how my comment was either insulting or disparaging, do you? About my mental health or 'hingedness', well, thank you for your concern? I don't know where the policy statement is, but aren't suggestions/accusations about mental health specifically regarded as horrible personal attacks or otherwise verboten?

    Overall, what is the point here, do Bacondrum and Drovers' Wife seriously feel injured, or unable to personally handle a mild silly comment, which could hardly be construed as a serious rebuke or even a criticism at all? It was just a silly statement "Nyah nyah", which in expanded form would be a comment that "Gee, it turns out that my early sense of the merits of this AFD happened to be borne out", which I think would be a fair comment to make. It was on an obscure Talk page. If the two editors feel seriously injured by what was said there, surely they and others are making it far worse for themselves by raising this to a very public level. To those editors, if you do feel seriously hurt by me, or insulted or disparaged, please do let me know, perhaps by private emails, and if I can come to understand how or why you feel injured I surely would want to apologize or make amends privately or publicly (though I don't currently think that is happening, I rather do not believe they are feeling hurt at all). And sure, if others can explain better, perhaps privately, what I might have done that has rubbed some people the wrong way, I think I would like hear/learn about that. But this forum is probably not the right place for that, and I probably will not want to reply further here. If there is some big policy reason why the Talk page of an AFD cannot be used after the AFD is closed, or anything similar, please do let me know. --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued uinsourced info to BLP article

    Given that there are around ten warnings on their talk page for the same thing, and they've never acknowledged any of them, I have blocked them indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RihnerK is repeatedly adding controversial information to BLP articles despite an excess of final warnings on their talk page which to date, they have chosen to completely ignore. Examples here, here, here, here & here. I'd greatly appreciate an admin reminding them about WP:V. Robvanvee 06:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Brynloughran

    Handled. Thanks for the report. In the future, WP:AIV is also available to handle simple vandalism such as this. --Jayron32 14:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    It looks like Brynloughran deliberately keeps adding misinformation to numerous articles. I think the user's edits need to be rollbacked. 124.85.124.147 (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP editor using multiple IPs for vandalism

    IP from Hungary keeps removing "present" from people's current relationships on the infobox in several articles without any explanation. They get reverted, warned and come back with a new IP the next day. I've found 15 IPs so far. They're also removing sourced portions of the article[113] and adding past boyfriends to the infobox, which is not allowed.[114][115][116]

    In December, another editor warned one of the IPs (2A02:2F07:D60D:7300:8CE7:8E3C:4941:8907) to not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia,[117] and they got blocked for 72 hours for persistent vandalism on December 22, 2019,[118] so they may be using more IPs than these 15 listed below.

    IPs:

    Diffs:

    Zoolver (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I have looked through the diffs and the links in your statement. I am not seeing vandalism. I am seeing a formatting issue. Regarding removing sourced material, you link to one instance - that is a content issue which should be discussed on the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zoolver: If you want any action taken here, you're going to have to present this in a simpler way. First, create ranges of IPs, not singles, and make sure that those ranges are all doing similar activity, meaning no collateral damage if the range is blocked. Second, at least some of the IPs in a range must have edited recently. I don't care about edits that occurred last month, let alone last year, but I'm willing to consider blocking a range for longer if the activity is recent and has been going on for some period of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What else is necessary for you people to consider something as vandalism and block several IPs from the same editor doing the same thing for months after being warned several times by different editors and refusing to stop? First I reported it for sockpuppetry but you guys said that there was no sockpuppetry and suggested that I should take it here, now there's no vandalism, so what should I try next? @Bbb23: Did you even check the damn diffs and 15 IPs listed here? there are diffs from this week on that list. If that wasn't clear, the first diffs showed how it started last year and were followed by the most recent edits from this week showing the same pattern. No wonder Wikipedia is this mess when the admins aren't willing to resolve such an obvious vandalism and expect regular editors to be experts and do their job for them. @Lightburst: nobody is checking those talk pages, let alone the IP editor who started it all and got warned to stop it several times. They won't stop, that's why I took it straight to ANI instead of taking it to 50 talk pages and wait for an admin to check it someday when they feel like it, but now I see that it was useless anyway. Zoolver (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    DBigFacts

    The alleged impersonation account has been blocked and globally locked, and El C's block is endorsed. This is an WP:IAR close. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I will like to bring into the administrators' attention, the recent blocking of DBigFacts by El C for the reason "username impersonation". He was most probably referring to DBigXray. Although third parties are supposed to appeal against a block, I am making this exception as DBigFacts is a newbie and I see this block as a case of WP:BITE. WP:IMPERSONATOR requires the two usernames to be "very similar" to justify a block, which they are clearly not in this case. Also given the fact that DBigXray has retired, the policy does not even apply here. ("Usernames that are similar only to unused or inactive accounts should not be a problem.") El C also went against the WP:HARDBLOCK policy as the general practice is to use soft blocks in such cases. I told El C about my concern, in reply to which he justified his action as a response to "provocation". As suggested by him, I am appealing against his decision on this forum, which I believe to be the appropriate place for it. Bharatiya29 16:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse block - Bharatiya29, you can't see the edits, but this editor made a series of edits which had to be removed from Wikipedia because of their nature, in a forum where DBigXray was likely to see them. I also don't know what was written but trust that oversight is not carried out except in the most serious cases of abuse. You should spend your time on something else, this account is not going to be unblocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The account has also been globally locked. I'm closing this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that DBigXray just retired a few days ago, is the subject of an off-wiki harassment campaign, and DBigFacts started editing in the Delhi Riots area (directly related to DBX's retirement) I'm with El_C on this one - that was almost certainly an intentional impersonation with the intention of trolling or otherwise disrupting. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 16:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflicts) This editor made exactly ten edits to other pages (enough to get confirmed), and then started immediately making edits to Talk:North East Delhi riots, the page which lead to DBigXray receiving so much harrassment that he had to retire, and he is probably still fearful for his safety. I can't imagine a situation where a block could have been more justified. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Gleeanon409

    (non-admin closure) Page has been fully protected to encourage discussion on the talk page to reach a resolution. Amaury • 19:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Three times now, despite an active and extensive RfC here with no clear consensus so far to change a passage in question, the same redlink editor has inserted their preferred change as if the RfC had already been decided in their favor!

    As WP:RfC states:

    Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved.

    Regardless, this editor violated that here by unilaterally replacing the longtime status-quo passage with their own preferred version. This happened two days after the RfC began on Feb. 19.

    The status quo was restored, and other editors began working on a compromise solution on Feb. 22, here.

    Regardless, that editor later saw consensus was not necessarily leaning their way and tried twice more to make an end-run around the RfC and insert their own version:

    • THere at 15:50, 4 March 2020. When another editor restored the status quo, Gleeanon409 did it again
    • here at 19:30, 5 March 2020

    As you know, the RfC process cannot work if editors insert their own personal, non-consensus version as if they are above the discussion and RfC does not apply to them. This editor was warned once about disrespecting RfC, and responded with snark. Another editor at that warning post, User:Yilloslime, then reminded Gleeanon409 that per RfC protocol, the status quo "should stay unless and until a consensus to remove them emerges, or wikipolicy changes." But Gleeanon409 appears to believe the rules don't apply to them. It's causing contentiousness in an otherwise mostly civil discussion where editors on both sides are actively attempting to reach compromise. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:210.6.209.89

    Blocked user (second block, first for edit warring and now disruptive editing) is now attacking editors on their talk page, specifically this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also this though more incivility than a personal attack. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr. Vernon: please notify the IP of this discussion – even though they are currently blocked, they have to be notified. --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bonadea, yikes, I thought I had done that. Thanks, notice given. Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my advice is to not argue with blocked editors. I've never seen anything good come of it. But I've revoked the IP editor's talk page access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    BHG again

    OP indefinitely blocked by TonyBallioni.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As many of you may know, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) was desysopped a month ago after a lengthy case involving the portal namespace showed that she was engaging in harassment and WP:ASPERSIONS during portal MFDs. While she is tbanned from portals, she seems to have gotten around by moving to a different namespace (categories) to persist in this behavior towards both me and Rathfelder, as shown here:

    Before you ask, all those constituency categories don't fail WP:CATDEF because constituencies are required to be an MP which makes them defining of their career, and nearly all those constituency/parliament categories don't fail WP:SMALLCAT because the constituencies were heavily stable from more than 500 years encompassing the entire GB Parliament.

    Best, ミラP 22:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this not a content dispute? There is no harassment in the diffs presented above, nor casting aspirations. BGH seems to be trying to explain to you her side of her reasoning and you not agreeing. Sounds like content dispute to me. Valeince (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valeince: She accused me and Rathfelder of "disruptive editing" here. If you read the evidence I provided and compare it to the evidence provided in the Portal case against BHG, you'll see what's happening. ミラP 22:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying someone's editing is being disruptive isn't casting aspirations if she provides diffs for the accusation, which I see she did. So what are you trying to do here? Valeince (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First, she didn't "move" to a different namespace; she's been heavily involved in categories since forever.
    Second, we don't argue about whether you're right or she's right at ANI.
    Third, although I've crossed swords with BHG before in other areas, I think a general rule of thumb is "if BHG says something about main space categories, there's a >95% chance she's right", so you should really consider the possibility that you're wrong.
    Fourth, what is it you're actually complaining about here? If it's rudeness, use diffs, don't link to a whole discussion. If it's that she disagrees with you, then don't bring it to ANI.
    Fifth, if you're editing disruptively, it's OK to tell you so.
    --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: I know she's been into categories since forever, but I've never seen her repeat that same behavior in portal MFDs in CFDs before. ミラP 22:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, of course you were. How silly of me to misinterpret it. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC

    As I've already said, if anyone can compare BHG's statements in all the discussions I linked to the evidence against BHG, that should prove my point. ミラP 22:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Best, ミラP 23:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Engaging with Miraclepine would be more fruitful if Miraclepine had some regards to the facts.
    For example:
    • Miraclepine quotes my words "transparently disingenuous rubbish", but snips them from the context. Here's my full comment:[119]:
    That's transparently disingenuous rubbish, @Miraclepine:. It is not a matter of not responding promptly enough. You responded within ten hours[120] to announce a refusal to discuss the issue.
    And now you have posted a rushed reply which misses the point. That disingenuity plus the multiple procedural flaws in this nomination mean that my ability to AGF is being very rapidly eroded    .
    You played a disingenuous game. You refused to discuss the issue until your refusal was raised in another forum, whereupon you tried to misrepresent your refusal as an oversight. I you want to play disingenuous games like that, I will describe them as such.
    • Miraclepine complains (re User talk:Miraclepine#Ipswich_MPS_CFD) of BHG acting very confrontational especially with the "How often is Gladstone referred to as the MP for Portarlington?" question.
      Wow. Just wow. Miraclepine refuses to discuss the substance of my concerns, directing me elsewhere, then responds glibly when they realise it looks bad to not do so ... and responds with layers of deflection and word games. That sort of passive aggressive tactic is designed to either drive the other editor away or produce a series of followups which can be dismissed as confrontational.
    Miraclepine's conduct here is a form of gaming. It is not the conduct of an editor working in good faith to produce a scholarly encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been populating categories which already exist. I dont think that is disruptive. If someone thinks these categories should not exist there is a well established system for discussing them. I have asked about the naming of categories. I dont think that is disruptive. I've been adding subcategories for the English, British and UK parliaments to existing categories, which I think is in line with the existing scheme. I have created very few new categories among the MP categories otherwise. And I have put the MPs of the English parliaments into the existing date categories. Is that disruptive? BHG's position appears to be that MPs should not be categorised by constituency at all. I dont think that is a defensible position. We have hundreds of such categories, some created by BHG. Rathfelder (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that there are severe problems in categorising MPs by individual constituency (WP:DEFININGness and category clutter), but Rathfelder seems unable or unwilling to engage in that discussion, and prefers to misrepresent my previous categorisation work (the by-individual-constituency categories I created in England were for university).
    As to Rathfelder's claim that We have hundreds of such categories, that's only because Mircapeline has been on a creation spree, and Rathfelder has been subactting Mircapeline's creations. (see the list at User talk:Miraclepine#Ipswich_MPS_CFD). This is WP:FAITACCOMPLI conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The categories on which I have been working seem mostly to have been created by User:Philafrenzy. I dont see how it can be seen as disruptive to populate categories which have existed in most cases for several years, and whose existence has not been challenged. Rathfelder (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rathfelder: for goodness sake, that is utter nonsense. The existence of such categories is being challenged in the discussion at WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Constituency_categories.
    You were participating in that discussion, so you must know very well that their existence is being challenged. One of the reasons that I regard your efforts as disruptive is that even such a simple point of fact seems escapes you. Other reasons include your disruptive conduct at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 6#Category:Members_of_the_Parliament_of_England_(pre-1707)_for_constituencies_in_Huntingdonshire where you were WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not aware, and am still not aware, of any proposal to remove all the categories for MPs by constituency. I raised a question about the naming of a set of categories, specifically to ascertain your views. That was not intended to be disruptive, and if you thought it was, I apologise. Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that the main "evidence" so far is that BHG saw that particular actions were still being taken despite an ongoing discussion on the validity of those actions, and labelled that as "disruptive". Which it is, because once a discussion is underway about a dispute and consensus is not obvious from prior discussions, then you should wait for a consensus to emerge before continuing with the actions under dispute. And the Portals Arbcom case has no bearing on this dispute. BHG was sanctioned specifically for her conduct re portals, not in any other area, and it should not be used as a stick to beat her with in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I suggest this thread be withdrawn, and the OP to engage with the subject matter at hand rather than attacking the individuals with whom they disagree.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought I'd be the one making a complaint against Mircapeline and Rathfelder, but hoped this would be resolved without ANI. But if Mircapeline wants ANI, then so be it.
    Both Mircapeline and Rathfelder have been running amok overcategorisng MPs, and making ill-considered CFD nominations.
    Both of them have persisted in their efforts even when discussion is underway. Both of them have demonstrated very low knowledge of the topics of which they are working.
    Some examples:
    1. Mircapeline's asssertion all those constituency categories don't fail WP:CATDEF because is something I strongly disagree with, and which I have tried to discuss with Mircapeline in two venues. Previous CFDs over the years have deleted similar categories.
    2. At User talk:Miraclepine#Ipswich_MPS_CFD, Mircapeline simply refused to discuss, saying[121] I don't really mind. [SNIP] You should take further discussion to WT:OCAT and WP:CFD..
      Then when I mentioned that failure at a CFD 6days later,[122] Mircapeline returned to their userpage to make a belated glib response[123] which ignored most of the points I made. Miraclepine then played word games until I gave up.
    3. At WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Constituency_categories, Mircapeline opened the discussion, but made no substantive comment. Miraclepine has chosen to base an ANI complaint on their assertion as fact of a contested point of interpretation which they choose not to discuss sensibly. That is an odd decision.
    4. Note also WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 6#Category:Members_of_the_Parliament_of_England_(pre-1707)_for_constituencies_in_Huntingdonshire, where Mircapeline made a nomination based on the false assertion that Until 1885, Huntingdonshire was the only constituency that had its borders within any part of the county of the same name, so this name is anachronistic. In fact, Huntingdon (UK Parliament constituency) was a parliamentary borough which had sent MPs to Westminster since the 13th century. But Rathfelder supported the nomination[124] (I'm happy with this) without checking the facts.
      Mircapeline and Rathfelder are tag-teaming to make widespread changes to the categorisation of topics of which they have repeatedly demonstrated very poor knowledge.
    5. As to Miraclepine's opening comment here at ANI that WIkipedia is not a place to promote "orthodox English scholarship" (the link is to WP:SOAPBOX) ... I can only ask why on earth a person who regards "orthodox English scholarship" as a "soapbox" is editing an encyclopedia, or why any other editor should have to waste time debating with someone who takes that anti-scholarly view -- it's a rejection of the principles of WP:RS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl:
    Previous CFDs over the years have deleted similar categories. Which ones?
    Regarding your response to my "orthodox English scholarship" comment, Wikipedia's a global encyclopedia.
    Best, ミラP 23:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Miraclepine: Wikipedia is indeed a global encyclopedia. But the issue here is the Parliament of England, and you dismiss the importance of English scholarship. Of course the English view is not the only one, but you complete dismissal of the English scholarly view is the stance of an anti-scholar who is not here to build an encyclopedia. (And before you accuse me of pro-English bias, I am Irish, and we had to fight a war to end 7 centuries of English rule over us).
    I am searching for the previous CFDs, but the search tools are not great for this task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close and let them settle it on talk pages and the relevant discussions. This is a misguided and borderline malicious attempt to use an unrelated ArbCom decision to silence an editor rather than engage with them. Slywriter (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • An unrelated ArbCom decision obviously makes BHG a soft juicy target for further persecution. Reyk YO! 23:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • if BHG says something about main space categories, there's a >95% chance she's right"
    More like 99.9%. I don’t know why User:Floquenbeam would imply a 5% possible error rate. BHG knows everything about mainspace categories.
    User:Miraclepine should read WP:CIR, pull his head in, and stop doing random weird things.
    Propose interaction ban, User:Miraclepine to stay clear of BHG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: although I agree that this was an ill-conceived ANI report, this isn't the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of the content dispute, and editors don't get to win arguments just because they've been around for longer than someone else. The issue is whether or not there was incivility or harassment on either side, and it appears at first glance as if the OP has been doing more of that than BHG, but I don't think further action is needed other than a continuation of the category discussion on talk pages.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now read through all the discussions and diffs, and find the OP’s position to be frivolous, vexations, without basis. Also, he has been annoyingly a nuisance at a number of forums. It’s not that BHG has been around longer, but that BHG’s statements were all correct, did not cross civility lines, and BHG has recognised expertise on the topics of discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: this situation had been escalating towards the point where I would have opened a ANI thread to ask for Mircapeline and Rathfelder to be topic banned from MPs. I still had hopes that might be avoidable, but the conduct of those two here at ANI makes that seem like an appropriate response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone, my mistake for failing to realise how badly this thread could go. If it makes all of you feel any better, we'll just close this thread before this gets any worse and start a CFD on the constituency categories. And yes, BrownHairedGirl, I promise not to create any more of those categories until the CFD ends. ミラP 00:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Whoah there. Miraclepine played games in dodging discussion, then decided to up the ante with a bogus ANI complaint to defect from their disruption ... and now expects to walk away Scot-free without even withdrawing all the shit they hurled at me. I hope that's not how this ends, and that Miraclepine doesn't get the impression that malicious shit-slinging is OK so long as you just desist when it doesn't succeed.
    And no, a CFD is not the next step. There is an ongoing discussion at WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Constituency_categories which has some way to run before a CFD would be appropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of which, I noticed this comment on Rathfelder's talk page from Miraclepine, telling them they have email, and this right after BHG's warning about disruptive categorization. This smells like an attempt at WP:CANVASSING. Miraclepine, care to explain? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr. Vernon: Rathfelder was already involved in the dispute at the time, and I was a little too afraid of BHG to tell them in public, so I decided to send one email to them asking if they could open an ANI. When they didn't respond, I opened the ANI myself. ミラP 01:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Miraclepine, that sounds like WP:STEALTH, "Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages.)" Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr. Vernon: I had a specific reason not to use talk pages: I felt very afraid of BHG after what she said to me, so I thought it was best to tell Rathfelder in private. ミラP 01:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Miraclepine, that still seems like it falls under stealth canvassing, since you were coordinating with another user to raise an issue at ANI, and indeed that other user did show up after you started the discussion. And I'd point out that you weren't that afraid, since you came to ANI after all. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr. Vernon: I'm still afraid of BHG but not as much as I was at the time of the message. ミラP 01:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Scared because I repeatedly asked you stop playing games? Scared because I asked you to stop disruptive editing?
    And you think that being asked to behave better justifies stealth canvassing and a malicious attempt at muckraking? Sheesh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Miraclepine, I'll be constructively succinct and point out that currently it looks like you were engaging in stealth canvassing in order to attack BHG when they're down on a high profile page. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr. Vernon: I wasn't trying to attack BHG, I was trying to raise concerns about her behavior. But I've realized that the thread is unnecessary spiraling out of control and I need an admin to close it so we can do what's right: continue the discussion at WT:UKPOLITICS and abort the category-making until the discussion is solved. ミラP 02:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You should know that all involved users behavior is examined in an ANI report, and it is not for you to decide when one is closed to avoid said scrutiny. This will be closed once an acceptable resolution is found. Valeince (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is entirely bogus. It is Miraclepine and Rathfelder who are behaving as if they have consensus when they don't. Rathfelder claims to have created 'few' of these and yet their creation log reveals over 20 and many more MP categories (some of which might be OK - if only Rathfelder would slow down and pay attention to others). Oculi (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I plead guilty to creating some new categories, but the categories I have created are all, as far as I am aware, part of well-established sets, which must, taken together, have several thousand members. If the existence of constituency categories as a whole is to be challenged then it needs a much wider debate, and I find it very hard to believe that it would succeed. Rathfelder (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for warnings, Miraclepine was formally warned by Bbb23 less than a aweek ago; this warning was then reinforcedby TonyBallioni with the comment that MP appears to be posting to a administrative board for the sake of posting to an administrative board. This current thread seems to be very much a contuation on that theme.
      I suspect that, for Miraclepine, the time for warnings—formal or otherwise—is over. ——SN54129 13:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the discussion on Bbb23's warning, there is a comment[125] by Ponyo about Miraclepine's unhelpful involvement with SPI: You don't have the experience or the ability to interpret nuance that is required to work effectively in this area of Wikipedia.
    That comment applies just as much to Miraclepine's ham-fisted openings of CFDs on MPs, when they clearly had no grasp of the topic:
    ... and also to Miraclepine's conduct at User talk:Miraclepine#Ipswich_MPS_CFD.
    There seems to be a pattern here of Miraclepine wading into areas where they bring nothing to the table and demonstrate no willingness to learn.
    In this case, Miraclepine has attempted to double down on those failings by turning a muckspeader onto an editor who does have expertise in the area. I hope that this discussion leads to some restraint on this pattern of conduct, or at least to a topic ban from British MPs, where Miraclepine's involvement has been wholly disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I’ve blocked Miraclepine per WP:CIR as Serial Number 54129 explains. This is yet another attempt by MP to get involved in things they know nothing about and try to get noticed while wasting the time of others. They recently were doing the same on meta’s equivalent of SPI, so the fact that the time wasting has gone cross-wiki makes it exceedingly unlikely this is going to stop here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Adding wrong categories of descent to bios – four months of disruption from New Jersey

    Done... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Someone using IPs from New Jersey has been adding unsupported or false categories to biographies, such as claiming that David Ogden Stiers has Greek ancestry, despite nothing in the biography supporting such a category. NinjaRobotPirate and Denniss have reverted this person a lot. A range of IPs is involved, geolocating to Woodbridge, New Jersey. Recently active ones are listed below. Can we get a rangeblock to catch all of these? Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Harassment by COI editor

    Indeffed by NinjaRobotPirate (also TPA revoked) (non-admin closure) Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 17:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can someone please have a work with User:Amoquay? He or she has a connection with The School of Architecture at Taliesin and not only continues to edit the article to add obvious POV and COI material but has also begun to harass other editors e.g., this edit whose summary is a clear attempt at intimidation. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocked... with talk page access preemptively revoked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Afdafadsfas - New user engaging in bot-like edits with no edit summary.

    Afdafadsfas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

    Normally I'd take this to WP:AIV, but I want to get some extra eyes on this user's diffs after they appeared on my watchlist today. The acccount seems to have been creating today,a nd their only edits (160-ish so far) are adding or changing the {{Vital article}} template. No other edits, no user page, and no edit summaries have me a little intrigued.

    I've not dug into whether these are valid contributions yet - Edits like these suggest to me the user is running some kind of bot script, but I'm not familiar with the behaviour. Someone more familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles may be able to provide more useful commentary than I can. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 13:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OBVIOUSSOCK. ——SN54129 13:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dave Meltzer

    (non-admin closure) Requested protection on your behalf at RFPP, it's now PC-protected. creffett (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Persistent long term vandalism. Requesting page protection and rev/deletion of defamatory content, where necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Rangeblock request

    Range block imposed by Acroterion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An IP user has, since last May, been disrupting Plummer v. State. This is an obscure 19th-century criminal case from Indiana that has become part of an internet meme supposedly justifying use of deadly force against law enforcement officers. The user has been attempting to insert a large and poorly-cited list of events that they think proves the meme is true. They have use a number of IP addresses and been warned and blocked at some of them in the past for this disruption but it continues as recently as today. The previous warnings and block were to 99.23.245.198 but the same text has been added by the range below and they are obviously the same person. I'm not sure exactly how rangeblocks work but the addresses are (probably?) the same device and certainly the same user.

    • 2600:1700:4000:9f90:68c6:40a1:4823:f5e7
    • 2600:1700:4000:9f90:49fb:2c24:b495:6fac
    • 2600:1700:4000:9f90:18ce:be09:2b1c:1286
    • 2600:1700:4000:9f90:8e4:1a64:d196:238c
    • 2600:1700:4000:9f90:d497:9418:e600:ac83
    • 2600:1700:4000:9f90:994b:46a5:ee71:67f4

    Could an admin who knows the right buttons to push take a gander? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an easy /64 block that will only affect a single user, for a year. Done. Acroterion (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, Acroterion, for the prompt and definitive response. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Catdogkid -- Not quite sure what the hell's going on here

    There seems to be some... very schizophrenic editing going on by Catdogkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I was going through my watchlist and caught the two edits in this diff, and reverted as blatant vandalism. I then checked their contribs, and found a weird mixture of genuinely helpful edits and more blatant vandalism (just a few samples of each). I'm... not entirely sure what to do about this, so I thought I'd throw it to you guys. It's almost as if either they think that productive edits "make up for" vandalistic edits, or we have two separate people logged into the same account at one time. Advice? rdfox 76 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=944475659"