Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1022

Nblund, uncivil behavior, unproductive discussion

Recently, Nblund has made comments on my talk page which do not make me feel welcome in the Wikipedia community. In specific the assertion that I am going to "wear out my welcome here" by participating in the Jack Posobiec talk page to attempt to address NPOV issues, as well as on the NPOV noticeboard regarding the same. In addition to this attempted intimidation intended to cause me to cease participation in the Wikipedia community, Nblund has engaged in repeated non-productive discussions on the Jack Posobiec talk page, my talk page, and now the NPOV noticeboard about the subject. Specifically, the user repeatedly enters the conversation, but has refused to address the specific topics of discussion with respect to NPOV policy questions and discussion, asserts opinions in place of verifiable facts when facts are both requested and required, and does so in a consistent tone which is meant to dismiss and discourage discussion.

At this time, I request input/arbitration/intercession from administrative members of Wikipedia in resolving both the individual conflict and the issue of repeated insertion of unproductive discussion in an attempt to resolve an ongoing NPOV issue with the biography of a living person. Thank you. Ihuntrocks (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Nblund's most recent message to me on my talk page includes the direct phrase "you are not welcome on Wikipedia" in reference to my continued participation in attempting to resolve an ongoing NPOV issue. Ihuntrocks (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Since Ihuntrocks has not seen fit to provide either diffs or context:

• In specific the assertion that I am going to "wear out my welcome here" by participating in the Jack Posobiec talk page
• [Actual comment]: You're going to wear out your welcome here really quickly if you keep accusing everyone of being disingenous or "engaging in a concerted effort" to push a POV. Multiple editors, in multiple different venues, are telling you that you are wrong. It's not because they're engaged in a concerted effort to repress you, it's because there are some very obvious problems with the edits you're trying to make. Nblund talk 23:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC) [1]

• Nblund's most recent message to me on my talk page includes the direct phrase "you are not welcome on Wikipedia" in reference to my continued participation in attempting to resolve an ongoing NPOV issue.
• [Actual comment]: Yes: if you are going to consistently fail to assume good faith of other editors, you are not welcome on Wikipedia, and you will get blocked...00:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC) [2]

Not also that Ihuntrocks has also raised his issues at Talk:Jack Posobiec, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --Calton | Talk 00:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologize if I have taken what were meant as comments designed to deter further participation, however couched, as comments meant to deter further participation. I have since disengaged from the topic and requested that the user in question disengage from my talk page. I'm hoping that request will serve as an informal resolution as I contemplate where/if I will refocus my interest on Wikipedia. In any official context, this dispute may be considered withdrawn with great reservations. Ihuntrocks (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologize if I have taken what were meant as comments designed to deter further participation, however couched, as comments meant to deter further participation

Since the comments were clearly NOT "designed to deter further participation" -- I even bolded the appropriate parts, the IF clauses, to draw attention to them -- your already non-apology apology is doubly meaningless. Unless, of course, you think that you are ONLY able to participate if you are allowed to accuse everyone of being disingenuous or if you consistently fail to assume good faith of other editors. I, for one, am not buying what you're selling.

In point of fact, NOBODY is stopping you from ACTUALLY engaging in discussion, but discussion does require you to LISTEN. --Calton | Talk 06:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ihuntrocks deserves a lot of tolerance as a new user, so I'll assume they don't realize what a poor impression their input in this very ANI thread makes, with the misleading partial quotes and the toxic non-apology to Nblund.[3] I'm glad to see they're contemplating moving on to other topics than Jack Posobiec. If they do, Ad Orientem is to be commended for his tact and patience in bringing it about. If they don't, I for my part will be contemplating a topic ban. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC).

• For what it's worth, these diffs seem rather measured and while I don't always agree with Nblund, I don't see that they were doing anything wrong. My experience is they are an editor who will talk respectfully with you even if they disagree with you. That said, I can also see why the new editor was unhappy with the article from a BLP POV. The first sentence says the article subject is an "internet troll" in Wikivoice. This was an edit DrFleischman added in April 2018 and has been restored by a number of editors since. I have no idea who the subject of the article is but we should never be calling BLP subjects trolls in Wikivoice. I can see why a new user might think they are helping a bad article when getting involved with it. This is a classic example of a Wiki article that makes it clear the editors are trying to persuade the reader vs deliver the facts. Springee (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

internet troll was well sourced. keep up. Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Internet troll qualifies as a contentious label and thus should be attributed if well sourced. Never in wiki voice. See Masem's comments in this BLPN thread with a very similar problem [[4]]. Springee (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• In retrospect my second comment kind of reads like a dare to file a frivolous report. That was dumb on my part. Otherwise, yeah, I think Ihuntrocks should recalibrate, and I really was trying to give frank advice. Ad Orientem seems to have a good handle on the user, and I'm happy to discuss reasonable content issues in an appropriate venue. Nblund ^talk 15:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Ok. I have proceduraly closed the two noticeboard discussions with a note urging interested editors to discuss any issues on the article talk page. I have reopened the talk page discussion which was closed in good faith, but I believe precipitously under the mistaken impression that Ihuntrocks was dropping the matter. That said, they are taking my advice and stepping back from this particular content dispute. In closing I would encourage any experienced editors to have a look at the article. While the way they handled this may have at times been inelegant, I am not completely convinced that their concerns are utterly meritless. However, as I am heavily INVOLVED in my capacity as an admin that's as far as I am willing to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Claytonisabelle22

Disruptive editing by User:Claytonisabelle22 at Gelato over several days. Non-responsive to talk page warnings about tone/style, citations, disruptive editing, BRD. It seems that they are a student editor, but appears to have gone through training modules and such, so should know about some of Wikipedia's policies - so I do not think they should really be given a break here after continuing to add the same problematic edits over and over without response to talk page warnings. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ping Helaine (Wiki Ed), Shalor (Wiki Ed), Ryan Jiawei Xing. The editors in this complaint are students in one of your WikiEd courses. Please respond. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

To add onto what User:Vaselineeeeeeee, it appears that there could potentially actually some tag-team edit warring going on. Maurabuggey and Claytonisabelle22 seemed to be tag-teaming to force the this unencyclopedic paragraph into the Gelato article as seen here and here and here. Meatpuppetry to evade WP:1RR is also against the rules IIRC. 107.77.203.144 (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You're a troublemaker.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

What is that exactly supposed to mean? (For the record, I also doubt it is meat puppetry, agreeing with JesseRafe below - but the IP did bring up a valid connection between the two students). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit Nonsense. Frankly, Vaselineeeeeeee, you should not have brought this here unless you were first unsuccessful in contacting WikiEd. It wasn't urgent. The pings by Ivanvector were helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't exactly know how to contact anyone at WikiEd directly (as in via their website) so the pings was the best I came up with. @Ian (Wiki Ed): thanks for your help, but for future reference is there a resource for editors with concerns such as these to contact WikiEd instructors directly, or is pinging them here the best way? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if it's best, but in the past I have contacted Ian directly on their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: you can always ping me, or me, Shalor (Wiki Ed) or Elysia (Wiki Ed). One of us should be assigned to any class we support. You can also post to WP:ENB, especially if you aren't sure whether it's a class we support or not. (We only support classes in the US and Canada, WMF and various Chapters provide support for student editors in other countries.) It's usually quicker to ping us than it is to ping instructors, because they may not be checking Wikipedia often enough. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, as for email, you can reach me at ianwikiedu.org, and the same pattern (firstname wikiedu.org) works for everyone in the org. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't sure how to contact them either, so thought bringing it here would be the best option - and thanks to Ivan for the pings. The disruptive editing of the user seems to be enough to warrant a short block as well - even before/without the intervention of their said instructors, so that was another possibility for bringing it here. Still not following you though with how the IP's comment is nonsense - I think it's safe to say it's not puppetry - but the bringing up the second user who has a clear connection with the other is certainly not nonsense. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

We are not going to block the student.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

And why not - just because they are a student they can not abide by the policies that if anyone else were to undertake would be blocked? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Bbb23 here. This is very mild disruption caused by editors who are in a program meant to educate them how to be better editors, and considering the mild nature I'm fine with letting that process work. There's no emergency here. It is most definitely not sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope it's never necessary, but student editors shouldn't be given special treatment. If a block is warranted, it's warranted. I'm hoping our intervention via the instructor works and there's no need for a block here, but I'm personally willing to block student editors if it's what's needed. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Ian. I think Bbb23 needed to add more detail to his several posts - saying something is nonsense without an adequate explanation is nonsense, saying "We are not going to block the student" seems to imply you are willing to give special treatment to the student just because they are a student. In this case, yes, it is not an emergency, but the fact of the matter is is that they have gone against more than one policy that would have gotten any other unresponsive user or IP a 24 hour block. The program is meant to better educate them, sure, but this student has gone through all the training modules and has been called upon on their talk page several times to no response to their continual disruptive editing - they should already be educated in how to respond to a situation like this, and instead just ignored it. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with not removing this note about Maurabuggey, also the very first edit from either account says "we added a history" in the edit summary. I doubt it's meat puppetry with the intent to deceive or evade EWing, but just two classmates working on the same article/assignment who probably co-authored that dreadful prose offline that is also on both of their sandboxes. JesseRafe (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and Vaselineeeeeeee: Thanks for the heads-up. This sort of editing (both the quality issues and the edit-warring) goes against our standards and training for student editors. We will get in touch with the instructor ASAP to intervene with the students. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk)/Guettarda 17:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC) {Double-signing in keeping with the rules regarding alt accounts in project space.)

Thanks, Ian. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

NPA, NOTHERE, or am I being too sensitive?

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

---

I noticed that user:Winged Blades of Godric left a terse edit summary that did not really explain anything when reverting me. "Nope" does not rise to the level of information required to understand the revert. I placed a standard warning and the editor reverted. I'm fine with the revert, but calling me a troll in the process is not appropriate. I left a second, hand-crafted comment explaining NPA, which was also reverted with calling me a troll. Going in for a final comment: I was called a troll in the revert. I'm not going to comment on the editor's talk page again. Are these personal attacks? They are most certainly not respectful in any sense. Are they signs that Winged Blades of Godric is WP:NOTHERE in making no attempt to work collaboratively? Or am I creating a battleground by escalating or possibly just being too sensitive (as the editor is clearly busy and does not want to engage)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I can’t say that it necessarily rises to NOTHERE, but I’ve seen this behavior before I find it troubling. In a recent AFD discussion, the user was extremely brusque in both edit summaries (eg reverting comments by other users with “go away” and “busybodies”) and in their interaction with other editors, to the point where they felt the need to delete or collapse comments that they disagreed with. We happened to be on the same side of that discussion but it is still a problematic way to conduct oneself and I am disappointed that admins chose not to discourage this behavior after the AFD was closed.

For reference, this was the discussion: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ramesh_Nagaraj_Rao_(2nd_nomination)

I don’t think that he is a bad editor by any means but this particular bad habit should be discouraged. Michepman (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Both WBG and Walter are quite experienced editors. WBG should know to not move so fast and revert what isn't vandalism, but Walter shouldn't have templated a regular WP:DTTR. This certainly isn't WP:NOTHERE, especially from an editor with 35k edits and a long tenure. But I do find WBG's lack of engagement troubling, and am not sure how they could think Walter was a troll? I hope they respond to this ANI with a well measured comment and assuage the community of any doubts about their behavior. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There are CIVILITY and BATTLEGROUND problems with User:Winged Blades of Godric. Two days ago he tried to prove a point at my DYK nomination by "copyediting" and removing sourced info from the article to bring the character count down from 1769 characters to 1475 characters (which is below the DYK minimum requirement of 1500 characters). After I told him that it is not mandatory to transclude the DYK template on the article talk, he unilaterally reworded the DYK guideline to make sure what he stated is right. Edit summaries like "Wot?" are not helpful either. Dee03 19:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

In response to DTTR, this is my first interaction with Winged Blades of Godric so I did not recognize the editor as a regular. I suppose should have checked (and should check going forward) before using templates on talk pages. I suppose that using Twinkle would be clue that they are a more experienced editor at any rate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Dee03, think long and hard before grinding axes on this page. Guy (help!) 23:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• IMHO, you're both acting suboptimally, but you (Walter) were being more annoying. WBG's original edit summary and response to your messages aren't good, but I can kind of understand the frustration shown in the responses. DTTR is not policy, but it's a good description of how many people react to being templated, so whether you agree with DTTR or not, you shouldn't be too surprised. Your repeated follow up messages on his page also had a low likelihood of success, as did saying he is not here to build an encyclopedia. So yes, calling you a troll is wrong (you are not a troll), but IMHO you're more wrong here. Maybe everyone go back to their separate corners? Or a reminder to you to not template regulars, and a reminder to WBG to leave better edit summaries? This regards this interaction only, no comment on how it fits into your SOP or WBG's SOP in interacting with others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

One more comment, FYI. While not defending the unhelpful and somewhat rude edit summary of "nope" (and not defending edit warring by anyone), in this case you could have very safely assumed that "nope" means "I agree with JzG's rationale". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That's probably true, but calling a constructive and experienced editor of many years a "troll" (see What is a troll), and then doubling down in an edit summary while removing said editor's complaint about being called a troll is nothing else but being intentionally insulting. Please don't do that, WBG. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Walter Görlitz, The edit summary was backed by a rationale on Talk. This report is vexatious. This templated warning was abuse: it is for edits with no summary. To then follow up by accusing him of personal attacks is a case of WP:POT. Guy (help!) 23:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• @JzG: That does not appear to be supported by the order of events.

2019-10-30T15:43:28‎ Winged Blades of Godric leaves terse edit summary (entering to support JzG)

2019-10-30T15:47:22 Winged Blades of Godric has time to revert Masem on Kim Jong-un with a similarly terse comment: wot? See FALSEBALANCE (no linking present in summary either)

2019-10-30T15:48:08 Winged Blades of Godric reverts template placed on own talk

2019-10-30T15:49:31 Winged Blades of Godric enters Buy Nothing Day talk page discussion

If the edit summary was actually backed on the talk page, the edit order would have been support JzG on Buy Nothing Day article, leave talk page comment, (politely) revert template left on own talk to the effect of DTTR—which I have done numerous times—and ask to discuss if necessary, then defend Kim Jong-un article. The behaviour appears to be an afterthought. Of course if Winged Blades of Godric is actually an account used by multiple editors that order makes perfect sense, where editor one supports you and immediately starts to comment on the article talk page, while editor two is busy on the Kim Jong-un article, sees the alert of an update on the talk page and reverts the editor they've never seen before for reasons they are unfamiliar with. I don't think that's the case either though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I added additional commentary to the application of the template so it made it clear that a terse edit summary was useless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

And when Twinkle applies a template, it does leave an edit summary: "Notice: Not using edit summary on..." Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that user:Winged Blades of Godric left a terse edit summary that did not really explain anything when reverting me. "Nope" does not rise to the level of information required to understand the revert.

Looking at the "Nope" in context...

23:12, October 27, 2019‎ JzG -‎ Not a WP:RS for claims of fact

00:03, October 30, 2019‎ Walter Görlitz - Reverted good faith edits by JzG (talk): As a WP:PRIMARY source, it is.

09:07, October 30, 2019‎ JzG - Reverted good faith edits by Walter Görlitz: But it's not a reliable source. No prejudice to a reliable independent secondary source, but this isn't, it's an industry lobbying group.

14:53, October 30, 2019‎ Walter Görlitz - Reverted 1 edit by JzG (talk): Immaterial. It's not controversial use of a WP:PRIMARY source.

15:20, October 30, 2019‎ JzG - Reverted good faith edits by Walter Görlitz (talk): It's a press release. See Talk.

15:22, October 30, 2019‎ Walter Görlitz - Reverted 1 edit by JzG (talk): See talk page. acceptable use of a WP:PRIMARY source

15:43, October 30, 2019‎ Winged Blades of Godric - Reverted 1 edit by Walter Görlitz (talk): Nope

...it's extraordinarily obvious to me what "nope" means here. Why would you say it's not? And why are you here instead of, say, the talk page? --Calton | Talk 23:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you know what it means here. I did not. It that was the only article I edited, I might, but even then, I was not in a discussion with Winged Blades of Godric and so it is meaningless in that context. "No, a PRIMARY source is not valid in this case" would be a better summary.

I did go to both the article's talk page and that of the editor.

Other editors have noted Winged Blades of Godric's terse summaries as problematic.

I am here because Winged Blades of Godric continued to refer to me as a troll in all attempts to discuss with the editor and so a public location is appropriate to discuss inappropriate behaviour. Isn't it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you know what it means here. I did not

I seriously, seriously doubt that. You were, in effect, having a conversation via edit summary, and even if you isolate the last two:

You: acceptable use of a WP:PRIMARY source

WBG: Nope

The meaning is simple and ludicrously obvious: No, it is not an acceptable use of a WP:PRIMARY source, something made clear by previous edit summaries.

You follow up your edit-warring with the templated warning of a regular over a -- in my opinion -- bogus rationale, then pester him while not reflecting for a second on your own behavior and edit-warring.

Other editors have noted Winged Blades of Godric's terse summaries as problematic.

So you knew this but somehow didn't realize that he was a long-time and experienced editor? Or are you looking for an ex-post-facto rationalization for this report? --Calton | Talk 00:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You seriously doubt my direct claim that I did not know what it meant? It's not obvious and could have multiple meanings. I did not know that the editor had annoyed other editors either any more than I was looking for a rationalization for this report, no. A one-word edit summary is poor. You can dress it up however you like, but it makes it no better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

And that logic baffles me. Immediately after being reverted with the terse comment I went to the editor's talk page to suggest that such behaviour was not appropriate. I had no way of knowing how Winged Blades of Godric would respond as I do not recall having interacted with the editor before and saw no warnings on the editor's talk page. I'm not planning on doing a full background check on editors I warn, and I certainly did not do it prior to this warning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• My edit sum could have been better, certainly. That being said, I do think that the edit summary was sufficiently self-explanatory in light of the uni-locus nature of the dispute that led Gorlitz to engage in edit-warring with Guy. I also note that I had provided a clear explanation at the t/p, ~5 minutes after my edit, which is easily acceptable.

• Walter Gorlitz's usage of the template was an abuse of its intended purposes and his subsequent actions deeming me to be NOTHERE, equates to trolling and baiting, in my opinion.

• I am interested in knowing from CaptainEek about my alleged lack of engagement. As far as I know, I have unilateral discretion to remove any message from my t/p (esp. if they are an abuse of templates) and that discussing a dispute via t/p, rather than via edit sums is preferred.
• I won't engage Dees03; true to what Guy has noted, he is grinding axes. ∯WBG^converse 03:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, I see your perspective here. Being templated by WG was understandably cause for angst. And you are free to remove messages. But when WG left you another message (handwritten this time), you should have attempted to talk to WG, or sought an intermediary. Communication is expected. This all could have been cleared up if you had replied with something friendly, along the lines of "Oh Hi Walter, sorry about calling you a troll, got templated and thought you were a newbie and didn't look close enough. Please don't template the regulars. In terms of your concern, I actually did leave a summary, and I explained it on the talk page. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding :)" Now I'm not saying that you're at sole fault here, I do think it was quite petty on WG's part to leave you that message. But you should have stayed cool and defused things. Instead we're here. I honestly don't see any action coming out of this, besides perhaps a dual trouting. You are both highly valued and longstanding contributors, and hopefully this serves as a lesson to both of you to be a little more careful and a little more civil. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A five minute delay to actually discuss while doing other things, and calling me a troll thrice is your justification. Are you justifying being unpleasant or are you just blissfully ignorant of it?

I would be please with improved behaviour going forward from Winged Blades of Godric. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Serve up some trout Alright, this isn't going anywhere good. Clearly no one is gonna end up blocked or t-banned or put in the village stocks and have tomatoes thrown at them. If this carries on it'll just get acrid, and for no good reason. I hope this thread has served as a warning to both Walter and WBG to be more careful and civil in the future. Both sides had some fault in this issue; lets not argue who was the worse party here as that is only gonna sow resentment. Let us serve a big fat juicy WP:TROUT to both of them and be done with this. I leave it to a neutral closer to put together an appropriate side dish (i.e. a warning) to go along with the trout. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

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

50.203.99.102 - Disruptive editing

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

---

The IP user 50.203.99.102 continues to add previously deleted unsourced and unnecessary additions to pages (eg. Not Evaluated, Brown tree snake, The Three Bears (Looney Tunes)), despite being warned multiple times (see talk page here). They have never engaged on talk pages despite being invited to do so on edit summaries and their own talk page. Their most recent block for this type of disruptive editing was for six months, but they are now back without changing their ways. Loopy30 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User threatening to block me despite not being an admin

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

---

John from Idegon has been removing content from pages, stating that is unsourced. This includes the entire filmography from the page Glenn Morshower. He states that it's unosurced, despite the thousands of other actor and actress pages having the same style filmographies. After I undid his removal, he left a message on my talk page threatening to block me despite not having any power on Wikipedia, and despite vandalising articles, removing content. This is not right and he should definitely be looked into. Solar Dragon (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

One doesn't have to be an admin to issue a warning. This is a content dispute, and should be discussed on the article's talk page before dragging it here. User:John from Idegon's edits are certainly not "vandalising"; requesting a source is a legit concern. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Removing content is vandalism though. Hundreds of other actor pages have filmographies that aren't sourced. He's removing the content, that's vandalism. Solar Dragon (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism is explicitly defined as deliberate attempts to harm the encyclopedia. A good faith effort to removed unverified content is not vandalism. The fact that John is only doing this to some pages and not every page is irrelevant. Unless you have actual evidence that John is purposefully doing this to make the encyclopedia worse, you will not succeed in convincing anyone that he is committing acts of vandalism. The fact that you think there is no good reason to delete this content is also irrelevant. This is the entire point of 'assume good faith' - the very fact that it's possible for reasonable people to disagree means we should not leap to assumptions of malice, as you have done. I recommend you drop this complaint and attempt to pursue dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Solar Dragon, the onus is on you to provide a source if your edit is challenged. If you cannot provide a source, do not add the material back. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You need to read WP:V and WP:NOTVAND before editing any further. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay then. How about you go through the hundreds of thousands of articles that have similar style filmographies and remove them too then? This is part of how Wikipedia is. It shouldn't be removed, and doing so it just making the wiki worse. So, sure. This is the last I'll deal with it. Make Wikipedia worse if you want to. I don't give a shit. Solar Dragon (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(So many EC) Read WP:Vandalism before you sprout such utter nonsense at ANI. Per WP:Verifiability, content needs to be sourced. Per WP:Othercrapexists and so many other policies and guidelines, the fact that some other content is unsourced is not a good reason to allow unsourced content. While it's true that there is plenty of unsourced content and it would be WP:disruptive (but not necessarily vandalism) to go to every single page and delete every single bit of content that appears to be unsourced, ultimately the only real way you can demonstrate the content should remain when challenged is by either finding a WP:reliable source or showing it is already sourced. Not by complaining that other content is unsourced, let alone making false accusations of vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Solar Dragon: You also seem to have failed to notify John from Idegon of this thread via a comment on their talk page, despite all those big shouty boxes on this page clearly saying you need to, so I've done so for you. While there was some discussion of an undefined noticeboard on their talk page, I don't think [5] can reasonably be interpreted as indication you were about to or had opened a thread on ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I really don't understand why we are here. If this thread didn't involve me, I'd close it. It is a content dispute. However, the notion that somehow it's ok for things like people's accomplishments to not be sourced is patently ridiculous. Appreciate y'all letting SE know that. Peace out....a Star Trek marathon with my son ensues. You got this. John from Idegon (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Aggressive misuse of warning tags and bad faith (Grayfell)

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

---

Recently, I added an infobox to the article The Right Stuff (blog), which included the location of where the organisation is based and a logo and referenced information of individuals involved in the group. Subsequently, the user Grayfell spammed my talkpage with aggressive warning markers about "Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion". My edit to the article adding relevent information, consists of neither or these things and is simply improving Wikipedia content on the topic. When I questioned Grayfell on this, he simply deleted my message from his talkpage and accused me of "playing stupid." I have found Grayfell's behaviour to be extremely rude, bad faith and not conductive to collaborative editing on Wikipedia. In fact, his attitude appears to be to disuade editors from building content on Wikipedia and developing articles, which is supposed to be the whole purpose of the project. I would like the community to take a look at this editor so that he can be encouraged to reform his poor behaviour. Benjiphillips (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, let's take a closer look at this, I agree, but this probably is't the right forum. I have started a talk page discussion for at least one of these pages at Talk:Renegade Tribune. Benjiphillips has added a lot of unsourced or primary-sourced information to articles on obscure neo-Nazi podcasts and "news websites". While superficially neutral, this content is in a conversational tone and is mostly flattering. Since Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or WP:OR, especially not for Nazi crap, this information should not be restored. For now, at least, the place to discuss this would be the article's talk pages, where this editor has not contributed. Grayfell (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You accused me specifically of "using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion", where there is no evidence of that. Can you explain how developing and expanding Wikipedia articles within the WP:MOS is either of these things? Or how throwing around such accusations from your part falls inline with WP:Assume good faith?

Are the contributors to the in depth theory of relativity article "promoting" or "advertising" the theory or relativity or are they rather contributing content to an encyclopedia? Any of the work I have added, I have tried my best to use relevant citations and if you feel citiations are lacking in certain areas, then there is always a tag for that. Could you explain what you mean by a "controversial tone" and "superficially neutral"? Its either neutral or it isn't. Article guidelines say to only add content with a WP:NPOV, which I have tried to do.

Do you think your aggressive approach and flagrant bad faith is conductive to building a collaborative encyclopedia? Benjiphillips (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Depends on whether you think changing "anti semitic" to "anti-Jewish" to describe an antisemitic blog is non controversial or just NPOV, I suppose. Although saying all you did was "add an infobox" (which what Greyfell was responding to with the "playing stupid " comment), when quite a bit more was added with both that edit, and considerably more with ensuing ones could be considered just a tad disingenuous. Curdle (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Persistent long term edit warring by multiple accounts at Turkmens

• Turkmens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Warnings haven't appeared fruitful. User blocks, page protection of just more eyes needed here. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:B92C:1498:D9F0:79A1 (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have not participated in an edit war with my recent contributions to Turkmens. I would like to ping users @Wario-Man: and @Ermenrich:, the former can verify that this page has been persistently vandalized with genetics disinformation by WorldCreatorFighter. The user who keeps reverting falsified and POV information on this page is reverting to the handiwork of a known nationalist troll, WorldCreatorFighter, who is repeatedly banned from Wikipedia for obsessively editing the same pages.

I would like to add that this individual created this ANI notice just five minutes after my last contribution to Turkmens, which demonstrates a suspicious degree of familiarity with and surveillance on that article for an anonymous IP account just a few days old. This individual needs to identify themselves, because they have probably been banned before. Hunan201p (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you expect a blocked user to declare his sockpuppets? If you have the time and energy, you might try to find a user with similar actions and open a sockpuppet investigation. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, no. I have no familiarity with the article, but did note Hunan's history of removing sourced content from multiple related articles. It may very well be that Hunan knows the subjects and is correct, but the long term pattern caught my attention, and that attention is not directed solely at one account's edits or one article, but broader instances of warring. Administrators Drmies and JJMC89 know me well, and may be able to take a clearer look at this. 2601:188:180:B8E0:B92C:1498:D9F0:79A1 (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hunan201p, if you have evidence of ongoing socking by WorldCreaterFighter, as Hunan201p has claimed in their reverts, WP:SPI is that way. (The previous case against DerekHistorian was closed due to insufficient evidence.) Otherwise, hash out the content dispute on the talk page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hunan201p, This IP (known as 99 or Bob to some) has been around here much longer than I have. They are not block/ban evading. You need to withdraw your unsubstantiated accusations (WP:NPA). — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I ping @DerekHistorian: because he's involved in this case too. See my comments on talk page of that article. Some stuff was added by sockpuppets like Special:Contributions/AsadalEditor and Special:Contributions/Milktaco (two different sockmasters). The rest of story is a content dispute between Hunan201p and DerekHistoria that it should be solved via talk pages and related boards. If the IP-user thinks Hunan201p is an alternative account (block evasion or sockpuppetry), they should take their evidences and diffs to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The IP is not making socking accusations. They are asking for intervention to stop the edit warring, be that blocking, protection, or just more eyes on the article/dispute. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not think protection is warranted at this point, but I added the article to my watchlist.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Threats to block without proper discussion

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

---

I am attempting to update the page 'Collapse of the World Trade Center' to improve neutrality by presenting alternative perspectives from reliable sources.

Although I am complying with Wikipedia guidelines with respect to neutrality and reliable sources, I am being threatened to be blocked by editors Drmies and Johnuniq.

Wikipedia guidelines with respect to neutrality state:

‘All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.’

I have numerous reliable sources to cite which fall well within the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources.

The editors accuse me of false science yet fail to support their accusations, and threaten to block me.

Most recently I have been advised 'we don't have time or inclination to debate alternative theories', which seems in direct contravention of:

'representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.’

Below are some sources which meet the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources:

‘Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction’, Jones S, Legge F, Ryan K, Szamboti A, 4 and Gourley J, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40

‘Active thermitic material discovered in dust from the 9/11 world trade center catastrophe’, Harrit N, Farrer J, Jones S, Ryan K, Legge F, Farnsworth D, Roberts G, Gourley J & Larsen B, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31

‘Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials’ Ryan K, Gourley J & Jones S. The Environmentalist, 2009, 29(1), 56–63

’15 years later on: the physics of high-rise building collapses’ Jones S, Korol R, Szamboti, A & Walter, T, Europhysics News, 2016, 47 (4)

I have attempted to discuss the matter with the editors, but they refuse, as can be seen at the websites below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr_Realidad#Original_research%2C_reliable_sources%2C_we%27re_not_a_forum%2C_and_competence_is_required https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drmies

Please advise how to proceed with dispute resolution.

Dr Realidad (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Info Anonym

Info Anonym (talk · contribs) started on Wikipedia on October 17 by editing Jewish descent categories, precisely at the moment a large conflict was raging at Category:North American Jews, and apart from 6 edits today he edited only in connection with those categories.

I tried to explain to them on their talkpage how things work on Wikipedia in general, and with categories specifically,[6], and likewise I tried to inquire how he came to edit those category pages. Out of WP:MEAT concerns. He, however, has not given a satisfactory explanation to my WP:MEAT concerns, as I noticed here, nor does his edit of today show that he understands what how burden of showing consensus works, or, alternatively, he does not understand how the history shows on whom the burden of showing consensus lies. In addition, he does not understand that he is effectively involved in edit warring on a few connected pages about one and the same issue. This, despite my efforts to explain this on his talkpage.

I think we might benefit from a block till such time as he lays the WP:MEAT concerns to rest, and shows that he understands how to edit responsibly in accordance with Wikipedia policies in guidelines. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not only edit in connection with these categories apart from today. That is a lie. You can check my contributions from the 23rd, 24th and 25th October.

You also never mentioned to me on my talk page that you were asking me out of WP:MEAT concerns. Knowing I am a new editor you could have told me that. To me that seemed like an irrelevant question at best if not an assumption of bad faith. I did however already answer that question the first time you asked. I explained to you that I saw Middle Eastern categories being removed from every Jewish article and category, which is what got me involved. I am however planning on staying and I have already been editing on pages outside of those. Then you asked me a second time which I of course did not answer a second time. Apart from that, I have noticed that discussions about that topic have been going on for two years at least constantly involving you and other accounts from the current discussion. I don't know why you would assume that now suddenly one of them would create a second account or tell their friend to do that?

You yourself are engaged in edit warring. You even broke WP:1RR here: [7] on the 23rd of October reverting twice in only two hours which you as an experienced editor should know better. I also already answered your concern about the lack of consensus issue but you ignored it. The category talk [8] started off as a removal discussion. That is why WP:DON'T PRESERVE is relevant. You need consensus to remove the category, which you didn't get. So I ask you to revert your removals of that category. Especially the removal of the category "People of Middle Eastern descent" from "People of Jewish descent". We were talking about overcategorization by putting Middle Eastern descent, South West Asian descent, Asian descent etc. on every Jewish category. That could be circumvented if the Jewish descent category was a subcategory of the Middle Eastern descent category.

I know how to edit responsibly, I have been mentioning guidelines to you all throughout our discussion in the category talk. But you ignored not only that but also arguments from the opposing side making the talk extremely ineffective.

(Info Anonym (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)).

You indeed made (a few) more edits that were not connected to Jewish descent categories. My apologies. Doesn't really change my point, though.

You still did not explain how you all of a sudden came to notice these categories. This is the second time now you are circumventing the real question.[9]

I asked about my WP:MEAT concerns without referring specifically to that policy, for obvious reasons.

This thread is not about the content issue, rather about the behavioral issue. You basically continue here to explain your (incorrect) understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines, adding a few (incorrect) accusations at my address. So basically you are continuing the edit warring attitude.

I came her with two concerns: WP:MEAT and WP:EDITWAR/WP:TE. Both concerns remain very much in place. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

He continues edit warring: [10] and [11]. Debresser (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

At this point you’re calling every of my edits edit warring. How is this to be taken seriously? I reverted two recent reverts one of which was done by you and the other by another account on your side of talking points without consensus after both of you just stopped replying in the talk. Thus, those first two reverts were actually engaging in edit warring. As you have done repeatedly and very heavily throughout this discussion - as an experienced account.

And you provided no evidence for WP:TE you just quickly added that into your report in your reply to me here. And you know that up until now that has actually been an accusation made towards you.

You’re making me very uncomfortable of editing things I am allowed to edit (although there’s actually a much more serious case to be made against you but I’m not going to report yet because I want the talk to continue). I stoped engaging in the little bit of edit warring I have maybe unknowingly engaged in in my very first few days on Wikipedia a long time ago now (you did so having had your account for years.)

Concerning WP:MEAT, I also already told you that it was through another Wikipedia account. I saw the category missing on one page (don’t remember which) and saw in the edit source that this account removed it, went to his contributions and saw that he removed it from 20 other pages. I don’t know what you want to hear and why that is so surprising to you after a two year discussion that sometimes new people join.

(I’ll reply in the talk a little later, now that you finally decided to engage in it again and to react to what was actually written to you.)

(Info Anonym (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC))

37.236.117.11

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

---

I found a long-time vandalism that stays for about a three weeks to a month until 6 October 2019, that's vandalism revision called "The place of polygon has 5978°", and this edit has been reverted here. 180.183.22.224 (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The reverted vandalism content says "archimedean solid contains the alphabetic in tea in Toronto todayis big can be rated on rhombicosidodecahedron was the element in the elements they could be found on the polygon in first ever 978 5978 degrees there's such a questions in the alphabet they could be honestly sound on rhombicosidodecahedron" in Diminished rhombicosidodecahedron (J₇₆), and are not constructive. I purpose to block this IP address. 180.183.22.224 (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That IP has made two edits, one of which was over ten years ago. We do not block IP addresses for one instance of garden variety vandalism, unless something far more malicious is going on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock consideration for 2601:881:8300:CB80::/64

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

---

• Special:Contributions/2601:881:8300:CB80::/64

This range has been making disruptive edits on article talk pages for over a month now. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].

As IPv6 /64 ranges are usually one person (WP:/64), I am requesting a rangeblock for a short period (a week?) EvergreenFir (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked for 2 weeks. Looks to me like this IPv6 has only ever been used by this same user, and their entire month-and-a-bit history is overwriting other editors' talk page comments with bizarre off-topic requests and faking signatures. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Potential COI editor

Hi, this IP seems to be a potential COI editor that is undisclosed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Country_Airlines&diff=prev&oldid=887936657 Removed entire controversy section from article - which even though that section likely needed removed is still relevant here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Country_Airlines&diff=prev&oldid=923546064 Added a reservations phone number.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Country_Airlines&diff=prev&oldid=888647939 Removed COI template.

All editing seems to surround Sun Country Airlines, and the IP is registered to a company that from Google search appears to also have an office providing "consulting" among other things in Minneapolis, the HQ of Sun Country.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.119.101.2 (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Gave the IP as big final advertising warning. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I brought this up several months (or more) ago on WP:COIN; this airline has a pattern and practice of adding PR-ese and unencyclopedic boosterism to this article. Just a background FYI, for what it's worth. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal

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

---

An IP-hopper using 107.77.233.158 tried to add a "joke edit" on Norse-Gaels the other day (see the reference to Polish Plumbers in the edit...), but got caught. It was also totally unsourced, and the sources that were later provided, when they tried to re-add stuff do not say what they were claimed to say, making it pure, and utterly childish, vandalism. As a result of their edits, and edits on my talk page, 107.77.233.0/24 was rangeblocked for 31h, but they're back at it again, now using Special:Contributions/107.77.234.67 and and Special:Contributions/2605:A000:1707:81BC:A0E6:BB00:C2D1:CC35 to add nonsense on Talk:Norse-Gaels and my talk page, so could someone block them, and protect Norse-Gaels and Talk:Norse-Gaels for a few days, because this is getting boring. And no, I haven't notified them, since it's an IP-hopper, and no one can be expected to post notifications on hundreds of possible IPs. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• And they're now using Special:Contributions/107.77.236.113. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Quit twisting and libeling my motives. Character assassination isn't polite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.236.113 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Grow up, kid. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 107.77.232.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) now blocked for a month. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 2605:A000:1707:81BC:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) also blocked for a month. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC).

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

An unresponsive user?

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

---

Rahmadiabsyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An ip had tried to reach out to this user about adding some tv show's episode listing, on Black Clover (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). And I gave advice to say WP:CRYSTALBALL. But the ip went to talk to me about this user. That their mainly unresponsive on their talk page. On a concern that if adding a tv show's episode too early, it doesn't match the refs/ or sources it presents. Per WP:VERIFY. (Example; from last week, here and the ip's response and from today, this and the ip's second response.)

Before, I had a concern about this user because of WP:SPLIT concerns and that the user may have been reading from wikia/ fandom without adding sources about a new tv season. Or that wikia/ fandom falls under the rule/ guideline WP:USERG. Then starting from here (note; In the edit summary I might have been irritated. Because leading up to the split, I kept having page notices from this user.) In which I supplied the WP:SPLIT or WP:COPYWITHIN. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: Another issue that the ip had a concern of, on my talk page: Is that, is there a language barrier for Rahmadiabsyah for not replying. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a comment, when I started the concern a week ago. Detailing that, what if you add something too soon. But no one knows if the content is verifiable until the show has aired. Then until it does, I am thinking that Rahmadiabsyah to stop adding it. But since then there has been no answer from the user. Until today. 99.203.50.212 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Tainted-wingsz - Does the response from Rahmadiabsyah here resolve your problem? 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You can't really ask a user to stop. But they're sort of still unresponsive. And maybe answering vague messages, then who knows. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

To 38.142.216.106, it felt like a weak response. I was thinking that the ip 99.203.50.212 earlier wanted to know where can the episode's be found at. Other than here; But in the last two weeks Rahmadiabsyah was silent on replying to the ip. Because every Monday the ref or the tv's schedule updates and it sometimes may tell the episode's name in advance. But in the past it only shows what date is it airing at. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

For the message, I still kept looking. If you go to here; and press the; ブラッククローバー it will show you the episode listing and on Monday at 15:00 (UTC) or a little later. That's when the tv schedule has been updated. (That would show the new episode's name in an one week advance. And the episode that's airing later at night.) Then a few hours before it gets updated, Rahmadiabsyah was adding the name to the episode in. So right after I removed it. From that until the tv schedule was updated, is this WP:OR? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a little hard to prove. If it's not Monday anymore? The main point is. What if your adding something and it could wrong. As some tv show didn't go in chronological order. That's one reason to wait. Which I think you wish for Rahmadiabsyah to follow. But, if there not very responsive and doesn't edit much. So since there's no action taken for the moment. Then let this be. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Short opinion

Question, I have a lingering thought. Since Rahmadiabsyah does edit and adds the next episode title. Then the IP may repeat this, removes it, and tries to ask Rahmadiabsyah again. And they don't reply swiftly. So what do we do with the user then? Unblue box (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If I wasn't clearer earlier ago, I was digging more into this. If it's around Monday at 15:00 (UTC) and until the show; Black Clover has finished airing on Tuesday at 9:55 (UTC). There is a short timeline where you can find the next episode's name. But during that time what happens if it doesn't say anything about it. Then in the last two weeks the IP removed Rahmadiabsyah's edits because the ref, doesn't tell what is the next episode's name and the IP remove it. Then asked Rahmadiabsyah, about this inquiry. Before the show's tv schedule has been updated on Monday at 15:00 (UTC) or later on. Then it raises a question of mine, if Rahmadiabsyah doesn't edit often and doesn't reply to messages when the IP had a concern about this two weeks ago. Is the user being unresponsive and what do you do with that? Nor if this editing pattern would continue. Then next the IP went to Tainted-wingsz about this concern. Since he is one of the main editors on Black Clover. Unblue box (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Unblue box, Users are expected to engage in communication per WP:CIR. If a user refuses to engage, report them here, and provide as evidence all attempts to engage with them. Often those users will get a short block to get them to engage, and if they don't talk, the blocks get longer and longer.

As a side note, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here in general, perhaps something got lost in translation. Are you saying that Rahmadiabsyah isn't engaging? What are their problem edits? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to get at, well summarize the above messages. That there is a way to find the tv show's episode, but there's a chance that it can be wrong. Then since Rahmadiabsyah isn't responding, that apposed a problem. As the IP tried to talk on here, in the relating edit and this second edit relating to this. Leading up to the ani notice. Then after those edits there was a vague answer from Rahmadiabsyah. So the IP and Tainted-wingsz tried to explain this to Rahmadiabsyah. Then after still no answers from them. Unblue box (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Note, I fear that when it's Monday. This might happen again. If Rahmadiabsyah added the new episode's title again and 99.203.50.212 removes it. Then this problem drags on into a third week. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok. If there's nothing else going on, but it leaves WP:CIR concerns that's left now. Why did it take two weeks for Rahmadiabsyah to reply? I still wonder if we should just "wait and see" next? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel if I'm premature here? Rahmadiabsyah just added some stuff to here and I still wanted a reply. Is the person ignoring what's going on for almost three weeks now? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from here Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

In a lengthy message from 99.203.50.212 they suggest that, if Rahmadiabsyah still doesn't reply because of WP:CIR. It's clear that they edit, but doesn't reply back. Can we try two days giving Rahmadiabsyah a break. Then thereafter is up to anyone's guess. Unblue box (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary page break

Could y'all help me clearly understand the issue? As far as I understand it, Rahmadiabsyah has been adding episodes of a TV series before they air, which would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Rahmadiabsyah has not responded to this conversation, but continues to edit. Have they continued making edits to Black Clover? Are there any other issues you have with them? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Their last edit was to this. So everything is a yes. Then for the other issues is no. Unblue box (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion here is to close this thread with a formal warning to Rahmadiabsyah to not add unsourced material, or material that violates WP:CRYSTAL. If they decide to ignore that, then they should recieve escalating blocks. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Rahmadiabsyah's next edit is this here and continuing to fail to communicate to this issue. Unblue box (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Update 2. From my talk page. A different ip noticed that 99.203.50.212 didn't know about. For every edit, Rahmadiabsyah has edited on. For the last 3 weeks or a month now. The info was already hidden or commented out until the; <!-- --> has been removed. But if the commented out info wasn't been used on Black Clover (season 3) at all. Then this still shows some sort of type of slow problem too. On top of WP:CRYSTAL, based on the edit history. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this sounds important? Other than Rahmadiabsyah editing on Black Clover (season 3). I looked at List of Black Clover chapters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and their edits have seem to add scanlation word spellings too? Then over time corrected their mistakes. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Hopefully, this will be resolved now. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Changing from support to any block. I just saw the edit by Rahmadiabsyah. When I switched to using a laptop. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I'm quite in support too, but Rahmadiabsyah just earlier edited again. Unblue box (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Block: If this is the start of the proposal to block or any of the suggested offers. I see that Rahmadiabsyah has some sort of issues that isn't helping themselves. Unblue box (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Block now: Rahmadiabsyah's most recent edit and lack of response clearly demonstrates that they are WP:NOTHERE (point 7). — MarkH21 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Block: For WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR. 99.203.50.212 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Mass creation of articles in mainspace

I came across Draft:Etropole Literary School which was made by Powerfox after having a look at some of the newly created pages. I ended up moving this one to draftspace, however upon posting to notify the user on their talkpage, I can see a huge list of articles that have been deleted, either via speedy, PROD, AFD and the stale drafts. There have also been copyvio concerns. It seems the user has a habit for mass creation of articles directly in mainspace which are lacking adequate, reliable secondary sources, most are short and a lot have no talk pages that should be created with the relevant WikiProject's. No use of edit summaries.

I've moved a few of their recently created articles to draft space, but it seems the user creates a very short article and then moves onto the next. Here's an example of an article that was created back in November 2016; 2 edits and that's it. Not here to put this user off from contributing to the encyclopedia but I definitely think administrator advice is needed. Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't sound rude, but couldn't you message them directly? They've created just three articles this month, and it doesn't appear that anyone has tried discussing potential article creation issues on their talk page before this was brought to ANI, which is for urgent incidents per the banner at the top. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarkH21, no it doesn't sound rude, you're right. I was going to post about it on their talk page but after seeing their huge talk page and their contribution history, it seems the user doesn't really respond/talk with any other editors. Almost all of their edits are mainspace only. Happy to close this and post on their talkpage but just a bit unsure, what do you think is best? Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Steven - for what it's worth, it does look like no one has actually tried talking to this editor. Taking a glance at his user talk page, it looks like just a long series of impersonal templates and notifications, most of them from bots. 2601:144:200:92E0:C16F:5EE9:EC71:C193 (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

MarkH21, is that your reply? I think you may have forgotten to log in Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Steven (Editor): No that’s not me. I’d say to leave them a personal message on their talk page or two, after which pursue external intervention. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

• Evrdkmkm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jjj1238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Miss Universe 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Evrdkmkm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been tendentiously editing the article Miss Universe 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and similar articles. I am not sure if this is a cross-wiki issue, but I have noticed warnings on their Thai Wikipedia talk page as well. While I may have gone a little too far with a badly formulated warning, I think this may be an ongoing problem. I am not sure if it is to hide their trail, but they blanked both their Thai and their English Wikipedia talk pages as well. This is what their talk page looked like before the blanking: [18]

I would be welcome to work with the editor to improve their edits, but tendentiously using "fake news" and "unreliable sources" in their edit summaries seems to slow down improvement to the page and I may not have the willpower and energy to do so. Which is why I am leaving a message here to see what needs to happen to correct this behavior. Awesome Aasim 17:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

On one hand, the information they're trying to remove does seem out of place in this article: although it's reliably sourced it is a rumour, and one which apparently was proven false after some time. More like conjecture about a business venture that ended up not proceeding than an outright fabrication, but somewhat irrelevant all the same. On the other hand, using "fake news" in an edit summary doesn't seem to fit here. I think the three of you (with Jjj1238) should discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Or, with the four reports that were already made about this today at AN, I'm thinking maybe this is a time-sink we can avoid by blocking all three of you. Do you want to try discussion instead? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that I had already fully-protected the page for one week (protection lapsed yesterday), which obviously still did not produce its intended result. El_C 18:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

i said it's details to promote Pinoy businessman/politician before, it's not important for Mu article, because it's rumors and talking about his business in the sources and details, so it's rumors and not real and not important for MU. anyway it's not confirmed by MUO. it's just fake details from Pinoy buninessman/politician who wanna have talk of the town to try promote his business by MU pageant news. I GIVE A REASON WHEN I REMOVE THIS EVERYTIME, i dint add unsourced or rumors details because it's not important detail. WHY WE ARE NOT ADD ONLY GOOD AND IMPORTANT DETAILS FOR THE ARTICLE, RUMORS DETAILS IS IMPORTANT?

so Jjj1238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) always undone rumors details to the article. And he always undone details on other pageant articles that add by other editors, feel like his own the pageant page that any editor cant add the details. Why you are not open your mind and accept other editors, this is not only your page.

AND I STILL WONDER WHY THIS EDITOR Awesome Aasim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WANT TO TRY TO ATTRACT ME ON WIKIPEDIA AND ON MY TALK PAGE.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Evrdkmkm filed yet another report at AN about this same thing and has been given a 24-hour time out. I would have done the block myself had I been awake when all that happened. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Another thing

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

This user appears to be an SPA in pageants which is not a problem in and of itself. However, they have been warned on their talkpage about unsourced or poorly sourced content on 15, 16, 17 and 29 September; they were blocked 29 September by Ad Orientem, then received more warnings from 22 October and finally from me 30 October [19], also asking for acknowledgement that they have read any of these. Since this warning from me they have continued disruptive editing, the latest being creating an unsourced article over a redirect [20] and making more unsourced additions to Miss World 2019 [21].

The total of their six talkpage usages are mostly flaming [22] and demands for page un-protection [23]. They have never replied on their own user talkpage. I'm not sure they are able to work in a collaborative way. -- Bri.public (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, most of their edits appear to be adding unsourced information, and in many cases removing citation required tags. Given their otherwise unpleasant demeanour, I don't think we need them here. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• You probably mean this removal of {{cn}}... ☆ Bri (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Indef them for being uncommunicative/combative. If they make an earnest effort to actually talk with other editors in a civil manner as opposed to talking at them, then we can reconsider the block. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 04:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Being harassed by a user

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

---

I really don't want to cause anyone headache or create trouble so please close this. I am leaving wikipedia. Graull (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I am constantly being harassed by a user called Sharabsalam. He has attacked my edits since I first started editing in wikipedia. You can see my talk page he has constantly bombarded my talk page with investigations, threats, and commands on what I should or should not edit (last time I checked the internet is free). I have asked advice from a kind user called El C here to see if my edits are problematic but i find it peculiar that this user is the only person who keeps finding my edits problematic. No one has told me that my edits are wrong except him. It sound he or she dosent like that I edit AQAP in Yemen related articles and keeps attacking me with different reasons to revert my edits.

First, it's POV, then, it's the wrong article, then it's a biased source. There's ALWAYS a reason for him to revert my edits. Check my edits please and see if they warrant reverts. I am not adamant on editing wikipedia but honestly my experience here has been so negative so far because of this one user. His arguments are not rational and he keeps reverting no matter what I say. I never edit warred with him. I have asked him constantly to leave me alone. He keeps following my edits in every article and reverts it and hoenstly I am fed up.

I can no longer continue here because of the hostile and malicious behavior of one user. If this is not harassment then I don't know what is. I keep explaining to him my reasons for the edits but he revert anyways until I posted in source noticeboard in which he couldn't fight back because another user agreed with me.

I can not continue this. I joined wikipedia to try and organize small things in wikipedia and assign proper names as per articles (Houthi government to Supreme political council) and Hadi governmemt to Cabinet of Yemen) as well as add information on operations against AQAP. but he keeps calling me biased and tells me that he's a Yemeni hence he had the right to revert all my edits in any AQAP and Yemen related articles. I am tired. I feel targeted and bullied. Please stop this kind of behavior to occur with other users. I am done from being harassed I have self respect to leave when I am constantly being attacked.

This is a great initiative made by multiple users. Users shouldn't act like they own articles. Please ask him to STAY AWAY FROM ME. If there anything wrong with my edits then PLEASE someone else can tell me. An admin can ban me, instruct me, or tell me to stop editing if I am being a net negative to this project. But I can no longer accept being targeted by one user. Please, please stop this kind of behavior from occuring to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graull (talk • contribs) 13:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Graull (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Graull, please provide diffs of the behavior in question - see Help:Diff for directions on how to provide those links. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I am using a phone right now I don't know how to do that using a phone. Just read my talk page and see my contributions and his interaction with almost every single article I have edited so far. I am tired. If you find something wrong with my edits then please let me know. I find reasons such as "unhelpful wording", "POV" and "propaganda source" very shady reasons for him to keep reverting my edits when no one else reverted me except him. I am not taking any sides in that conflict I am Canadian!! I genuinely feel targeted! Everytime I edit I get reverted by him only, never anyone else. I can't continue like this.

Please let El C know that I genuinely appreciate his advice previously and I thank him for it. I hope more users here are like him. I can't keep this up because of this bad editing experience I have witnessed so far. I wanted to help but it seems all I experienced so far is harrassment. I just want to be left alone!! I am genuinely frustrated right now... I need to stay away from here for a long time and call it quits. I genuinely hope no user whether new or old experience this kind of bad experience and targeted harrassment that I have experienced so far. Thank you. Graull (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I never harassed this editor. It's their edits that seem POVish like mentioning that Hadi-led government is a cabinet in the infobox although this is disputed between the Yemeni Houthis. Plus the editor writes no edit summaries. I didn't follow this editor edits. I see his edits in my watchlist. I usually don't bother clicking on diffs if there is an edit summary but this user provides no edit summaries. I have seen some of his edits and they were fine although the editor didn't write any edit summary. Also I thought the editor is a sock puppet of Wikiemirati. I don't know who is the master. See their edits from the beginning didn't seem as a new editor so I had every right to investigate.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Graull Sorry to hear that. I am almost the only one who has all Yemeni-related articles in his watchlist. If you see me consistently that's because of that. Your edits were almost all related to Yemen or UAE. So it is obvious why you would find me always there.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment - As far as I can tell, this dispute seems to stem from a months-long edit dispute related to the Yemeni Civil War. Based on Graull's talk page, there have been some content disputes (e.g. removing or adding content related to Fall of Zinjibar and Jaar) which is exacerbated by Graull's decision not to use edit summaries in some instances. I don't know enough about the subject matter of the actual edits re: Yemen to say whether Graull or SharabSalam are right on the content. However, I do think that based on their talk page interactions that there is a problem with collegial editing between them. Graull seems to take extreme offense to being reverted by SharabSalam, repeatedly referring to it as harassment and asking SharabSalam of being part of the Houthi movement. For his part, sharabSalam's mildly aggressive approach on Graull's talk page (e.g. stating that Graull is not supposed to edit articles related to the Yemeni war because he is not an extended confirmed user) and filing unsubstantiated Sockpuppet investigation sockpuppet allegations against Graull has not helped ease tensions.This is a pretty high stakes emotional area so a certain amount of conflict is unavoidable, but I think both users need to take a deep breath. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Editor Interaction Analyser
• Interaction Timeline

-- Cabayi (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::One correction; I gave evidences why this editor can't be a new editor and that Wikiemirati is likely behind the sock puppet but the evidences don't prove that Wikiemirati is the sock master, which is why I asked for a check user. Apparently the checkuser tools didn't prove that Wikiemirati/Magsuf is related to Garull.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sharabsalam your aggressive approach as well as saying I'm not a new user has frustrated me. I have already told you as well as provided evidence that I have edited as an IP before I made this account and I have been warned by someone else to stop editing by IP when you opened investigation on me. I made this account to hide my IP address as well as when I did a paper on AQAP in University. I have edited in other conflicts in Africa and Syria as an IP previously when I did a paper on there (Africa), I have never experienced such aggressive reverts by someone like you though. My edits are not perfect I totally understand that that's why I asked other people to check them because you've called them problematic. I am open to hearing your concerns and I have repeatedly tried to be civil towards you. I am feeling targeted by you. If my edits are annoying you you're welcome to tell me in details why is it they're annoying you. Saying "POV" or "not helpful" and reverting is not a good way to solve disputes! Im not adamant on editing wikipedia. I don't have a specific agenda! I'm not your enemy. Please, be polite. I am willing to forget all of this. I am going to stop editing wikipedia overall anyways due to your aggressive approach. I don't enjoy being attacked aggressively and I need to stay away from negativity. Please, next time explain in details in the talk page why you think certain edits are annoying you (Hadi governmemt, operations against AQAP as well as other edits I have added) when you find an edit you don't agree with, instead of attacking other users and littering my pages with warning signs and reverting with "POV" and other silly reasons. Please stop accusing me of things. I hope you enjoy the rest of your experience editing in Wikipedia, if I have annoyed you I apologise but please know that my intentions were to improve wikipedia. Graull (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody closes this discussion I want to make a response.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Feeling triggered or angry is very common in Wikipedia. It's not just you, everyone here had felt triggered. If you feel that you can't mentally handle criticism then it would be heather for you to not edit in controversial areas in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is free but you have to follow rules and regulations. "cabinet of Yemen" is not common in the media. It is very rare that someone will say cabinet of Yemen in relation to the Yemen civil war as both sides claim being the legal governors of Yemen. Just know that I never followed your edits. In fact I was scared from your accusations that I am harassing you so I let some edits that you did although they were not okay but then today I saw a lot of edits without edit summaries making a changes to the infobox's etc etc. Also for the sock puppet claims, I didn't want to bring this up but you mentioned above in your report against me and I told you why I did that. For you leaving Wikipedia, I have been followed and reverted for real harassment not phoney harassment, real harassment. For example here, here. Why are these real hounding and yours are not?, that's because I have edited in these articles, which you edited and I have been in that area editing and reverting vandalism almost all of my time in Wikipedia. That editor however followed my edits reverting them, do you think someone from the West know anything about Shara'b As Salam District? LOL, it was just because of a disagreement in another article. Also, I was accused of being a sock puppet although I was totally unaware of anything in Wikipedia and there was no reason to accuse me except my political views, see [1],[2]. I kept challenging in the talk page, I didn't say harassment, I talked about the topic. I have many known editors who disagree with my edits and I have disagreed with their edits, (you are not the only one in Wikipedia who has made edits that I disagree with) they have never said I am harassing them so why would I be only harassing you?. I tried to make things chill and asked in a way to make it funny, "Why are you so freaking angry all the time?" but I understand that new editors feel triggered when they get reverted. I told you to stay out of controversial areas that normally requires "confirmed user" tag, since you are still a new editor, you would get experience so you can use NPOV tone in articles and use neutral sources. It is your choice to leave Wikipedia. I didn't contribute to this. I was reverted multiple times got blocked for editwarring while reverting obvious wrong edits biased POV edits, I never left Wikipedia and said "I am leaving because of blah blah harassment blah blah".--SharabSalam (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Graull and SharabSalam: For what it's worth, in light of Graull's retirement message at the top of this thread, this response from SharabSalam is outrageously cruel, and, ironically, absolutely full of harassment. I mean, give me a break with this stuff:

• "If you feel that you can't mentally handle criticism then it would be heather for you to not edit in controversial areas in Wikipedia." Armchair psychiatry like this is clear harassment.
• "For you leaving Wikipedia, I have been followed and reverted for real harassment not phoney harassment, real harassment." I can't really say if Graull is right or wrong on the content but they absolutely have been harassed. Calling your treatment of them "phoney harassment" is you telling on yourself.
• "Why are these real hounding and yours are not?" Oh, you've both been harassed.
• "do you think someone from the West know anything about Shara'b As Salam District? LOL" Are there no Yemeni people living in the entire Western Hemisphere? Are there no experts living in the entire West?
• "I never left Wikipedia and said 'I am leaving because of blah blah harassment blah blah'" Even if SharabSalam had never uttered a single harassing word before, mocking a good-faith user for getting overwhelmed and leaving is a perfect example of harassment.
• And that's not to mention repeatedly telling Graull that they've been "triggered", which is one of those words that almost instantly went from describing a serious problem to mocking said problem.

Sometimes at ANI, when it's just two non-admins bickering about obscure stuff, it just goes stale and gets automatically archived with no administrative response. I hope that doesn't happen here; even for ANI, this rant is so aggressive, confrontational, and outright rude that an admin ought to give it consideration for a block. @El C: You were kinda/sorta tagged in this. Any thoughts? 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:D4F6:ABB0:52FD:6A03 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think my advise still stands. But I agree with the IP directly above, SharabSalam. Your reliance on innuendo is unnecessary and actually crosses a line. While it may not rises to the level of sanctions, as was also suggested, please cut it out. Graull, I'll expand on my previous advise: you two need to manage the content dispute better, more efficiently. Divide it into digestible bits, conduct a Request for Comment when needed, or make use of one the specialized noticeboards. While this is undertaken, I am hoping that discussion remains understated (without any personal nuances whatsoever), all edits clearly explained, and WP:ONUS respected. For the disputes to be resolved will take some methodical work and self-restraint. I am still cautiously optimistic. El_C 20:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

El C and the IP I have never harassed him. You misquoted what I said. Graull edits were most of the time wrong. I had to revert. I got accused of harassment multiple times and he has accused me of being a Houthi just because of the discussion in Houthi talk page.

For the quotes, first of all I misread what Graull said, he said I feel "targeted by you" and I read it as "I feel triggered by you" BIG MISTAKE. I made a lot of misspellings because I was typing using my phone and I was in hurry and I was eating. I told him, that's very common here. if you feel that you can't mentally handle criticism then it would be healthier for you to not edit in controversial areas in Wikipedia. I honestly wanted to make him return and I gave an example, myself, in Wikipedia even after I got real harassment I stayed, my intention was to convince him to stay. I felt sorry and I felt guilty for him but what should have I done. I swear I never followed his edits and as I said I got even scared from reverting him because of his accusations of harassment. They have added information from non-reliable sources that support the UAE and its proxies like The National. also using infobox to write that Cabinet of Yemen although this is disputed and without writing an edit summary! I reverted one of his edits accidentally because I thought they did the same and when he told me that it was about the Houthis I self-reverted. I am not sure what should I do else? How can I just watch this without reverting? Where is the harassment? DO NOT say the sock puppet investigation is harassment, there was every reason why to think that this user is a sock puppet--SharabSalam (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I want also to say that I have all Yemen-related articles in my watchlist and it is very common that editors find me in their way when they make wrong edits and this user edits were almost all in Yemen-related articles not just AQAP but also Houthis. I think his edits were mostly about UAE-Yemen conflict. So thats why.-SharabSalam (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

[T]here was every reason why to think that this user is a sock puppet — please name one such reason. Reverting is fine, so long as there is sufficient explanation and with the understanding that, generally, longstanding text should stay in place while a discussion is undertaken. Also, continuing to allude to mental health is not a productive direction. Please don't do this again. It's just inappropriate. Just like when Graul asked you if you belong to the Houthi movement. Just try to engage one another in good faith by focusing only on the content. El_C 20:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

As he said that he has been editing as an IP. The reasons why I thought that he is a sock puppet are in the investigation archive One of things that doesnt make sense about this editor is why he created blanked page in his user page and talk page immediately after they joined wikipedia and then they started making big editings with not making any style mistake, of course, just using unknown and unfavorable sources like all the content from the Chinese Xinhua newspaper(a state-owned agency) and other things.

As I said I was talking about mental health in good faith because I thought he said "triggered" instead of "targeted". I am actually having a health problem, I got flue, which is why I am editing less lately.

If I was targeting Graull and not his wrong edits I wouldn't have reverted him when he edited as an IP. I dont want to say his IP but he said what his IP and I found out that he got reverted by me! He added a text which was already in the content. It was like when there are lots of cooks and one of them adds salt and then the other adds salt which gets the dish ruined. He reverted me using his IP even though I told him that the content he added is there. Notice that this was before he created his account in wikipedia and that this proves that I am not targeting him specifically but rather their wrong edits.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Is it normal that an editor tries to show that he doesnt know how things work? I am not sure what benefit adding such category in this article only five days after the account was created yet perfectly making a signed comment and with the bullet for the survey.^[1] Not sure if I can write here but whatever^[2] yet he has created a blanked pages in his talk page and user page as soon as he joined wikipedia like he knows that blanked user pages are annoying because they open the editor!.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I am appalled by how this case is handled. I've read about so-called "unblockables", I did not think it could go to such extents without any sanction. I understand that an editor's edit count needs to be accounted for, but here it's literally excusing obvious cruelty. The OP was clearly and honestly distressed, and in the end left. The other one wrote "LOL" and continues to defend his right to behave like that, long after the departure. If the latter was a new user, he could not have written a tenth of what he wrote before being blocked indef. No wonder why we are losing contributors. --Signimu (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, I forgot to follow this up. Anyway, if Signimu's criticism is directed at me, specifically, then I take exception to that. Blocking is the last resort when it comes to these sort of conflicts, and although SharabSalam's conduct here has been suboptimal (for which he has been cautioned), I still don't feel it has risen to the level of a block. This has nothing to do with the notion of unblockables, which I do not subscribe to, anyway. I am sorry to see that Graull has chosen to leave the project — @Graull: if you're still reading this thread, thank you for your especially kind words. They are much appreciated. I hope that you'll, eventually, have a change of heart and that you'll choose to return. El_C 18:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

More disruptive editing and personal attacks by User:Tisquesusa

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

---

Tisquesusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again been adding links to deleted portals, and again made vicious personal attacks on me as I try to clean it up.

The portal linking templates ({{portal}}, {{portal bar}}, {{portal-inline}}) treat redlinks as an error, and tracks those errors in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals and its subcats. I try to keep those cleanup categories clean.

Tisquesusa began this back in October, and when I tried to discuss it on his talkpage hew simply deleted my posts with insults in the edit summaries, and then posted a v nasty personal attack on me to a project talk page. For that he was blocked for three days: see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_User:Tisquesusa.

Tisquesusa resumed this a few days ago. Initially I edited the pages to remove the redlinks, and left another note on Tisquesusa's talk page[24]. However, the addition of these links continued, so to save my time I took to simply reverting the edits in which he had added these links, with an edit summary explaining the revert: e.g. [25], [26], [27].

This afternoon I found that Tisquesusa had

1. reverted some of my edits witjout comment[28], [29], [30]
2. reverted another edit with a personal attack[31]
3. Posted three outrageous personal attacks on me at WT:WikiProject Palaeontology#Ban_request: [32], [33], [34].
   Several other editors urged Tisquesusa to calm down, but without success; one of them also got a barrage from Tisquesusa[35].

There is a pattern here of Tisquesusa refusing attempts at discussion, and then making personal attacks.

Please can someone a) make this stop, and b) revdel the personal attacks?

Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Minded to block for a week, will await other admins consensus or Tisquesusa's response. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, Stifle. In his latest personal attacks, Tisquesusa accuses me twice of being on a killing spree.[36][37] In one of his October edits, Tisquesusa actually compared the removal of links to deleted portals with The Holocaust: revert remove portals, stop that shoah now.

So the extreme over-reaction doesn't seem to be a one-off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that it wasn't several editors trying to calm him down, It was just me. I've known the user for several years as we often edit the same topics and I have a cordial relationship with them. Tisquesusa isn't a bad person, and has contributed enormously to many articles, and most of the time makes constructive edits. While I understand that reverting constant portal re-adds is frustrating, undoing users mostly productive edits is also pretty frustrating to be on the recieving end of. Not that the personal insults and attacks are excusable in the slightest. I don't think he deserves a permanent ban and I don't think a week ban will resolve things either, as he went back to exactly the same pattern of behaviour after the previous 72hr ban. I think an interaction ban might be best. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, an interaction ban seems like an odd remedy to the conduct of an editor who edits tendentiously, repeatedly refuses attempts at discussion, and repeatedly makes appalling personal attacks.

An I-ban would prevent me from cleaning up his disruption. Note that on each occasion I have reverted his edits in full only after attempts at dialogue (through pings on fixes and messages on his talk) have failed to stop the disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:, Fair enough, I didn't understand how interaction bans work, my apologies. I think it's clear that he won't respond rationally to discussion on this topic, but simply banning him for a week won't fix the issue either, I'm not sure really what the best way of resolving this is Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia -- A topic ban might be closer to what you are looking for. Here's a relevant quote from the referenced page: The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. This person seems to have a strong issue with portals and the viciousness of the attacks on BrownHairedGirl (e.g. comparing her to a Nazi, unceasing edit warring) and a temporary block for a week or a few days hasn't had any effect as seen above. 107.77.202.63 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Hemiauchenia, I agree that there seems to be no chance of a rational response, so the de minimis long-term remedy is simply a topic ban on adding Tisquesusa adding links to portals.

However, my immediate concern is that all of Tisquesusa's recent edits have been severe personal attacks on me. Regardless of the substantive issues, no editor should be subjected to that sort of abuse on Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I hadn't seen the full brunt of his personal attacks before, as they had been permawiped before I had the chance to see them. He is capable of rational discussion.Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, if you are right and Tisq is capable of rational discussion, then the sustained rejection of rational discussion in this case seems to be a conscious choice. There doesn't seem to be any basis for AGFing that this is an isolated outburst. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support a one week block for vicious personal attacks, and a topic ban from portals, broadly construed. Support an indefinite block if personal attacks on any editor resume. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as proposer. The cruelty shown to BrownHairedGirl as well as the extensive recent history of abuse makes a topic ban necessary. The fact that they are capable of rational discussion elsewhere but have chosen not to exercise this ability here means that the portals topic must just be a hot button. 107.77.202.63 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban – referring to an editor's editing as "shoah" (the Hebrew word for The Holocaust) is an example of Godwin's law (at least it wasn't called "The Portalcaust"). These diffs from today (1, 2, 3, 4) show that disruption is ongoing and since prior warnings have not been heeded, I think a block is necessary to stop the disruption. I support the TBAN because, per others comments above, it seems this is an ongoing problem with regard to portals. – Levivich 19:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban – I have read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Ban_request and a 7-day-block seems surprisingly lenient. Oculi (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• That section should be removed and revdeleted per WP:NPA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support and topic ban This is not even a close call. The question is: are disruptions to the project ongoing? The answer is yes. Thank you Levivich for providing diffs. I support a one week block for vicious personal attacks. attacking BHG who is an admin is just asking for a block. Lightburst (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban. Tisquesusa has clearly lost all self-control in this area and trying to continually revert links to a consensus deleted portal is out of line. However, the personal attacks against BHG are on another level, and Tisquesusa needs some away-time to cool-off. Britishfinance (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 7 day block and indef Portals topic ban- Calling BHG "that creature" and "it", and all the sexist abuse, was bad enough even without the Holocaust ranting. It's clear that disagreements about deleting useless unattended portals brings out the worst in this editor, and his worst is unbelievably nasty. Reyk _YO! 19:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'd prefer a 3 week block, plus the TBAN - having read the personal attacks, I'd personally say a longer block than a week to demonstrate quite how seriously it must not occur again. Regardless of whether it's a week or three times that, it should be clear that we shouldn't be going through a bunch more escalation steps after this one. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• A block per WP:NOPUNISH is never supposed to be punitive and blocks are not supposed to be used to punish per WP:BLOCK. A block is simply to stop disruption. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support 7 day block and TBAN - This is per everything that has already been said. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1-week block and TBAN: Clear-cut scenario, and personal attacks on that level are just...wrong. ToThAc (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Just some feedback

Brownhaired girl is an excellent editor when it comes to explaining her stance on a deletion discussion. The issue is that she may unknowingly also target the editor rather than the content being discussed. Take this edit for example: [38] Moxy, as usual you are wrong on nearly every point., [39] As KK87 knows, [40] you and other portal fans have made that argument before. This isn't helpful to focus on what an editor knows or doesn't know nor is it helpful to say "as usual" when referring to another editor. So while yes User:Tisquesusa should be blocked for personal attacks, Brownhairedgirl also should watch how she debates. I haven't run into any other editor I debate with that makes these remarks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, what provoked Tisquesusa is that rather than simply remove the portal links, she reverted the entire edit containing the portal link, which included substantial editing not related to portals. It's not even like having red linked portals on the article even show up, BHG has spent months pretty much solely deleting portal links which don't even show up in articles. Not that this in any way excuses the awful personal attacks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand the frustration of the cleanup, but the history of that page is not great, and then persisting with delegating tasks to others isn't exactly collaborative or civil either. Agree that Tisq's comments were over the top though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I can think of many experienced admins who would have taken more aggressive action a lot faster with Tisquesusa than BHG – and that is without having spent any time cleaning up hundreds of portals on a portal-by-portal basis with several other Tisquesusa's encountered along the way, even from my short awareness of her work. Britishfinance (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

He's very clearly capable of reasonable and rational discussion, I can't understand or defend his behaviour over this, it's just madness. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is Tisquesusa's edit summary from as recently as 13 October 2019 in reverting El C's edit: not interested in this bullshit, do something useful. My talk page is meant for constructive interactions [41]. Maybe Tisquesusa is fine with topic editors, but not with admins? Britishfinance (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

... and El C's edit was a Personal attack (only) warning to Tisquesusa, noting Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Britishfinance (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cas Liber, please take another look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lopez_de_Bertodano_Formation&action=history

I fixed the links in July. Tisquesusa repeatedly reinstated them. The persisting with delegating tasks to others which Cas attributes to me is in fact what Tisquesusa has been engaged in by deliberately creating cleanup works for other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to engage with Knowledgekid87's attempt to sidetrack a discussion about vile personal attacks. If KK987 wants to raise those issues on my talk, we can discuss it there.

In response to Hemiauchenia: my usual approach when cleaning up Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals is to assume that this was a trivial error made in good faith by an editor who was unaware of the problem. So I fix the portal link(s), with an edit summary exlaining what I have done any why, and a ping to the editor concerned. Here are some recent examples of a format which i have used for months:

• remove deleted Portal:Louisiana. Use Portal:United States. @User:Jackwebb123, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Professional wrestling. @User:MPJ-DK, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Ethiopia. Use Portal:Africa. @User:Numberguy6, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Curaçao. use Portal:Caribbean. @User:Dsp13, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Jurassic. Please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Capital District. Use Portal:New York (state). @User:Numberguy6, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Albania. Use Portal:Europe. @User:Iaof2017, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Benin. Use Portal:Africa. @User:Ortizesp, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Gabon. Use Portal:Africa. @User:Dsp13, please use only portals which actually exist

About 1/4 of such edits get a thanks notification from the editor I pinged. Most such changes get no response, which is fine: the editor learns of an issue which they were unaware of, and tries to avoid it.

However, Tisquesusa is well aware of the issue, and has made it very clear that they are being intentionally disruptive. So with some of Tisquesusa's edits, I have taken the quicker path of simply reverting the whole edit. It would be folly to assume good faith when Tisquesusa is overtly on some sort of anger trip, and it would be a waste of my time to craft a unique pinged message to an editor who rejects all communication. So I take the easiest path for me, which is to revert.

I am surprised bythe assertion that this provoked Tisquesusa. I made many attempts to allert Tisquesusa to the issue with pinged explanatory edit summaries, as I tried several times to discuss the issue on his talk. Every one of those attempts was ignored; there were probably about two dozen in all. When an editor intentionally sets out to disrupt, I don't give them the same amount of my time as I give a good faith editor.

Note that Hemiauchenia misses the point when he says that these are links which don't even show up in articles. As you can see from the example as above, most such redlinks should be replaced with a link to the next most specific portal. So my aim is to improve links; that's why my AWB edits after MFDs have been doing, providing a live link instead of a dead link. Like any cleanup category, it's not a huge task if you keep on top of it, but if it builds a big backlog it can become too daunting to tackle. That's why I try to keep the cleanup categories clean. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I was being a bit dismissive when I was talking about your portal related editing, for which I apologise. What I was trying to convey is that the editing is all very much "under the hood" and a casual reader wouldn't notice Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked - topic ban needs confirming

• I have blocked Tisquesusa for a week, with a warning that a repetition of such an incident will probably result in an indefinite block. Would someone more au fait with the issue like to suggest a wording for a topic ban? Is it as simple as Portal-related edits, widely construed? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Black Kite: thanks for your actions. Do you feel able follow through with revdels of the PAs?

As to the scope of the topic ban, AFAICS Portal-related edits, widely construed would cover it adequately. In discussion above I had suggested that it be confined to portal links, but in hindsight that might not exclude the rants elsewhere. So I prefer your formulation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - I'll do the revdels and place the TB shortly. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Deletions and dishonest behaviour

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

---

The editor Haukurth deleted a note I added to the Rig Veda article about Max Muller on November 2019‎ on the basis that 'we need a reference for claims in each article and we can't cite other Wikipedia articles.' I duly revised the addition to include a citation (Muller's own letters) and added my reasons in the talk page. This was also deleted anyway (by another user, Kautilya3) and Haukarth's response to me on the talk page ignored my comment to instead re-frame the issue to be more ambiguous, accuse me of 'cherry picking', and falsely claim that primary sources (i.e. Muller's letters) are not valid.

I believe Haukarth's conduct to be dishonest and stated that I believed so on the Talk Page (i.e. the reasons given for deleting my contribution were inconsistent, and he ignored my comment to instead make accusations and false claims). Other editors on the talk page have also behaved similarly with various accusations, false claims (including about using primary sources), and even hostility when given a secondary source (which they requested).

However, I have responded here about Haukurth as I have tried to resolve the dispute with him on his talk page - which included a clear explanation of why I believe he was being dishonest and an invitation to discuss and resolve - but he deleted my comment within minutes of it being posted, with the comment 'If you play nice and stop accusing me of dishonesty I will happily discuss this further with you.' Obviously I cannot discuss the issue if I cannot raise it with him, and so I believe this was also dishonest. Carlduff (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What a great life lesson for you: you've just discovered that repeatedly calling someone dishonest and then demanding they continue to interact with you almost never works. I predict that this insight will come in handy in the future in all kinds of situations, on-wiki and off. Thanks for sharing your personal growth with us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This is 100% not an ANI issue – it is a content issue that should be discussed no the article's Talk Page. From what I can see on the talk page, three established editors have a concern with your interpretation of Muller and the relevance to the Rigveda, which you yourself call "controversial". ANI is not the forum for this, and your assertions of "dishonesty" are unfounded and will be unhelpful in getting other editors to engage with your "controversial" suggestions. Britishfinance (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think my "life lesson" is that people are not as straight or direct as I would like. I have just learned that the issue likely to do with the edit possibly causing problems with anti-western groups and such, which (once mentioned to me) makes sense. I get that. The issue to me was simply the reliability of the translation. Anyway, thanks for the sarky comment. Carlduff (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't be a princess. You acted like a dick to someone, still haven't apologized, apparently are never going to apologize, and you whine about a snarky comment? Funny how "straight and direct" is so often a one-way street. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If I called Haukurth a dick and a princess in toxic comments like yours, do you think admin would be fine with that? Don't make things personal, and grow up. Carlduff (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It would have been nicer of me not to use the word 'cherry-picking'. I don't think I have anything else to add at the moment. Haukur (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Floquenbeam

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

---

User:Floquenbeam has responded to a (now resolved) dispute on this board (Deletions and dishonest behaviour) with aggression and personal insults to me such as "dick" and "princess". First toxic response:

'What a great life lesson for you: you've just discovered that repeatedly calling someone dishonest and then demanding they continue to interact with you almost never works. I predict that this insight will come in handy in the future in all kinds of situations, on-wiki and off. Thanks for sharing your personal growth with us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)'

Second toxic response:

'Don't be a princess. You acted like a dick to someone, still haven't apologized, apparently are never going to apologize, and you whine about a snarky comment? Funny how "straight and direct" is so often a one-way street. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)'

Whatever anyone's personal feelings about me (I do not know this user) I do not think this behaviour is remotely appropriate. Attempted to resolve with user on their talk page, but question was deleted with comment about eggshells and hammers. Carlduff (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You really must have acted in a rather silly fashion to engender that response. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 21:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

So what exactly did I do? And how does this constitute an appropriate response? Carlduff (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

According to what you wrote in your OP here, you repeatedly called somebody dishonest and then demanded they continue to interact with you. This almost never works, btw. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 21:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't be a princess. You acted like a dick to someone, still haven't apologized, apparently are never going to apologize, and you whine about a snarky comment? Funny how "straight and direct" is so often a one-way street - as Floq so eloquently put it. Guy (help!) 21:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

How does this apply to civility and standards of conduct you are supposed to adhere to? Carlduff (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. And I don't play one on TV. But if I were, I'd probably close this discussion sooner rather than later, saying that users should, in fact, be more polite to one another, and refrain from calling each other names, but also that sometimes it can be very frustrating around here, and there is a limit to anyone's patience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Assuming, arguendo that Floq's telling you off was unacceptable, what admin action are you asking for here? Reyk _YO! 21:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request for 2600:6C44:5D00:F72::/64 (socking)

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

---

• Special:Contributions/2600:6C44:5D00:F72::/64
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Starbucks6789
• Sturgwis12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This range is likely being used by the same user as Starbucks6789. The IP geolocates to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. Note Sturgwis12 is a sockpuppet of Starbucks6789 and the SPI archives shows an IP that geolocates from a similar area.

On August 25, I reverted an edit by Sturgis12 ([43]) and on October 21 an IPv6 from this range undid my revert ([44]).

The IP range edits almost exclusively on reality shows, just like the sockmaster.

If this belongs on SPI instead of here, let me know. SPI is usually overburdened and IP reports take a while to get to. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, you should file the SPI. There are no cases in a backlog. Take a look.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Will do. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

IP adding unsourced information, then claiming to be retired admin

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

---

Need some help on how to proceed with this. 173.3.61.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added unsourced information to John Matuszak[45]. When I reverted and asked them to provide a source, they initially told me via edit summary to provide one myself and/or tag the information[46], then when I later noted that they were edit-warring they threatened to report me for edit-warring if I reverted them again[47]. I messaged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League asking for additional eyes on the situation from editors there, but since then this IP has claimed to be a retired admin[48]. I of course can neither confirm nor deny that they're speaking truthfully. If they are, then I find it dubious that they're editing while logged-out now (I'm not sure what policy has to say about that), and if they're not, then they're obviously lying about their status, and either way, it feels like they're a lot more interested in intimidating myself and perhaps other editors to get their own way then they are in editing in good-faith. I'd appreciate any feedback as to how I should be handling the situation at this point. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

173.3.61.190 had posted sources on their talk page, so I consider this a content dispute at this point if those sources are not considered sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't find their claiming to be a retired admin to be a concern? DonIago (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe they are, or maybe they aren't. That has nothing to do with the dispute. Do the sources they provided check out? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't come here because of the sourcing issue, I came here because I wasn't sure that it was kosher for an IP to be claiming to be a retired admin in an apparent effort to intimidate other editors. With regards to the content situation, as the IP has provided sources, I'm happy to look into them (soon) and do their work for them in the interests of improving the project, if the sources do check out. DonIago (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't know about their claim, though it is clear that they are not new. That said, if they are indeed a retired admin, their snarky demeanor does not speak well of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Snarky response, sure. However, there's also WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead of reverting, but that requires some knowledge of basic football sources.—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes to snarky. Since I do 97% of my editing on a smartphone, I am always skeptical when somebody says they cannot do things right on a smartphone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I find references to be a pain on the phone, and would just leave the URL in the edit summary.—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Unlike Cullen328, I do find it a major pain to use a smartphone especially referencing. But if you can provide a ref in an edit summary, I can't see any good reason why you can't just paste the URL onto the page. Yes you do have to locate the text but that's often only a small amount of effort especially when editing a short section, and most mobile browsers have a find function to help. It doesn't have to be formatted, it doesn't even need a [ ], but at least a bare ref someone can hopefully later fix. With a URL in an edit summary, there's a very good chance when someone notices the info is unsourced they're just going to either delete it, tag it or find a reference themselves without noticing someone provided a URL in an edit summary since how many people bother to do that?

If you're involved in an active edit war, things are a little different, still while I assume you spent some time finding the ref, pasting a URL in an edit summary suggests that you're mostly expecting someone else to do even the most basic work. Not to mention that again, it's possible that the other person in the edit war may not do anything add the ref either so again your URL in edit summary is liable to go to waste. (And of course if you're reverting a long time later, it might be quite reasonable that the person doesn't want fix it, not to mention they could also find it difficult to add references from a mobile device.)

Anyway, anyone providing refs also needs to actually make sure the ref supports all challenged content which the IP doesn't seem to have done.

I think we can be glad that the person is a "retired" admin, by which I hope they mean they're never going to be an admin ever again. Snarkiness aside and the earlier mentioned issues aside, it's concerning when an experienced editor thinks that This is REALLY basic stuff. None of it is in doubt. It doesn't need citations"

Putting aside disputes over Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue; whether, when and how some American footballer came to sign with the Raiders, whether they helped the Raiders to win 2 Super Bowls and which 2 Super Bowls, whether they spent the entirety of the 1982 season on injured reserve, are clearly things that I suspect even most American football fans will have no definite idea about. This is far from basic info that it can be remotely claimed doesn't require citations. (Which doesn't of course mean it needs to be removed just because there are no inline citations. But if it is removed, the way to challenge that would be to provide citations rather than act as if being a retired admin means you don't have to follow our normal sourcing requirements.)

Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Being a retired admin doesn't mean I don't have to follow sourcing "requirements"; being a WIKIPEDIAN means I don't have to follow any requirements at all. It's not a BLP, and it's not vandalism. (In fact, it's not even my content. I was reading the article and thought it odd that his career info ended abruptly at 1975. Looking at the history it looked like the relevant content was accidentally removed last year while someone was reverting vandalism. So I put it back so the article would make sense again.) Doniago was in the midst of reverting other users elsewhere and got me confused with someone he could intimidate through edit warring and warning templates. Tough shit. I'm allowed to edit anonymously, as long as I'm not a sockpuppet or something. Yes, I used to be an active admin here - I don't have to prove it. I am not required to reveal personal information by connecting my public IP address with that username. And yes, I'm a dick. I'm retired, so I can do that. But I have no reason to lie. I only mentioned it after the fact, as friendly advice. Doniago, if you think your many mistakes here - both your behavior and your lack of policy understanding - won't follow you to a future RfA, you've got another think coming. It could have stayed on my talk page, but you wanted so badly to get your way that you posted here as well. So enjoy. 173.3.61.190 (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• There are two possibilities. The first is that the IP is not a "retired admin". If so, they are making a false claim. The second is they are a retired admin, in which case their conduct is unacceptable. I've blocked the IP for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts and assistance with this matter. I greatly appreciate it. I think this can be closed? DonIago (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Micronation spammer(s?) are back on the Croatia–Serbia border dispute article, the vandalism this round started off with an edit by newly registered user FactFixer1000 Special:Contributions/FactFixer1000 who has vandalised two geography articles as well as the mentioned article, not that many edits yet but clearly WP:NOTHERE and should be indeffed. If you have any other questions of me please ping (also, should I just have gone to AIV?). SportingFlyer T·C 03:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

FactFixer1000 looks like a sock of SwedenAviator to me. If anyone else obsessed with obscure micronations shows up, I'd suggest reporting them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwedenAviator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks to everyone who helped. SportingFlyer T·C 06:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:FlightTime is constantly reverting edits of other users...

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

---

...despite having been previously blocked for edit warring and the other users explaining their edits.

He tried to appeal his block but was denied: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/922578891

And got into an revert war on November 1 with an anonymous user over an edit on Rage Against The Machine he claimed was unsourced, just check the band's page history.

I didn't want to take this to Edit Warring board as it's past a day now. Kay girl 97 (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)  Comment: And so FlightTime need be punished for a non-3RR edit war over a day ago? We use preventative sanctions, not punitive ones. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Aman.kumar.goel

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

---

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Draft:Muhammad and the Hindu scriptures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Aman.kumar.goel has given me this message about my pastly deleted article topic User:Lazy-restless/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) and my recent draft Draft:Muhammad and the Hindu scriptures,

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Apparently you are trying hard for last 6 years to promote a blatant hoax on Wikipedia that Muhammad was well predicted in Hindu scriptures and should be already accepted as the prophet.

Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and you are frequently finding ways to promote these same recently created debunked theories. I would recommend you to find another subject to edit.

I think it sounds like a threat to me, So I am informing it to ANI.--- Lazy-restless 00:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lazy-restless: Posting an {{Ds/alert}} template on your page is not a threat, as it states in the template itself. What, exactly, are you asking for here at ANI? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Note, Aman was not notified of this discussion. I have done so here. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any allowance in wikipedia about warning any editor not to edit on any topic?. Lazy-restless 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lazy-restless:, there are so-called Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions. These are imposed by the ArbCom (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee) and allow administrators to take initiative in topics with historically out-of-hand conflicts. Users may politely warn others of the sanctions and notify them if they do not appear to be aware of them. Failure to comply with them, even after being told, can result in being blocked from editing. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The apparent "threat" is Apparently you are trying hard for last 6 years to promote a blatant hoax on Wikipedia that Muhammad was well predicted in Hindu scriptures and should be already accepted as the prophet. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and you are frequently finding ways to promote these same recently created debunked theories. I would recommend you to find another subject to edit. "Blatant hoax, debunked theories" = spreading false information, the tone sounds like the editor is accusing Lazy-restless of doing this intentionally, no WP:AGF. Plus "find another subject to edit" is basically saying "go away, you're not welcome here, go find something else to do". Probably just a civility violation from Aman, though it's not big. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it was appropriate for Aman.kumar.goel to combine these two messages, since it's kind of hard to take the "standard message, not saying there's anything wrong with your contributions" line seriously when it's bundled with the "stop promoting a hoax" message. Also not exactly civil/assuming good faith. As for whether Lazy-restless's contributions are, in fact, hoax/debunked/etc., I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the topic area (though looking at their draft, I'm seeing what looks like a whole lot of synthesis) creffett (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree. The DS notification is intentionally not supposed to be a threat. Yes many take it that way, but it this is how it is. An editor therefore should not be combining a DS notification with a threat like that. That said, I don't think there's anything we can do here other than ask Aman.kumar.goel not to do it again. Lazy-restless, you received a DS notification and are now aware of the regime so are liable for sanction under it, as anyone else who is aware of the DS regime for that area. If none of your editing is the kind of thing which would justify sanction then you have nothing to worry. Whether or not this is the case is beside the point of the notification. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:GaritoSo

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

---

GaritoSo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disrupting the Miss USA 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article for a bit of time now. Their edits consist of repeatedly doing the same action which they have been warned about (they continued to do this after the final warning) and goes against policy. Their edits violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, by adding information to the "Contestants" section before it actually happens. Just a few of the examples are this, this, and this. They seem to have no interest in discussing their edits, and have ignored all warnings given. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock needed, or protection for Sporty Spice

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

---

Somebody using the range Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B114:62D8:0:0:0:0/64 has been trying to erase the daughter from the biography of Melanie C. The birth of the girl is cited to the BBC, and was widely reported elsewhere. Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

/64 range blocked for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• 2600:1007:b10b:888:6c84:c452:29bc:d04d (talk) is now making the same edits. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request for 190.22.0.0/16

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

---

• Special:Contributions/190.22.0.0/16

This IP range has been disruptive one various cartoon and children's shows for over a month. User_talk:190.22.101.16 and User_talk:190.22.1.133 have multiple warnings. The earliest edit I can quickly identify is from 4 July 2019 in which the IP added a category they often add on other pages.

Collateral damage looks to be low. This entire range appears to be used by 1 person since October 5 (exception is Special:Contributions/190.22.55.250). In the past there were more non-cartoon edits.

Requesting a short block (3 days? 1 week?) on the range. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Range blocked for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Hundreds of edits by blocked user from Sweden: Danieleb82

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

---

Danieleb82 was indeffed in May 2018 for disruption in music articles – see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danieleb82/Archive. By now, after creating so many socks and using IPs for block evasion, Danieleb82 is effectively site-banned.

In the past few months, I've seen Danieleb82 make hundreds of edits using IPs from Sweden. Examples of disruption include genre warring[49][50][51] and edit-warring a redirect into a non-notable song article.[52][53][54][55][56]

The involved IPs come from multiple domains. I'm writing here to see if anyone has an idea that would diminish the disruption from this person. Involved IPs listed below. Several rangeblocks? Binksternet (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• 77.218.242.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.244.141 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.244.180 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.244.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.246.149 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.247.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.249.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.249.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.250.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.251.153 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.252.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.252.170 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.252.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.253.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.253.74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.253.140 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.254.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.254.69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.254.79 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.254.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.255.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 80.217.203.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.32.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.36.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.37.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.38.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.39.70 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.41.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.43.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.45.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.46.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.46.250 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.47.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.195.217.119 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.177.184.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A00:801:301:D438:4CAF:4A54:B7C3:3C6B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

Possible Harassment and Very Uncivil

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

---

I have gotten the same message on my talk page twice. "Congratulations, Fishhead2100, you have won the asshole of the year award! You have won this award by being rude to other users! In order to claim your award you must call 1-800-Asshole (1-800-277-4653)! Once again, congratulations for your win!" That's what was posted. They called me rude, but it is hypocritical since that's very rude in itself. It came from two IP addresses in Atlantic Canada. I have removed it both times.

• 2605:b100:b1c:92e6:0:16:e38:5701 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Says it is from Halifax, Nova Scotia which is the first time it was posted.
• 2605:b100:b1c:92e6:0:16:e38:5701 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Says it is from Moncton, New Brunswick which is the second time it was posted.

Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I was parking today and this other guy, who I think had his eye on the same space, gave a rude gesture. I did not make a police report. I ignored him. EEng 09:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, fine advice, but the same person is going on vandalism sprees. I did a short range block on 2605:b100:b00::/40, which is where the disruption is coming from. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  Goddamn it that was MY parking spot, EEng. I had my blinker on and everything. Parking space thief! – Levivich 16:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Vandalism from Alaska IPs and registered user

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

---

I'm seeing the same style of vandalism from Blockaveli and the IPs listed below from Fairbanks, Alaska. A typical bit of vandalism is the insertion of variations on the name Savian Quint.[57][58][59][60] Can we get a block on this disruption? Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• 69.161.7.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 63.140.76.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 66.230.100.188 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Blocks issued. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Bot like edits from User:BigDwiki

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

---

User:BigDwiki has been making automated edits at a rate where it is impossible to check whether each edit is valid, for example there were about 90 edits made with the timestamp 22:04, 1 November 2019, a rate of well over one edit per second. These edits were made with Huggle, but in the last few days several editors have pointed out that the usage of another semi-automated tool, AWB, were problematic, but the response has been to say that it is bugs in the tools that caused the problems, rather than the editor's refusal to take responsibility for edits. I would suggest that all access to such powerful tools be revoked from this editor unless and until we get a convincing acknowledgement that all edits are the responsibilty of the editor making them. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The edits in question are merely welcoming new users who have made their first edit. Are you saying that placing the welcome template on user talk pages using Huggle is disruptive? Per WP:MEATBOT, "Note that merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.". You are saying that the quick edits are "impossible to check whether each edit is valid", how can adding a welcome template to a user take page who has made his first constructive edit be invalid? As for the AWB edits, I acknowledge that there are some issues which I have been participating with the editors that have raised concerns in attempting to resolve. There WAS a bug in AWB that incorrectly suggested tags for disambiguation pages which is still in discussion. I'm not sure what the motivation here is since I stopped using AWB and started using Huggle to merely welcome users, you seem to find fault in that as well? -BigDwiki ^talk 22:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is with your refusal to check your edits, or to take responsibility for them. Any bug in AWB is irrelevant, because you should not be accepting its results blindly, and the problem with your welcome messages has been pointed out by User:Meters. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: are you checking to ensure the first edit(s) was constructive prior to leaving the template? Welcoming vandals and thanking editors for nonconstructive edits isn't helpful to anyone. Even the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee highlights the basic need to check the new editor's contributions prior to welcoming them.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is a requirement for adding a welcome template. I am only adding welcome templates to the talk pages of users that have no talk page created...so therefore they have not been previously warned for vandalism. If they are a vandal that has been previously warned, they won't get a welcome from me. Now, if another users finds the vandalism and reverts it and adds the vandalism template alongside my welcome template, I don't see the wrong in that. I'm not stopping other users from warning them of vandalism. -BigDwiki ^talk 18:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Quotes from Wikipedia:Welcoming committee:

1. "Always check their edits first"
2. "Don't overdo it - use the welcoming system with discretion. "

BigDwiki's rate of welcoming suggests that they haven't read, or are ignoring, this advice.

And from {{Welcome}} documentation:

"You must watch the user talk page you add this to!"

It is difficult to imagine that BigDwiki has checked that the edits of each of the IPs being welcomed so fast are actually constructive edits, and I wonder whether they are adding all those talk pages to their watchlist. PamD 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the goal is to boost his edit count? He's updated it twice in the last couple of days. In any case, I see that at least six different editors have cautioned him on use of the tool in the last week. We all make mistakes, but there seems to a be reluctance to take the suggestions seriously in this case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it. Is this editor actually here to improve the encyclopedia? PamD 23:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that this user has a history of wikihounding me. -BigDwiki ^talk 18:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Such accusations will be taken seriously if they come with evidence, usually in the form of diffs. Please supply such evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example of an IP welcomed since this ANI discussion started: has recently made 3 edits, two crude vandalism and one reverting one of those. If welcomed at all, this IP should have had one of the "problem IP editor" welcomes. Rather than welcoming this IP, a better use of editor time would have been to check their edits and roll back the unreverted one (as I've just done). PamD 23:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

While I don't think this user is WP:NOTHERE, like what PamD is trying to imply, but I do feel like this user should have his AWB privileges revoked and be topic banned from welcoming IP's for a bit. CodeLyoko^talk 23:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Do note that there are established, respected users who advocate automatically welcoming every new user and IP who edits, so such actions are not without support. In any case I do not see them as disruptive, nor as justifying a topic ban. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

True, a topic ban is probably too soon, my bad. But I do still feel like this editor does need to watch his AWB usage and be reminded that any edits made by them through AWS is the users responsibility. CodeLyoko^talk 00:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I would support removal of AWB access. While going through CAT:STUBS, I had to revert a large number of edits made by them which all added {{orphan}} and {{stub}} tags to disambiguation pages (where they obviously aren't applicable). Looking at their talk page, the exact issue had been pointed to them by PamD multiple times -- and indeed on most pages, they were performing the same mistake a second time. Also there are a lot of one-line stubs to which {{underlinked}} has been inappropriately added (example). It seems clear from the talk page conversations that they are not willing to check all edits made via AWB. SD0001 (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note that this has been a long-term problem. See User talk:BigDwiki/Archives#AWB edits1 from (7 years, 8 months, 30 days ago and User talk:BigDwiki/Archives#AWB edits2 from 2 months, 18 days ago. I think AWB access should be removed and the person should be warned not to make any rapid edits. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, AWB access removal is a must here. I also agree they should be warned that if they continue to make rapid edits without checking their work and fixing any identified problems within a reasonably short time of being informed of them that they will be blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Thryduulf. And also on the point made above regarding WP:EDITCOUNTITIS: 18,138 to articlespace...16, 227 with AWB. While the user is NOTNOTHERE, they are too fast, too furious with the tool. Not sure a Tban is necessary: this discussion should suffice as an indication of community expectations, and I'm sure they won't just begin—for example—performing another mass-edit using another tool. ——SN54129 13:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• OK, NOTNOTHERE, I was exaggerating in suggesting otherwise above ... but it does look as if their priority has been quantity rather than quality of edits. PamD 14:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• No worries PamD! I think you sum up the issue succintly. ——SN54129 16:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Don't be so sure, Serial Number 54129. The editor has just gone off on another welcoming spree with Huggle, with another 90 edits having the timestamp 17:17, 2 November 2019. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Phil Bridger: many thanks for that. So, my immedate reaction began "what the actual", and we can leave that there; but when I said above that I'm sure they won't just begin—for example—performing another mass-edit using another tool, that's literally what they've gone and done?! Well. That's one way of changing minds. I'd support a topic ban, from semi-automated tools (or those that can message, perhaps), now; they've not only ignored this discussion for the last 24 hours, but just blindly carried on with the same behaviour as landed them here in the first place. Indeed, PamD is beginning to appear the most prescient of all of us in this discussion... ——SN54129 17:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is absolutely zero consensus that using Huggle to welcome users is even remotely against any policy. The welcoming committee page has its place, but I didn't say I was part of that committee and I don't know of many other users that would watch user talk pages after welcoming users. In fact, some of the welcome templates show users how to leave messages on the talk pages of the welcomer. It seems that some users here have an ax to grind over my (since stopped) AWB edits and are trying to leverage that over Huggle usage now. What's next...a proposed topic ban over the use of Twinkle to add the templates?. Phil Bridger, you need to be very sure that you are well-grounded in policy before attempting to stir up users here, as your statement "The editor has just gone off on another welcoming spree with Huggle" not only has zero policy violations cited, it's actually an approved use of the tool. Your even mentioning that here signals bad faith assumtions. I don't have the time to go digging through thousands of pages of user's edits to find needles in the haystack of questionable edits to copy and paste here, unlike some users. I'd rather use my time to build an encyclopedia than find fault in other users' actions and go running to ANI. -BigDwiki ^talk 18:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

If your idea of "building an encyclopedia" is to welcome IPs who are vandailising, then we could probably do with a little less of that particular brand of assistance. And, as for bad faith assumtions, that very nicely summarises your (diffless) assertion that U:Ohnoitsjamie has a history of wikihounding me. ——SN54129 18:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Here we go again. You are purposefully stating thing that I never said. I NEVER said that it was my intent to welcome vandals. Why are you attempting to tell other users that it is? -BigDwiki ^talk 18:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Here we do not go again. I am stating, baldly, that your carelessness with automated tools has already been established to be sloppy, and this discussion is to ascertain whether it is becoming disruptive. And a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to the issue is probably your worse enemy right now. But feel free to continue. ——SN54129 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, BigDwiki, what I'm gathering the issue is with what you're doing is that -whether you mean to or not- you're welcoming vandals and disruptive editors to Wikipedia, which, using common sense, is a bad thing. While I would argue that a topic ban might be a little overboard, you have to at least realise that continuing an action which is currently under debate at ANI simply can't end well? -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 18:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that this discussion isn't rooted in any policy. I've cited policy that my actions are specifically exempt from a violation. Some users may not like them, but perhaps they should propose a policy change then? While it's possible that some of the users that I welcome may have committed vandalism, if I welcomed a user, they would have had a blank talk page which means that none of the other users had caught the vandalism. How am I expected to fight vandalism concurrently with welcoming new users when other users aren't fighting the vandalism to start with? -BigDwiki ^talk 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant; you are the one that is supposed to be checking if they have/haven't vandalised - perhaps you could even revert it and be a bigger help in that case! Besides, if you're making nearly 100 edits in a single minute, don't you believe that some of those pages were not caught yet because the vandals had made the disruptive edits seconds prior? -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 18:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) The issue is that you are performing these edits blindly without checking whether they are appropriate in each case. Right at the top of WP:Huggle it says, "Warning: You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Huggle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or even being blocked from editing." It's impossible to check such things at the rate of 90 per minute. And can you point to any instance where you have actually helped build this encyclopedia rather than throw templates around? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In your own statement, you quote "You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies", so you are implying that a policy was violated. What policy was violated then? It's my position that no policy was violated and that all edits were squarely within policy. -BigDwiki ^talk 18:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Some things are such obvious common sense, such as that we should not welcome vandals, that they don't need to be written down anywhere. You have not taken the care to ensure that you are not welcoming vandals. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a particularly big deal, but I'll just note that I recently went to an IP's talk page to give them a vandalism warning for their first and only edit, and thought it was a bit odd that they already had a 'Welcome' template from BigDwiki - you got there before me obviously, but you hadn't checked the edit, which was adding a link to a random facebook page to an article. I think perhaps if you just agreed that it would be better if you checked the edits before putting the welcome template, we could all move on? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed!Let's do that! -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 18:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I can get behind that: a categorical assurance from BigDwiki that they will check the validity of every IP contribution before placing a welcome message would go far in assuaging the concerns raised here. Of course, if they fail to adhere to their commitment, and its noticed, then I suppose we are back here sometime in the future with a broken promise as Exhibit A. ——SN54129 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• BigDwiki's responses here are alarmingly disingenuous and combative. The issue is very obviously not that he is using Huggle to welcome users, the issue is that he's editing in a bot-like manner without screening his edits, and encouraging users without determining whether those users should be encouraged. He's made it an impossible task to reasonably audit his edits, but the first random example I clicked on was this, where he welcomed a linkspammer who is promoting a blog, and that was after this thread was opened. Rapid editing is not inherently a violation of WP:MEATBOT, sure, but that's not the point of MEATBOT. It does most certainly become a violation when you're not able and willing to make your rapid edits responsibly, and, from what I'm seeing, he's not, nor could he possibly claim to be doing so. He's not "paying attention to the edits you make", as is specified by the bot policy. @BigDwiki: Due to the fact that you are using extended privileges to violate BOTPOL, and do not appear to be open to the resolution of complaints regarding either Huggle or AWB, I have revoked your AWB and Rollback permissions. Note that if I observe any continued bot-like editing, you will be blocked indefinitely. Contrary to what you say, I don't think you're "using your time to build an encyclopedia", and very much question whether you're here to do so. If you honestly think this is productively contributing to an academic project, then this is a competence issue. This is not necessarily the only resolution that I think is needed, and I would endorse a TBAN from automated or semi-automated editing as well. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel like. I'm out of here. Enough is enough. -BigDwiki ^talk 19:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that continuing this under a new account will be treated as sockpuppetry under WP:SCRUTINY. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that shut the fuck up. -BigDwiki ^talk 19:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Editor ignoring verify policy

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

---

This editor continues to add unsourced info to award sections of articles detailing musical artists. I have asked them several times in edit summaries as well as on their talk page to please source their edits. Despite this they have yet to engage and continue to add unsourced info as can be seen most recently here, here, here, here & here for example (this is just today). Robvanvee 12:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The first example is easily verified by clicking through the Awards list, which is sourced. I haven't bothered with the rest, but if your first example isn't a problem, maybe re-think your complaint. WilyD 12:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying but I gave 6 examples and to be fair you only looked at one. If 3 of my 6 examples were not a problem, you would probably be correct in saying so. I'd be grateful if you would give me the benefit of the doubt by hearing me out and going through my examples (I removed the first and do not see the added info sourced in the others). If I'm wrong about this and I have missed the sources in the article, I'll happily accept my mistake and let it go. Robvanvee 13:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I've looked through 3 of the others, and I sure don't see any sourcing for them. Agree this is an issue, though someone who knows the topic better than me may want to take a look through and figure out exactly what's what here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Repeated inappropriate removal of RFD tags bordering on edit warring

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

---

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

Australian Football International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is repeatedly removing AFD tags on this page inappropriately, the AFD itself ([here]) was only opened today {1/11/2019). In [[61]] and the preceeding three edits, I restored the tags while they kept removing them. I stopped to avoid violating WP:3RR, but they didn't and I notified them as such on their talk page. I had also previously sent them notes about inappropriately removing the AFD tags as well as the WP:COI they appear to have in relation to this page. They did not respond and simply continued trying to remove the AFD tags. I finally brought it here because I did not see where else to go from there. I should also note that a bot has restored the AFD tags as I was writing this Hb1290 (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Has created a number of articles, each less notable than the last, but all designed to promote their organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.71.154 (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thisnuser was also engaged in a slow edit war at Major League Footy although to be fair Internationalfooty'ds edits consisted of removing content repeatedly inserted by an IP that was first unsourced, and then cied to an archived source that does not support the statements made. I have issued a "Final warning' about disruptive ediiting to Internationalfooty on User talk:Internationalfooty. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Victor Salvini

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

---

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

I think this user is here to Right Great Wrongs. Or actually Wrong Great Rights, by promoting far-right narratives. Edit #2 removes references to the far right from 2018 Chemnitz protests: [62]. Promotes the fascist = socialist far-right trope: [63], Antifa as an organization [64], unlink right-wing using "nowiki" in mainspace [65], change (sourced) "liberal" to "left-wing" on HuffPo article [66] etc.

I noticed this user because of edits to Paul Joseph Watson, climate change denial and especially climate change skepticism.

The user has received BLP and American Politics DS alerts. Guy (help!) 16:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

239 edits, most of are not really useful. I guess I would indefblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering about a talk-only restriction for a while until he's learned how Wikipedia works? Guy (help!) 16:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess we’re here now. The Chemnitz edit was because the article implied everyone who went to the protests was far right, which was wrong, I did not remove references to the far right entirely, but I made it so it wasn’t implied that everyone there was far right. I gave up with the fascism and socialism correlation here a while ago (which by the way, calling something meant to expose the far right a “far right trope” is kind of ridiculous). Regarding HuffPost, please read this: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/huffington-post/ . I personally take offense to being called far right, and do not see how these edits are worthy of punishment. —Victor Salvini (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Media Bias/Fact Check as anything other than amateur hour, please read this. Grandpallama (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Article has been taken note of for future occasions —Victor Salvini (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I encountered VS a few times, mostly when they tried to soften material about far-right political groups or introduce the socialism = fascism trope into articles. I think they're likely WP:NOTHERE especially considering how likely it is that their username is a portmanteau of Victor Orban and Matteo Salvini. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh hell. I hadn't noticed that. Sorry, but that convinces me that nothere is correct. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I just got done reading WP:NOTTHERE and failed to find myself in violation of any of its listed variations. I believe I fall under the part about “expressing unpopular opinions” in the segment of what is not NOTTHERE. If I have violated any of the listed variants of NOTTHERE that I do not recall please tell me. —Victor Salvini (talk)

It's not your opinions that make us think you are WP:NOTHERE it's that you appear to be here to WP:RGW by trying to adjust Wikipedia to suggest that fascism is a leftist phenomenon (it's not) and to provide ideological cover for far-right political figures such as the two whose names form your own user name. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Deleted page recreated

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

---

Saeid Shahi was CSD'ed yesterday as G11. It is back today. I'm not sure exactly what happened as there are multiple recent moves in the history. MB 16:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Anybody wants to have a look whether Iman.farzam needs an indefinite block as vandalism-only account? This is not so obvious to me but I am afraid they are net negative for our project in any case.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

What's up with this edit[67]? did we actually have a wrong name, birthrate, etc? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This is why I suggested to block as vandalism-only account. This is clearly a different person.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Now an IP has put the deleted page back. MB 17:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted, ip blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You creation-protected the talk page but not the article Ymblanter. I assume that was not your intention. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, switched the protection. Today is clearly not my day.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Today is clearly not my day", I hereby propose November 1st as Official Ymblanter Day -- a special day when we can all celibrate the many good works and positive attributes of Ymblanter. (The Official Guy Macon Millisecond was last month...) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I found this edit by Iman.farzam while checking something else. Seems like a pure vandalism-only account; blocked as such, and all edits reverted. Graham87 15:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by joewendt

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

---

joewendt (talk · contribs) has posted a legal threat on his talk page, seemingly over having been accused of having a conflict of interest. Wendt admits in that message to being chair of the Florida Reform Party, which means he is also this candidate for president. His edits have largely surrounded past Reform presidential candidate and competing 2020 presidential candidate Rocky De La Fuente. He has continued to edit since being told about our legal threat policy without withdrawing the threat. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

No on explicitly asked for it to be removed --Joewendt talk) 13:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Consider yourself so asked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've enabled talk page access. They did not make any threats after being notified of the policy, no one asked them to remove the previous threat, and judging by their last edit they might have been poised to retract it. No other comment on the block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict with diffs, but then he was already blocked so I didn't reinstate it and moved on. The above is incorrect, I advised him twice this morning to remove his threat himself. And he chose to continue to ignore sound advice and WP policies. JesseRafe (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, noted, and might I suggest a note on the user talk instead next time. I'm still not seeing a basis for a TPA revoke. Of course if the next thing they do is set about ranting and threatening instead of retracting the threat, that's a different matter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I did put the note on his talk page too and he instead said everyone who disagreed with him had a conflict of interest and demanded an apology (for being told not to make legal threats!). I don't think having TPA will make a big difference, but do think your guess is a good one. JesseRafe (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not realize that I blocked them without talk page access, this was not my intention.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat was removed: Special:Diff/923746629 ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Relevant for any following this page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joewendt. Going to RPP for RDLF article too, as he's now making accounts as fast as I can add them to the SPI.

And this now has been confirmed, and the user cu-reblocked--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Edit warring to keep personal attacks in my talk page archives

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

---

Yesterday User:JG66 made a few personal attacks on my talk page. No big deal, it happens. I removed them, they restored them. I archived the section hoping that would put an end to it. But now JG66 is edit warring at User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_8 to put them back in, making more attacks in the edit summaries in the process. I'd rather they not be there since I removed them, as I believe is my right on my user talk. Is this acceptable? I'd like some outside opinions, please. - MrOllie (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• @JG66 and MrOllie: - MrOllie is entitled to delete comments (whether accurate or not, positive or negative) from his user talk page as specified in WP:REMOVED, other than the few exceptions there which these edits do not appear to be part of. If the edits were relevant to an ANI discussion they can always be found in the page's history and given as diffs. Deletion is taken as indication by the user that they are aware of the comments. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixing ping Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User: JG66 came to my defence after intimidation from MrOllie when he hastily removed over 120 of my edits citing that I was spamming. I have tried to get a response from from MrOllie on three occasions to discuss this in a calm manner. He has not responded, instead he archived the matter. My weakness is that I am an inexperienced Editor but I have tried to explain to MrOllie that my motives are genuine. Other Editors have also come to my defence, so I think MrOllie should stop being the victim here and understand what Editors far more experienced than I are saying about this matter in a legitimate and correct way. I do not think JG66 was acting in any other way than decent, correct and fair. Another helpful editor User: Rlendog has re-instated over 50 of the deletions which has restored my faith in the decency of Wiki Editors.Muso805 (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Sure [Nosebagbear], understood. The user seems overly sensitive to criticism, and I don't believe any editor who's at all comfortable in their own skin and able to view their contributions outside of the self would take anything I said in my posts as personal criticism. He treated an editor (Muso805) who has shown extraordinary good faith throughout this – and who admitted from the start that they were quite inexperienced here – despicably. I showed a stubbornness of my own in repeatedly adding the comments that the user wanted excised from their archived version of the discussion (but really, is the second of those comments a personal attack? It's addressing behaviour.)
• Yes, my edits to that talk page archive will stop. But I hope their behaviour comes under the spotlight here sometime soon, especially if they continue to treat new(ish) editors in that way and just shut up shop, close down all discussion – sulk, basically – when the editor seeks some sort of explanation. JG66 (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have a problem, take it to ANI once you have plenty of clear evidence. If you leave the editor a warning and they remove it, that affirms they have received the warning. If they ban you from their talk page, that's a really solid reason to take them to ANI next time there's an issue. (I can't discuss it with them at their talk page so I have to bring it here.) Now I'm going to look at the underlying complaint and see if anybody needs to change what they are doing. Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• A partial list of things that shouldn't be taken as personal criticism: 'digging your heels in through what appears to be immaturity', 'Stop being so pompous', 'it's probably because you were being pompous', 'your incompetent editing', 'not got the maturity or humility'. - MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mass additions and removals of references

• All Time Top 1000 Albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Muso805 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Muso805 and MrOllie: I advise both editors to stop performing mass edits that are disputed. Instead, get a decision on whether All Time Top 1000 Albums is a notable subject. You can do this via WP:AFD. Next, you should go to WP:RSN and determine whether this is a reliable source for the proposed uses in Wikipedia. Once that's done you can proceed with adding it as a reference where needed, or removing it. Additionally, Muso805, you appear to be a single purpose account for generating publicity about this topic. Please declare any connection you have to the subject because your behavior appears to demonstrate a detemination to create links to this page. Jehochman ^Talk 12:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• The book is almost certainly notable. The author is notable, there are a number of Google Books references to it, and even a quick search found this article and this article in the Guardian and Independent of the time, as well as the BBC News reference that is already there. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Black Kite about the notability of this book. But Jehochman, sorry, I think your characterisation of Muso805 as "a single purpose account for generating publicity about this topic" may be a little "non-neutral". It seems to me that this new editor has just seen this book and thinks it's a useful source. They might be criticized for adding only some entries and not all, but that's something quite different. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am glad the book is notable. However, is it the right source to use? Why add just this one single source to a zillion articles? Why not focus on improving articles generally. Need to use this source here and there? That's fine. Look through the user's edit history, it looks like a determined link building campaign. That doesn't mean it is, but the behavior is indistinguishable from a link building campaign. I'd like the user to just say clearly "yes" or "no" if they have a connection to the subject. I'd like the user to explain why they are so interested in adding references to this book, rather than broadly improving the articles. Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• I see your point, but I can't imagine that adding links to an out-of-print book that was published 19 years ago (and by its very nature is now 19 years out of date), and that can be purchased 2nd hand on Amazon for less than £1, is going to be the subject of an SEO campaign. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• A perfectly reasonable question. But I really don't think we should make somewhat disconcerting assumptions before we have an answer. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC) p.s. but you might be on to a real winner there with All Time Top Zillion Albums.

This is the second attempt. My first reply must show my ignorance because I cannot find the lengthy reply I just sent to user:Jehochman after receiving an email from him. First off I am not Larkin. I have never met him. I am not paid by anybody. I am retired and happen to be a Muso nutcase. Yes a self confessed Muso nut. I have all 4 editions of the Larkin All Time Top 1000 Albums books (along with many other Best Of Albums Books). Over here in the UK Larkin's book is the Bible, often quoted on BBC radio 6music and BBC 5 Live. It is much higher regarded than the Rolling Stone 500 Albums Book. Larkin's book was taken from polling Muso's whereas the Rolling Stone book and 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die are just opinions taken from writers and critics. The 3rd Edition of larkin's book states on the front cover 'Over 200,000 votes from the fans, the experts and the critics'. My reason for adding 140 references was not to spam (I have no intention of adding the other 860 albums because they are not of interest to me). The ones I added are my personal favourites and all have Wiki entries and many are neglected classics that are deserving of having an additional reference to Larkin's book. These albums mostly have reference to the Rolling Stone book or All Music Guide and there seems to be a strong USA Bias. My real intent is to get a UK balance as it seems unfair otherwise. Likewise albums such as Gene Clark's No Other and Moby Grape's 1st Album are cult classics and are in Larkin's book and I think it right and proper they be added to get the balance right. I think because Larkin's book represents the Muso fans it has more credibility than any of the other books and deserves at least being shoulder to shoulder with the others - and even though the 3rd Edition was in 2000 there are so many albums that have grown in stature -- like Nick Drake, Buffalo Springfield and Gram Parsons. Finally the book cover image used on the All Time Top 1000 Albums is woefully out of date. This is the 1st Guinness Edition published in 1994 -- my edits were all taken from the 3rd and most recent edition in 2000 published by Virgin Books (there was also a pocket edition as well). If there is an editor who sees this could they put the correct cover in the entry please?

I won't be doing any more edits - this whole experience has made me sick to my stomach. MrOllie's actions have really been upsetting and I have been so grateful to user:JG66 and user:Rlendog and user:Martinevans123 -- their advice, support and decency have been a blessing, and Rlendog's many reinserted edits of mine have been most welcome. I never received any reply from MrOllie and no longer expect to - perhaps he realises he was hasty and unfair. I won't go near putting any edits back in in case MrOllie appears again! As a very inexperienced Editor there is huge intimidation felt from all you vastly experienced Wiki editors. I know that what I did was genuine, and know that for sure after the comments from the three users I just mentioned. Furthermore there are dozens of references to Larkin's books and his Encyclopedia series on Wiki -- going back many years and nothing whatsoever to do with me! I won't be doing any more edits in the foreseeable future. MrOllies accusations have really knocked me back.Muso805 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• All Time Top 1000 Albums is not just notable, it is the "right source". In the 2008 book The Rock Canon: Canonical Values in the Reception of Rock Albums, author Carys Wyn Jones sources Larkin's work (and others') repeatedly. Jones' book discusses popular and critically acclaimed rock albums generally, but focuses on ten "canonical" works in particular. When outlining the criteria for this rock canon, Jones highlights the "test of time" and acknowledges that the history of rock criticism covers mere decades, compared to centuries for the classical music canon and 2000 years for the literary canon. In taking this point further, it's Larkin that Jones cites as a guide: "The mechanism by which the ten albums featured in this book have ascended to being regarded as 'great' albums is reflected in Colin Larkin's description of Astral Weeks in the All-Time Top 1,000 Albums: 'Quoted, recommended and worshipped by the critics for over 30 years [etc.]'"
• Among the best-album lists and polls Jones cites, as listed in his book's appendix, are all three editions of All Time Top 1000 Albums (1994, 1998, 2000); only the NME is afforded the same, multiple entries (for polls published in 1974, 1985, 1993 and 2003). The other publications that appear there, with just one best-albums list each, are: Paul Gambaccini Presents the Top 100 Albums, Mojo, The Guardian, Q magazine, Rolling Stone, VH1 and The Observer. (Q also has a "Greatest Stars of the 20th Century" list included.)
• From my experience of working on music articles here, that makes All Time Top 1000 Albums an important reference. Jones' The Rock Canon is one of the very few books I've come across that are about the many books and publications devoted to establishing "best" albums, and he appears to view Larkin's book(s) as a key indicator of long-term critical reception. Which puts it head and shoulders above AllMusic, for instance. JG66 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

And this is why we have an editor retention issue. A new editor is treated with shocking discourtesy and the thread here is about JG66's behavior along with a side dish of an admin suggesting that the poor guy has a COI. I'd leave, too. Shame on MrOllie and Jehochman. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

To clarify: User:Muso805 is the new account, not JG66 (who's been here for 7 years). To add my voice to the discussion, I agree with Spike that we should ease up on Muso805. I think it is quite understandable if an editor has one book (or any other source) out and is using it to go through a variety articles, using said book to work on our project. "Is it the right source"? Since when is there a "right source"? Unless someone can show that it is unreliable for some reason - it is acceptable and allowed. — Ched (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC) (edit to include other sources too.)

• Can I ask what is going on with this now? It's been a day and a half at least since Jehochman posed their questions, all of which have been answered. I confess I have no experience, knowledge or interest when it comes to how this noticeboard operates; quite frankly, it's like some macabre adult dress-up and it gives me the creeps. It's more than obvious to anyone with an ounce of empathy and compassion that this episode has been very upsetting for Muso805. So, is he "in the clear"? Or more to the point: why is he being kept waiting for the verdict (for want of a better word)? And anyone, I suggest, with a pretty basic knowledge of popular and critical reception given to pop music would recognise the Colin Larkin book as a top-quality source. Per Ched's comment, when has there ever been a right source? This entire episode, from the user's 100+ reverts to what's transpired on this page seems to be a demonstration of assuming bad faith at every turn. Muso805 has been branded a nuisance editor, which he is not – Wikipedia would be nothing without the contributions of individuals who are passionate about certain subjects – and the Larkin book has been branded not "right" enough. The only good faith shown in this AN/I has been towards the user who filed the damn report, in that their suspicions about Muso805 and Colin Larkin's book have been so indulged. JG66 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• "... some macabre adult dress-up"? nah..... that was only for last night. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record while I watch this debate with just a slight amount of anger towards MrOllie for his actions - I thumbed through the 3rd Edition of All Time Top 1000 Albums at the 860 albums I had no intention of adding references for, and discovered a further 117 references to this book that had nothing to do with me and were added by other editors a long time ago. Perhaps MrOllie would like to check them out and dish out some further deletes?Muso805 (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

And thank you Martinevans123 for adding some humour to this nonsense!Muso805 (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the editor who originally opened this thread should now provide a further response. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrOllie: You made edits at over 100 articles that weren't required and will continue to be undone, unless you've got the good grace to self-revert. But where are you now, when your participation is actually appropriate? JG66 (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not an expert on music topics, but if people who know the field think this source is good, it's fine to use it. I am satisfied with the explanations provided. To the editor who was put on the spot, at least we have gotten to the bottom of this matter and now you can go out and edit and you have this discussion as confirmation that your behavior is acceptable. Jehochman ^Talk 12:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. And the behavior of the original opener was entirely correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, if you're not an expert on music topics that's fair enough, but why wasn't this discussion driven by a question, to the filer, as to what grounds there were for thinking the source might not be good? And I'm sorry but I don't think your response to Muso805 is at all sufficient. "At least we have gotten to the bottom of this matter", etc, is lame and patronising, given what's taken place, and his behaviour was always acceptable. This episode is all about another user inventing a problem and then refusing to do the right thing and see it through. It astonishes me how good Muso805's been about this. "... at least now you can go out and edit and you have this discussion as confirmation that your behavior is acceptable" – please ...

MrOllie should be made to apologise publicly to Muso805 and admit to his bad-faith edits. MrOllie should be warned (or more) about their unacceptable behaviour; they should undo all the remaining reverts; and they should be topic-banned from all music-related articles. WP:BOOMERANG, WP:NEWBIES, WP:GOODFAITH, WP:COMPETENCE. JG66 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User:MrOllie, do you really have nothing to say in this matter at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to be engaged in any conversation JG66 is participating in going forward, thanks. If someone who wasn't involved in the content dispute has a question for me I'll answer, but otherwise no further pings here, please. - MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Was I involved in the content dispute? My question is "don't you think you owe Muso805 some kind of apology?" There's no need to ping you if you actually turn up? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie I was involved in the content dispute as it was my block deletion you instigated! Yet you never replied to any of my repeated requests for decent sensible dialogue and instead archived the text. So what you seem to be saying in your last post is that "if someone who wasn't involved in the content dispute has a question for me I'll answer". Hmmmmm. I think people will make up their own minds on that one, but I hope they read this entire transcript first. And thanks to the decent support I have received from music lovers and non music lovers, I will replace the remaining edits myself - there is no need for you ever to be heard of again on this matter, you have already caused me enough stress this week.Muso805 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Connection between Muso805 and the book's author

@Jehochman:, looks like you were right the first time. Yesterday User:Colin Larkin asked a question and then User:Muso805 thanks the users for answering his question. - MrOllie (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Anthony22 again

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

---

Anthony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic banned on 9 Setember 2109.

"Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia. They may add information which is supported by a citation from a reliable source, and may delete information currently in an article if they think it is incorrect, inaccurate, or not properly sourced, but must immediately follow up any such edit with an explanation for the deletion on the article talk page."

See Special:Permalink/914804289#Formal proposal 1 and User talk:Anthony22#You are now subject to a topic ban.

He was warned about violating his topic ban by several editors and has been blocked twice for it, the latest on 11 October 2019

The following edits appear to be continued violations after the most recent block:

• [68]
• [69]
• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]

That last one[74] and Anthony22's response when criticized for it[75] makes me think that at the very least Anthony22 should be given crystal clear instructions with no wiggle room or possibility of misinterpretation. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Every time this poor guy gets dragged onto here comes up I regret supporting that topic ban. User:NinjaRobotPirate among others warned us that the ban would be difficult to interpret and I feel like an idiot for not listening to them. As far as the merits go, I definitely understand why it was reported here. I can see both sides of it -- if you fatally wound someone on Tuesday but they don't die until Friday, were they assassinated on Tuesday or Friday? It could be a content dispute or it could fall into the rough outer boundary of the area covered by the topic ban (grammar/style). I can't say that it's a no-brainer. 2601:144:200:92E0:942A:E85F:CD4:78F3 (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If I shoot someone on a Tuesday, and get arrested for it right after, but the victim doesn't die until Friday, was he killed on Tuesday, or on Friday? If he was killed on Tuesday, then he will have died three days after he was killed. If he was killed on Friday, then a killing will have occurred three days after the killer was arrested for it. If "the killing" were considered to be a multi-day event starting on Tuesday and concluding on Friday, then a killing will have occurred on Wednesday and Thursday, despite nobody shooting anybody, and nobody dying, during those two days. Is there no answer to this riddle? – Levivich 05:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking of "sudden-death overtime" and feel Anthony22 has quite lost. Shenme (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Lev: Not killed. Attacked on Tuesday, died on Friday, possibly from injuries sustained in the attack. Only with coarser time resolution could it be said "he was killed last week". Not related to the law, of course. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Given his topic ban he should have asked on the talk page. Just look at all of the editors who have given him advice, none of which he has followed. He has shown zero understanding of why he was topic banned and why he keeps getting blocks for violating his topic ban. I myself gave him this advice:

"My advice to you is to stop acting as if you are free to violate your topic ban if the edits are good (you aren't), stop standing with your toes over the line you are not allowed to cross, and in general start behaving in such a way that if anyone reports you at ANI for violating your topic ban, there is zero debate as to whether or not you violated it, but instead there is a 100% unanimous consensus that the person who reported the violation is crazy and deserves a WP:BOOMERANG for wasting ANI's time."

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Remember the original complaints that led to the topic ban? Low quality edits. Alas, a "only make high quality edits" topic ban is not workable. Let's look at the first edit in the above list:[76]

Anthony22 wrote in the edit summary "As I said before, I have never seen the name spelled "Maxene" until now." It took me less than a minute to find that spelling used by Rolling Stone[77] and The New York Times[78] Oh, wait! I didn't have to bother searching. That NYT reference is right after her name in the infobox. Clearly Anthony22 didn't bother looking. Getting the name spelled right is what we are talking about when we say "high quality editing". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I read the wording of the topic ban and reviewed the diffs provided. It is clear to me that the topic ban has been violated repeatedly. Since the last block was for one week, I have blocked this editor for two weeks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I recall somebody saying the wording of the TBAN was likely to prove problematic because it was overly and unnecessarily complicated. Oh wait...that was me. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Found a suspicious account

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

---

Hello, this new account ClarityRandom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be adding a load of unsourced old nonsense to articles related to feminism.

For instance:

• This is not what social reproduction means (it sort of means society is doomed to repeat it's failures across the generations).

• This is not what source criticism is about. Source criticism is the academic term for evaluating reliable sources.

• First edit was a large one, adding and changing much sourced commentary, and finished by adding this, "while organisations such as Woman's Place UK organise to defend the principles of socialist and marxist feminism and womens sex based rights that are threatened by transgender politics and identity politics." It was added without an inline citation in the middle of a sourced statement about a 1960s feminist group.

They've made 140 edits so far, mostly around a handful of of articles. This set of edits for instance doesn't seem to add any resources and is sort of promotional. It adds to the lead a statement promoting one of the "best known living social historians" naming them "Tilly". Sadly, it seems that Tilly passed away last year.

I'm not sure what to do. There's too many edits for me to simply go around reverting them all on subjects which I am not learned. I can't get a sense of vandalism or actual bad faith, but there's definitely a bit of unsourced and dubious stuff in the main space and promotional editing. If this is not urgent enough or off topic for this page, please direct me to the appropriate venue.. ~ R.T.G 20:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The ANI notification has been posted to User talk:ClarityRandom Shenme (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:RTG I am Clarity Random I have an MSc and PhD in history and political economy. If you dont like my edits go onto the page and ask for citations and/or clarifications.

social reproduction is a key concept in marxist feminism - see these by leading marxist feminist theorists:

I teach historical methods, (and have in the past taught on marxist feminist theory) - but I dont keep track of which historians died and when.

I suggest you go and learn more about the subjects you are trying to talk about here. When you have an understanding of them go to the articles you think need citations, and request them.

Also if you are claiming 'promotional' posts please specify what you think is being promoted, as niothing I have posted is promotional nor intended to be so (Womans place as an organisation was listed alongside other socialist feminist organisations in the marxist feminism article, so I expect you are complaining about those other editors too?) ClarityRandom (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @ClarityRandom:. There are a number of issues with your edits.
• Okay, with your edit on source criticism. Source criticism is what Wikipedia calls "determining reliable sources". It is not "the method" to apply, but instead, methods are applied to source criticism. The source you have now added, criticising various ancient historiographers source criticism, does not specifically reject the idea of source criticism, but the methods applied to such criticism. Source criticism is not defined by a particular method, except in each individual circumstance.
• As for your edit to Social reproduction, you haven't read WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:CITE. Further, "social reproduction" is a branch of "economic reproduction". What you are trying to apply to "social reproduction" is another branch individually.
• As for the edit to Marxist feminism, the bit I mentioned. There are two sentences related to a reference on "Radical Women". These sentences are referenced. You've added a quick statement in the middle of the first of those sentences, about a completely different womens group. You've also added a whole string of other edits all the way up the page in places where information appears referenced, but not added any other resources. If I said, that's okay, you have all those books and all the other edits were wrong, you just happened to be reading your whole library that evening and noticed the whole of Wikipedia was overdue a change...? Was that what you were trying to tell me?
• Wikipedia is not interested in whether you are a professor or not. ~ R.T.G 20:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarity, I am sorry if I sound harsh in these last sentences, but you are probably not a practising lecturer specialising in the historical method field. Neither am I, and what I mean to say is, we don't need to be. Reading stuff like this can take some effort, but if you can read and understand stuff, you can do it. There is no need to claim to be a doctor of history to discuss how an article is structured. ~ R.T.G 19:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• What is this doing at ANI? Where is the previous discussion before coming here? What's with "unsourced old nonsense"? Where is the prior warning/discussion about adding unsourced info to articles? What does "suspicious" mean here? Why assume new editors arrive fully aware of our policy on sourcing information? Why did you not advise CR that you posted this thread? I have lots of questions, but they're all for RTG, not CR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious here means, "possible SPA adding unsourced incorrect information to articles". I was hoping to get a response if this was the appropriate venue before posting the notification. This regards over a hundred edits so it felt a bit grand for me to be challenging, possibly 140 edits without asking about it, sorry. No intention to bite. @Floquenbeam:. ~ R.T.G 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• How on earth did this make it to AN/I? @RTG: chill, seriously! ClarityRandom looks very much like a new, inexperienced good-faith editor with a subject-specific area of interest. That's totally fine, and actually the kind of contributor I welcome. I've cleaned up the mess you made on their talk page (please use the preview button, or at least check your edits). ClarityRandom would do well to read some of the welcome links you posted, however - they seem like an editor with a lot to contribute, and learning to make their contributions compatible with our policies and guidelines would lead to fewer misunderstandings like this! I'm a bit bored of seeing new good-faith editors bought to AN/I with absolutely zero attempt to actually reach out and help them correct their behaviour. It's shitty of us to gatekeep so aggressively. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 10:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't mean to be aggressive at all. I posted here mainly hoping to be pointed to the correct noticeboard as I wasn't sure. I am not as concerned with the editor as with the edits themselves. There was definitely some inaccuracy going on. The editor has made clear what I suspected, they would intend to treat a dispute as a matter of authority rather than study. I should have "warned" them first, but I felt with so many edits, it would be more aggressive to just dive into the muddle and start arguing about the nature of authority when a third opinion on the content would have been so much more likely to bring us all to a cooperative approach on the first step. Okay, okay... now what about the content? ~ R.T.G 12:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

References

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

IDHT user with severe CIR issues

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

---

Subject: User:서덕민 (For simplicity's sake, they will be referred to as Seo)

There is a troublesome user who renders their username in Korean that does nothing but make obsolete, low quality edits to the project. Seo's edits vary from complete nonsense to ridiculous grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. Check their contributions here. Despite numerous warnings on Seo's WP:IDHT behavior and WP:CIR issues, not only did they *not* respond to the warnings, they have continued their disruptive pattern of edits.

Diffs:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

I think a block might be necessary. Users that outright refuse to communicate when other contributors voice their concerns are harmful to the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Seo has logged back on and made some new edits, but they have opted to ignore this thread entirely. There is no acknowledgement to their issues, even after a lengthy discussion here. Either they don't care that their lack of response would be percevied as WP:IDHT, or they think they did nothing wrong. Or both. It's a serious issue, either way. They have not uttered even a word about their actions even after being reported. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

ooooor they’re new here, speak ESL and don’t even realize there is an issue. This is an editor that needs some guidance, not a pernicious troll. Try some good faith. —AdamF in MO (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

How do you expect to guide someone that won't respond nor listen? The communication between us and Seo is completely one sided - we tried telling them that their behavior is problematic, but to no avail. It's hard to AGF towards someone that doesn't even try to talk. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Patiently. Not sure why it's hard to assume good faith - there doesn't seem to be anything malicious or even mischievous in the edits. I'd have thought it would be pretty easy actually, given they don't argue endlessly with long posts justifying that what they are doing is correct. Meanwhile, failing to AGF is a far bigger issue - and we seem to have never-ending patience for that! Nfitz (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

So in other words, it's okay to keep polluting the project with unsourced, low quality additions *and* ignoring warnings from other users, as well as refusing to acknowledge that they did anything wrong? Plenty of ESL users here could contribute in coherent English, and Seo isn't one of them (assuming that they're even an ESL to begin with).

I would love to AGF, but I honestly can't if the user is 100% unresponsive. You claim that they're "quietly" listening and adjusting based on the messages and warnings they've received, but that's just an assumption in the absence of their response. Since when is it okay to ignore legitimate concerns about one's behavior? As far as I am concerned, that's WP:IDHT.

In any case, since it's apparent that Seo's English isn't up to par, maybe they should brush up their English first, before editing on the project again. Based on one of Seo's drafts here, I'm convinced that a machine translation might have been used to write the article. And even if it's not machine translation, it's still really poorly written and formatted. Look, I'm all for guiding new users, but if they won't even respond, then what else could we do? Not much except for reporting them on ANI. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• What's the relevance of 서덕민's Hangul script in their username? The name seems to meet WP:USERNAME, particularly WP:NONLATIN. Your last warning on their userpage, that lead to this, was about vandalism - but I'm not seeing an example. Is there one? Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Nfitz, on a closer glance, it's disruptive editing rather than vandalism, but it's still pretty bad. This one is unsourced, for instance. And after being reverted, Seo just entered a vague statement citing that the name is available in "many more" cultures.

Putting that aside, the utter lack of communication regarding their behavior means that they have WP:IDHT issues. It's been hours since I've posted the report, and they don't even have anything to say here in their defense. It's like they don't even realize that there is an issue. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

They haven't edited since then either, and often don't edit for days. Might not have even seen the notice yet. I don't see that it's trolling though ... Nfitz (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

They've received plenty of warnings before, and has not responded to any of them. That's an WP:IDHT issue. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any previous warnings of trolling. Is it really IDHT ... I don't see the same thing being added, and it looks like there is an attempt edit differently. It's not great editing - sure ... but there seems to be WP:BITE issues and a failure of WP:AGF here, with false accusations. Nfitz (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Nfitz, how are they false accusations when I'm not the only one that handed out warnings to Seo? JesseRafe warned them of similar issues too. I usually try to assume good faith, but in this case, an editor that doesn't even try to address the concerns that were voiced by users is detrimental to the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You did falsely accuse them of vandalism. You do that quite a bit. —AdamF in MO (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, pretty much every trolling IP or disruptive user I report end up getting blocked due to disruptive behavior. Why are you defending disruptive users that are actively damaging the project? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t ever done that. Not even a single time. Please be careful about casting aspersions. Pointing out that you are doing something wrong is not defending other people —AdamF in MO (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You attempted to discredit my warnings on this trolling IP here, and after I reported them on ARV, they got blocked. They posted a death threat in Japanese on another user's talkpage here. So how am I doing anything wrong? I followed proper procedures for this. If users are editing disruptively, I hand out warnings to them.

Users that ignore warnings have WP:IDHT issues, and those are the same types that tend to keep editing disruptively until they're blocked. To me, trying to discredit my warnings to trolls is the same as defending them. If you don't agree with my viewpoint on that, that's fine. Still, I don't get why you're trying to stop me from protecting the project when I am doing my part in weeding out the trolls.

Assuming good faith is important, but you have to understand that some users are simply not here to build an encyclopedia. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice history lesson bub. Those warnings you gave were still false accusations of vandalism. No where in your post do you show me defending anyone. So yet another false accusation. Please stop. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting that they are false accusations even after they got blocked for trolling and personal attacks? If my warnings weren't valid, do you think my ARV report would have had any substance? The blocking admin did the right thing, as you can see here. If anyone needs to stop, it's *you*. Stop trying to obstruct me from weeding out trolls and vandals. I'm trying to protect the project. I don't get why you're so opposed to that.

Anyway, let's get back on track to the original topic, which is Seo, the subject of this report. I believe some sort of action needs to be taken against them. Their lack of response here is quite concerning. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism has a specific and defined meaning here. Please see the policy on that. This user has not vandalized. Many edits are misguided edits by a new user but this user isn’t vandalizing. Then there was your false accusation that I’m defending these editors. That accusation is false and a borderline personal attack. Yes let’s get back on track. Can you diff an edit that is vandalism, from SEO? —AdamF in MO (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not what this report is about. I am not trying to accuse them of vandalism on this report. Rather, I am reporting them for WP:CIR and WP:IDHT, as noted above. Also, I already modified my warning to indicate that they were editing disruptively, rather than outright vandalism. That was before I even filed this report. Jesse and I have already provided diffs where Seo was shown to be littering the project with spelling and grammatical errors. Despite given warnings, they still continued to reintroduce low quality edits to the same articles where their edits were previously reverted. They also have not responded to the warnings that were given to them, nor have they responded to the report here. Given these reasons, they definitely have WP:IDHT and WP:CIR issues.

To quote IDHT: Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you.

As we could clearly see, there is *zero* communication between Seo and the other users, including myself. They just keep disrupting the project in accordance to what they think is right. There are a few possibilities as to why Seo is outright ignoring the warnings as well as this report. Either they think staying silent means that the situation is just gonna blow over (which will be proven to be untrue in due time), or they don't think there's any issues with their problematic edits. Or both. I'm sure if and when they log back on, they're just going to continue editing disruptively as if nothing has happened.

Now, let me quote WP:CIR.

There is a presumption that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:

*The ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively.

*The ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus.

To quote the "Responding to suspected lack of competence" section:

The English Wikipedia is the largest Wikimedia project, and for that reason, people will tend to come here first to contribute. Poor use of the English language can lead to perceived competence problems.

It's clear that Seo's edits also demonstrate that they are not fluent in the English language. I don't think they even realize that they've been disrupting the project this entire time, which is quite concerning for a user that has accumulated more than 130 edits. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Your above comment is both verbose and a complete waste of time. Maybe CIR issues are in play. But, like I have said numerous times, and you have agreed to, they haven’t vandalized, ergo your warning was mistaken. You appear to agree with me on this. Accusing me of defending trolls was completely baseless and quite bizarre. Regardless, let’s see if they log back in and continue their behavior and we’ll see if they respond to discussion. Cheers mate. Thanks for your hard work with anime and voice actors! —AdamF in MO (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How is it a waste of time when it is a detailed analysis of Seo's problems? What about Jesse's warnings, as well as Bonadea's message here? We have tried to communicate. Seo's just ignoring us. Unresponsiveness is IDHT. Anyway, as it turns out, Seo did log back on, and they've elected to continue disrupting the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

JesseRafe warned them once about 3 weeks ago about "no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles" (which appears to have been followed) and once yesterday about adding unsourced content. You've made accusations of vandalism, trolling, IDHT, CIR, and complete nonsense. No one else has done otherwise - why do you claim this? And where's the evidence of trolling? I don't even see examples of "complete nonsense" - for example adding Mari being a Korean name too (마리), in addition to the existing list of Breton, Japanese, Estonian, Georgian, Hungarian, Finnish, Welsh, Swedish and Norwegian (did someone forget Cornish and Manx?) doesn't seem to be complete nonsense. Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I detailed the other instances of gibberish being added below (and prior to you comment), you must not have seen it. Also, that page does not indicate Mari is a Korean name, only an article in the Korean language that says that Mari is a name - there's a difference: it's largely about non-Korean women named Marie. Look at Seo's edits holistically, not individually, they are adding very little of any substantive value, but repeated attempts are disruptive like at Karen and they don't respond to their critiques or reversions but continue the habit. Also, I don't think it's strictly true that they stopped adding original research three weeks ago as you assert, but almost all of their edits are still original research and none are sourced. JesseRafe (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There's clearly some language issues and errors. But where's the previous warnings of vandalism, trolling, complete nonsense, IDHT, and CIR - Sk8erPrince's defence was that others had warned the user of this. I don't see any trolling or vandalism in their work - most of their edits you can at least see what they are trying to do - I assume the handful that look nonsensical are typos. Nfitz (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct, there are language issues and errors, but also useless drivel being added even when the English is fine. Saying "The Female given name" as an etymology is wrong in so many ways, and it is not a typo; "Japanes" is a typo. They are not addressing their errors, and continue to obstinately make them, which is Sk8erPrince's point. You say you can see what they are trying to do? What, please are they trying to do when they say "Korean The Female given name"? It's a nonsense fragment. They don't engage in communication about their problematic edits and largely disrupt the project, specifically about names. JesseRafe (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If we were to start eliminating drivel, then we'd have to remove about 3/4 of the articles here! :) "female given name" is clear - though perhaps not grammatically correct - it's a girls name (though is that politically correct?). We are reminded in WP:ANYONECANEDIT that you can't break Wikipedia; all edits can be reversed, fixed or improved later and that WP:NOTPERFECT. I don't see any obstinate restoring material after deletion, and an attempt (not necessarily success) by 서덕민 to improve. How is this vandalism? How is it trolling? Where were the warnings of that by others? I find the false accusations and exaggerations more concerning. Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am having a hard time assuming good faith if you are defending the addition of "The Female given name" in the context of that individual edit on that page and all the other similar edits made by this user. It is not clear. It is completely pleonastic: devoid of meaning, context, and significance. Every other language gives an etymology... because it's the section headed "Etymology". How is this ""The Female given name" a clear etymology to you? It's a useless, vain bromide, that if left up, would be damaging to the encyclopedia. This user has made a dozens of other edits like it that harm the encyclopedia. They have been asked to stop doing so. They have neither responded to that ask in word or deed. That's the issue here. JesseRafe (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This in good faith. Are you referring to this edit? The grammar/spelling is poor, and they didn't provide the Korean meaning - but they correctly provided the Japanese meaning of ant (ja:アリ). How is this nonsense? How is this vandalism? How is this trolling? I'm not sure why the Japanese was removed - it improved the entry. Nfitz (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It was removed because of the poor grammar and spelling. Per CIR, users on EN wiki are expected to contribute in proper English. I mean, sure, sometimes, we make silly grammatical and spelling errors, but the main difference is that we know what the mistakes are when others point them out, or we catch our own mistakes. I'm not at all convinced that Seo has the English proficiency required to contribute constructively to the project, as Jesse elaborated above.

If you were told by at least two users that your edits are problematic and have been asked to rectify them, and you opt to outright ignore them and still continue editing disruptively anyway, that's an IDHT issue.

I'm also quite baffled that you can't seem to acknowledge that Seo's edits are mostly complete nonsense. I think Jesse did an excellent job elaborating why that's the case. The main concern here is that Seo is trolling the project with low quality additions (most of them were reverted for that reason), and ignoring the concerns of other issues. They are hence detrimental to the prosperity of the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Jesse said it was far more than poor grammar and spelling. I haven't seen any diffs that were complete nonsense (I initially thought "ant" was - but then I realised that is what Ari means in Japanese), and I certainly don't see diffs showing trolling - can you provide some. What I do see are false accusations by experienced editors, which is far greater sin than poor grammar and bad spelling. And unlike 서덕민, I don't even see a quiet acceptance of that, or any indication of change! Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How is "ant" relevant? That section is for the sourced etymologies of the given name "Ari". The fact that it is a word in Japanese, among hundreds of languages, is irrelevant if that is not the etymology of the given name in that language as the article is solely about the given name. That etymology was not provided. You also did not respond to the obvious repeated unhelpful edits at Karen I added yesterday. You seem to be extending beyond the usual benefit of the doubt to claim that "Mari is a Korean name" (it's not) and that the Japanese name is derived from the word for ant (unlikely, and unsourced, which all the others are) while not extending that assumption of good faith to Sk8er Prince who has said that 1) they are not editing regularly in competent English and 2) they are not responding to repeated requests to amend their behavior. Those are the two plain facts of the matter. Calling these false accusations is blatant lack of assumption of good faith, and on the verge of a personal attack. JesseRafe (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How is lion relevant - you didn't remove that? I did go through the ten Karen edits, and it all seemed pretty innocuous to me. A diff of what is of particular concern to you would help. Much of the edits can be summed up with this diff - which is neither vandalism or trolling - or much at all. Where are the diffs that support the allegations of vandalism and trolling? Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between the "lion" description, and the (likely) erroneous ant entry.

Compare the following:

Ari is a common masculine given name in Hebrew (אריה). It means lion.

The Female given name japanese form ant.

The Hebrew entry is clear and concise. It was very obviously not written by Seo. Seo's entry, on the other hand, is complete nonsense. It's grammatically wrong, and it makes no sense. And it's also unsourced. That makes it twice as problematic. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Then improve the grammar and add add a reference. Or point out the error. But I don't see anything particularly wrong with that edit, that some reference would support. List of Korean given names has said for along time that Ari is a feminine name that means "beloved" (아리) so it's certainly used as a Korean name. And I also see it in various lists of Japanese girls names, such as this one. Though if this discussion is correct, it doesn't mean "ant" - but it's clear that some people are saying this. So how is it 'complete nonsense'? They improved the content, and others should continue the task - not delete partially correct information that was added, but poorly formatted. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the elaboration, Jesse. To respond to Nfitz, this diff here is yet another example of nonsense.

Oshimaida: demon.

What *kind* of demon? Am I supposed to get anything out of that nonsensical description? Elaboration is necessary.

I think you may have too much faith on Seo - and there was no "quiet acceptance" from their part and there are no false accusations. Failure to communicate is an IDHT issue. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. It's hard to AGF to IDHT users. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm just looking for the evidence of trolling and vandalism and nonsense - which are serious claims. All I see is bad editing - though a clear attempt to improve the articles. Does it matter what type of demon? Knowing nothing of the subject, the edit actually helps me know than an Oshimaida is some kind of dæmon, without having to research that (though further down the article there's some more information about that). Is the formatting lousy - yes. Did it make the article more understandable - yes. Is it vandalism - no. Is it trolling - no. Is it nonsense - no. Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself - if it's bad editing, then how are they "clear attempts" to improve the articles? Seo's edits aren't improvements - they're downgrades. Just stating that Oshimaida is a demon is pointless if the description isn't expanded for readers to actualy learn what they are. That makes it nonsense, due to the poor formatting. But hey, at least we could agree on one thing - that Seo's edits are not of high quality. That's one of the main issues here. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So you want more diffs? Here you go.

This was classified as "garbled English" by Bonadea. What in the heck is a "formal-unisex name"? That's nonsense.

There's also this diff here. Only in Korea is a female name surprisingly. Once again, it was poorly written. And where's the reliable source to verify that claim? And "surprisingly" is unencyclopedic in tone. This isn't a novel - we're not supposed to use adjectives in articles. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't heard the term unisex name before - but it exists, and that article mentions formal names - so how is it nonsense? Could it be written better - yes. Is it vandalism, trolling, or nonsense - no. But not providing a source (unless it's some kind of edit-war, and I don't see that) is not a serious issue - add a tag, or a source, or delete it with a note. My comment above, notes how the Ari edits improved the article - surely having more information, with grammar/spelling issues that someone else can fix, is better than nothing. Articles don't have to be perfect. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, unisex names exist, but "formal unisex name" is probably a calque from Korean, as it has no meaning in English. When you say that article mentions formal names you presumably refer to the fact that the infobox in Karen (name) said "formal=unisex" – but that was added by this user, editing as an IP, about a month ago. They have also been messing up a number of other things in the article, such as saying that the Farsi pronunciation of the name "Karen" is US English [79], [80]. So no, that phrase really was mangled English. ("formal name" can have a meaning, but that's a completely different matter.) This shouldn't turn into a content discussion, but there is absolutely no doubt that the user does have severe CIR issues; they are almost certainly editing in good faith, but they have to start listening and changing their behaviour. --bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

When, User:Bonadea I said "that article" I was referring to Unisex name which differentiates between formal names and nicknames - not a term I'd use, but some do. Nfitz (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's a legit Korean name, I expect the OP was pointing it out for those who don't read hangeul. Blackmane (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Google Translate throws back "Seok Deok Min", which seems to me like a legitimate Korean name. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 00:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've twice warned this user and undone dozens of their edits (often the same repeated content) and agree with Sk8erPrince's categorization of them being largely nonsense or/and poorly written, and also of little important significance or an honest attempt at improving the encyclopedia. Their recent edits at Ari (name) strike me as closer to test edits than one with a hundred contributions. I also see no issue in Romanizing the username for the purposes of this discussion for simplicity, same as any Cyrillic or Hebrew or whatever username to make typing easier for most editors who wish to participate in the conversation, I don't think Sk8erPrince was trying to make an issue out of the their username and further discussion on that aspect is beyond the point of the discussion on their frequent disruptive editing. JesseRafe (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jesse. I hope something is done about Seo's disruptive behavior. If no action is taken, that basically means we're okay with their disruptive behavior, which compromises the quality of the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: 서덕민 anthroponymy topic ban

I propose that Seo be topic banned from all name-related articles. This includes given names and surnames. If they were willing to communicate in the first place, there wouldn't be any need to bring this issue here at all. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support: As proposer. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: False accusations and exaggerations abound here. The few diffs provided seem innocuous, and it would be better to expand and correctly format what is being added, rather than deleting. Or explaining why it's deleted. There seems to be evidence that 서덕민 is reading edit comments and adjusting accordingly. Not sure why we can't simply for simplicity's sake, use their username, than a translation of part of it. Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced info can be reverted per WP:BURDEN. If we cannot verify the newly added information with a reliable source, we would proceed to remove them. Almost every single one of Seo's edits are unsourced, which violates our verifiability guideline. Also, I'm referring the user as Seo because I can't type Korean. Having to copy and paste their username every time is tiresome, and I'd really rather not be bothered with that. And Jesse and I *did* explain why Seo's edits were reverted in our edit summaries. On the flip side, Seo has failed to respond to our warnings and continued to edit disruptively in accordance to *their* own liking. I'm starting to think that you and I aren't even analyzing the same case, Nfitz. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Having read Sk8’s posts I am not convinced we are dealing with a pernicious troll here. I think we have a user who might be a good contributor, if they accepted a little guidance. This editor is clearly willing to contribute in good faith, they just need some correction. On a separate not we should wait on tbans, or really any bans, until we see a response from this editor. Right now the project is in no danger. _{I have read all of Sk8’s responses in this thread and understood them. Another lengthy reply is not likely to change the fact that this proposal is premature.}—AdamF in MO (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I am convinced that this is a good-faith editor and not a troll, but their command of English seems to be really poor, to the point where it is often not even possible to rewrite their additions because it's hard to even guess what they mean. They have never posted to an article talk or user talk page. Their additions are unsourced; a lack of sources is an issue in many name articles so I don't blame them for doing what they see others do, but they have been repeatedly warned about it. Since they also add incorrect information, such as this (marking a Farsi pronunciation as "US"), as well as multiple instances of adding text that comes across as random scribbling, they are currently a time sink who does endanger a tiny part of the project. They also keep drawing their own conclusions about names being the same just because they look similar ([81], [82]), and that is often quite wrong – and even if they should on occasion be correct, how can anybody know, with no sources? However, since they are only interested in name related articles, TBanning them from there is a bit harsh. Could an uninvolved administrator give them a strong final warning (they already have a couple of final warnings) about adding original research/unsourced info, and about communicating? --bonadea contributions talk 11:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Having read Sk8’s posts and having experience with this editor's tendency to use too many words and WP:BLUDGEON arguments I am unconvinced that a topic ban is appropriate. In any event...right now the project is in no danger ATM. Lightburst (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Reporting Arjayay

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

---

Arjayay is opressing me but not wanting to allow me to write the truth about Javid Javid anywhere on this wikipedia even tho i am being very encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB10:5DA:8400:1498:36D5:7213:C828 (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: or any other admin, you may also wish to block 2A01:CB10:5DA:8400::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) per WP:/64. theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, done by Bishonen--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup, one week. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC).

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

@Ymblanter: I think you should also block 51.148.9.33 as it is the same person. He/she made the same change in the infobox concerning Sajid Javid's birthplace:

• 51.148.9.33 birth_place = Londonistan, Pakistan
• 2a01:cb10:5da:8400:1498:36d5:7213:c828 birth_place = Londonistan, Pakistan

Toddy1 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but it has not edited since July, possibly the vandal moved to a different range.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

CubaHavana2018

• CubaHavana2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alfred-Maurice de Zayas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Despite being warned against addition of unsourced content, disruptive editing and possible conflicts of interest, CubaHavana2018 has continued editing without responding to this issues in the article of Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, an article which has been tagged for relying too much on primary sources and for having a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject (October 2016). CubaHavana2018 has edited only in de Zayas' article article for almost nine months; this, along with its username, suggests a single purpose account. CubaHavana2018 has only engaged in talk pages twice ([83][84]), both times solely disputing the reliability of UN Watch. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Being an WP:SPA is not against policy, though it may cause a higher level of scrutiny. De Zayas does appear to have scholarly credentials. A neutral article on this man ought to be possible. I suggest that User:Jamez42 might open a discussion on the article talk page and list some of the items that are in disagreement. If you believe there is unsourced information present, try to give the details. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior

After banning me from his talk page[85], Zefr is giving me the silent treatment everywhere since more than a month (articles talk pages[86], WT:MED, dispute resolution[87], the latter concluding that he "obviously does not intend to participate"[88]). This has reached a ridiculous point where he consistently replies only to other editors, always above my comments, as to clearly signal he ignores them[89]. This editor clearly holds a WP:GRUDGE towards me. Besides the silent treatment, here are other non-exhaustive examples of his behavior:

• Abusive warnings issuing, my talk page is littered with them, choosing more aggressive versions (eg, uw-disruptive3 than 2): [90]
• Assumes bad faith: an "intention to mislead the user"[91]
• Personal attacks and misuse of policies (WP:CIRNOT) (emphasis mine): "This is an example of your reckless, impulsive editing behavior and misunderstanding of what the sources say. In writng for Wikipedia scientific content, competence is required, WP:CIR, and you appear incompetent to assess scientific sources."[92] ; "You are obsessive in edit numbers and non-encyclopedic details."[93]
• Mischaracterizing me by repeatedly making false accusations of WP:OR and WP:DE to discredit me and bait me (WP:POVRAILROAD):
  • "Unfounded? Any Wikipedia editor can review your history of disruptive and misleading editing, clearly laid out above among several other editors, including your edit warring and WP:DE over the last two years"[94].
  • "editor is WP:MWOT and WP:DE"[95].
  • "the removed paragraph was based on Signimu's WP:SYNTH"[96].
• Accusation of POV-pushing: "All you are doing is trying to insert your opinion - multiple times, while not gaining any support for this conjecture on the talk page."[97].
• Wikihounding before being called off[98]. Also happened to another user[99].

It's not the only instance Zefr behaved like that, he shows a consistently uncivil and uncollaborative behavior towards editors he considers of inferior rank. He reverts new editors' major contributions by giving nonsense reasons such as "unencyclopedic" or "bad grammar"[100][101] when he could WP:PRESERVE and fix as WP:CIRNOT reminds, but he argues politely to editors with similar or more edits count than him when they call him out[102], often moving the goalposts then as to avoid justifying his initial excessive reasons. He did the same with me[103][104][105]. This looks a bit WP:TENDENTIOUS.

He disregards not only all my messages, but also other editors consensus[106], both local[107][108][109][110], and previous community consensus on similar issues[111][112][113].

Zefr will probably attack me with WP:MWOT[114]. Easy when he repeatedly use the R but doesn't participate in the D part of WP:BRD, forcing me to do all the discussion work. I tried to appease the situation so many times I can't count and won't link all diffs, his responses were either silence or more aggressivity, see this telling example: [115][116]. I have read WP:DE since Zefr often recommended it to me, and his actions check a lot of the marks. All these show Zefr displays uncivil behaviors incompatible with collaborative work that is disruptive, and since it's not the first time[117] and that he disregards community consensus that his interpretation of editing guidelines is excessive[118][119][120], is likely to continue to be. I open this request as I have repeatedly asked him to stop the whole month (last request: [121]), and he didn't. --Signimu (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• I chose one of the threads linked above, at Talk:Intermittent fasting. What I saw was highly respected editors with a long track record in dealing with MEDRS issues, such as Jytdog, broadly supporting the position that Zefr had taken. Now I am not an uncritical supporter of the way that WP:MEDRS is interpreted (I have disagreed with Jytdog in the past), but the more I see of the constant stream of attempts to add unreliable, fringe, POV-pushing material to Wikipedia, the more I sympathize with those editors who battle against it (and it is a battle – too wearing often for me). There comes a point in all long-running disputes when the best course of action is Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It seems to me a legitimate course of action on Zefr's part (although it could have been explained better). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That's unfair, Jytdog discussions was more than a year ago, he introduced me to WP:MEDRS. Since then, I got a Cure Award[122]. This request has nothing to do with content dispute or fringe. Content dispute is not an excuse for uncivil behavior and personal attacks, else WP:CIVILITY would never have any practical application. On Intermittent fasting, the issue is being settled by other editors anyway, this request has nothing to do with it, except as a blatant example of silent treatment, found also elsewhere since he's doing that everywhere to me. Finally, I reworked the whole entry, and provided both positive and negative material, so I wonder what POV do you think I have then (and added authoritative sources such as AHA, NHS, New Zealand's Ministry of Health - that's what I do in most of my contributions). Peter coxhead, you did here a bold attempt at defending someone you respect by attacking me personally further without any proof. Or you simply believed Zefr writing at face value, which further proves his attempts at discrediting me are harmful. As usual, a lack of diff is a red light for unsubstantiated personal attacks (else please show where I WP:FRINGEd ever). And please don't mention Jytdog, whom I highly respect and had pleasure to work with[123], he never behaved as unprofessionally as Zefr does with me. --Signimu (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Look, following this request, Zefr started Wikihounding me again and is trying to enforce WP:MEDRS on non medical content despite community consensus[124][125]. He never edited before me, I started there yesterday. Does that look ok to you? --Signimu (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: in what way did I attack you personally, as you wrote above? I followed up one of the difs you yourself gave, and stated my reaction to it. Then I used a somewhat light-hearted user essay to support the idea that sometimes it's better not to engage in long-running discussions that go round and round. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

By implying I add "unreliable, fringe, POV-pushing material to Wikipedia". That's maybe not what you intended to mean, I hold no hard feelings, but I needed to clarify. About WP:STICK I agree, but here that's not the point. Apart from systematically fleeing articles where Zefr comes by, I can't avoid how he behaves towards me (see Sirtuin for a recent example). And that would still not address the fact he constantly tries to discredit me. --Signimu (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to clarify that I did not mean to imply that you added such material to Wikipedia, but rather to say that I do understand why editors that battle against such additions, as Zefr does valiantly, may prefer to disengage at times. (Which I will do now.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Side-note: I like the phys.org quote on your userpage, thanks for the discovery --Signimu (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Even though this request was archived without an evaluation, I would like to explicitly state that I would request it to be closed. Zefr is still not discussing directly, although I recognize he clumsily tried once, but at least he does not assume bad faith from me anymore and so far stopped the personal remarks, and we could implicitly work together on a few articles recently. His experienced co-edition was valuable, as always (when he accepts to collaborate with me). If it stays like that, since WP editing is not disrupted by either of us, that's fine by me. --Signimu (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at User:Kutyava

The article Darul Huda Islamic Academy is an educational institution of good repute in Kerala of India. which may be known from various reliable sources available online. The page was in very good condition some times ago. There is another competitive organization the supporters of which are enemies to each other. One of the editors has deleted everything which I added even from google books about this institution which creates doubt about his intentions. The editor in question seems to be not neutral and has a liking for competitive movement of which he has created pages see here. Please make him stay away from articles affiliated to Samastha (EK faction) as he has created pages of Samastha (AP faction) and affiliated organizations like Kerala State Sunni Students' Federation. Clear subject matter bias. ScholarM (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment I have done absolutely zero effort, but by happenchance noticed this, which may be of use when looking into this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ScholarM reported by User:Kutyava (Result: ) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Kutdyava also made an inappropriate report at AIV that mischaracterized ScholarM's edits. I haven't carefully evaluated ScholarM's edits, but describing them as "only for promotional purposes" is without basis. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Although stuff like this (which has been edit-warred back in multiple times) does look pretty promotional. Mind you, stuff by Kutvaya like relisting your own AfD which gained no traction aren't brilliant. Both Kutvaya and ScholarM have completely broken 3RR today on Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Perhaps they both need a time out. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

There was very marginal discussion on the article's talk page, but it went nowhere, and both editors continued reverting each other. Both have been sent to the penalty box for 24 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Discussion was closed, but I do think it's worthwhile to discuss both editors' conduct. On one hand, some of the material that ScholarM added to the article may have been borderline promotional, while on the other hand much of the content that Kutyava revised or removed was done apparently to cast the institution in a more negative light. Should either or both of the editors be topic banned from the article? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  For comparison:

  • • This is the version prior to either editor's involvement
    • This seems to be Kutyava's preferred revision (diff from stable
    • This is ScholarM's (diff from stable)
    • This is a comparison between the two preferred versions

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As an side, I found ScholarM's edits elsewhere to have been troubling. I think the chances for them becoming subject to ARBIPA discretionary sanctions are... not low. El_C 19:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I was blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring. For long, I have been a very rules abiding editor at Wiki. I have contributed positively to it.

In future also I will avoide any such type of warring and disputes. I request admins to allow me to continue constructive editing. Further, regarding the complaint, I would like to submit that there is clear case of either paid editing or agenda account in case of Kutyava. I was not editing negatively. Some of the points came up unintentionally which may be called as borderline promotion. I will avoid that too but its very disappointing to see continuous disrution in some pages of Samastha (EK faction). Though I can help improve articles of both factions. ScholarM (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Ivanvector. ScholarM's editing is clearly pushing a positive POV, and Kutyava is clearly pushing a negative POV. Neither appears to be simply "countering" the other in good faith, but intentionally POV-pushing. Both are affirmatively causing harm to the article and I strongly endorse a TBAN for both. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced edits from User:ImSonyR9

ImSonyR9 (talk · contribs) keeps adding unsourced information to Biman Bangladesh Airlines, in one case not supported by the companion source [126] and in other case re-adding an unsourced note [127] by claiming my edits were disruptive [128]. The user is well aware of the verifiability policy as they had several warnings regarding this. Maybe raising their behaviour and getting input from uninvolved editors here will settle the matter once and for all.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: Before making complain check all necessary correctness of your complain. As ([129]) this detail was never added by me. Even if I add any details, I always do so with proper sources. But it's you who doesn't know calculation. Earlier Biman had 23 destinations but recently Biman started operation to Medinah, which became it's 24th destination. But you always doing some nuisance to revert that. Even you have reverted an edit which I did with proper source. - SonyR.

Yes, you did it. You changed the number of destinations from 23 to 24 [130] in the infobox. And the additon of a source for the confirmation of the new destination does not support the total number of destinations. In other words, the "24" in the infobox is supported nowhere in the article, even after adding a reference. Either you do not understand WP:VERIFY or you don't want to.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: This seems nitpicking. It's sourced that they served 23 routes, the addition of a new route is a valid update to the article. The update should be articulated and sourced in the body and the infobox should be merely reflecting that, but you know what they're trying to do here and it's an easily fixed issue. I don't think this is particularly disruptive conduct in need of admin intervention. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

"Even if I add any details, I always do so with proper sources", claims ImSonyR9 from a few days ago, but this diff from today would show otherwise. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Revolve NTNU must be unblocked.

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

---

Hi!

We are the marketing team of Revolve NTNU. We have been trying to update and edit the Wikipedia page of our organization, Revolve NTNU. But seems like there has been some misunderstanding between Wikipedia admins on the changes we have published. We have been blocked from editing. We believe that there is simply just a big misunderstanding since we can't figure out what we have done wrong. All the information that we have added to the User:Revolve NTNU page is facts and relevant information about our organization, Revolve NTNU. There is no sensitive information about individual people or about the organization itself.

We hope you guys can unblock us and also give us permission to edit the page and accept our published changes.

Our page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolve_NTNU

Best regards, Rafi Khajeh Marketing team, Revolve NTNU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehrafi (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't permit accounts used by groups, nor does it permit "official" accounts representing organizations. It also doesn't permit promotional content, and we expect editors with conflicts of interest to clearly declare them and to work within the confines of WIkipedia's guidelines for editors with a COI. Please read them before you edit the Revolve NTNU article. The Revolve NTNU account will not be unblocked - "marketing teams" may not edit Wikipedia for a whole host of reasons that will become clear if you read the block notice and the COI page. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The misunderstanding is by you. This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing resource, and you would do well to find out something about it before claiming that anyone else has misunderstood anything. Plenty of such information has been provided to you at User talk:Revolve NTNU and User talk:Tehrafi. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

In addition to Revolve NTNU (blocked for name) and Tehrafi, IP 62.16.233.190 has tried to add the same contested content to the article. David notMD (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

University of Cambridge

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

---

Is the slow motion vandalism from the University of Cambridge IP 131.111.243.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) enough to justify a school block? There are a fair amount of good edits as well, so I can see a reasonable argument either way. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

From the limited clicking I did on their contributions, I don't think so. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Editor adding unsourced or hoax content

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

---

HellsKitchen234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

HellsKitchen234 has about 100 live edits to this project, but as far as I can see has yet to cite one single source for any one of them. Unsourced edits have included pages on some supposed victims of the St. Brice's Day Massacre – Arfast Haemingsson, Hjorvarth Vandradsson, Saebbi Gormsson, Fridgeir Trandilsson and Ulf Valisson – and on the supposed Roman centurion Canus Fulcinius Vindex. I've not been able to find one single reliable source that mentions any one of these people. Nor can I find any reliable source to confirm that Shakespeare's "salary" was $266 (yes, really, $266, not a cent more!). I and others have tried asking the editor to stop adding unsourced material (1, 2), but without success or indeed response of any kind. The editor seems determined to prove him/herself to be WP:NOTHERE. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There are worries about WP:COMPETENCE here. HellsKitchen234 has picked up an enormous amount of talk page complaints in view of their short editing career. He/she should slow down and read the Five Pillars. In particular, any new articles should be created in a sandbox and other users asked for input before they go live.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have given this editor an indefinite block as not here to build the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. I was going to do that, then decided to come here for a second opinion. I believe this could now be closed – I'm still chuckling at the $266 salary, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, if you want a real laugh, take a look at their uploads to Commons. Their pencil drawings of the Danes supposedly killed 1000 years ago are "special", as Dana Carvey used to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes indeed, I saw those! I haven't checked them all, but the portrait of Hjorvarth Vandradsson at least is taken without attribution from here (as was the article text). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Program synthesis

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

---

There is this IP hopper that visits Program synthesis to add unsourced content. Would a range block be feasible in this case? CLCStudent (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:RPP could be more effective, especially if the IP hopper is skilled? Britishfinance (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the range 2601:184:4081:1CBE:0:0:0:0/64 for 31 hours. There's no skill, or probably even deliberate IP-hopping, involved. Just one of those /64s. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC).

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

IP Range vandalism

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

---

Hello, I don't know where to post this, but there is a obvious pattern of IPs making similar disruptive edits, most using the summary "I Well Edited The Files", and often replacing words (curse or otherwise) with **** and many related to Eminem. Should a range block be used? I'm sure there are others than these four:

• 2A02:1811:5380:CB00:F1BD:1BCD:FD31:7B73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A02:1811:5380:CB00:B4A0:58BD:4C3D:A89B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A02:1811:5380:CB00:4D17:FDA4:D29F:4AA8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A02:1811:5380:CB00:8513:5B8:459B:A4C3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) JesseRafe (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked the /64 range for 1 week for disruptive editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

re DovidBenAvraham, by Pi314m: Not an orphan

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

---

We all know (or should know, if reading ANI) that the pleas for mercy by the (double) orphan who caused this condition is not accepted. DovidBenAvraham may be have led himself to trial, but I'd like to say the following as a plea on his behalf (and he did say sorry on my TALK page before/while ANI-ing me, to which, after he was directed to apologize, I wrote "accepted (publicly)"):

There definitely are double and triple standards in various areas:

• An ANI states "xxxx has been branded a nuisance editor, which he is not – Wikipedia would be nothing without the contributions of

individuals who are passionate about certain subjects."

• There are those who blindly remove the Honorific when an article begins "Rabbi (article_name)," even when the lack of the article's mentioning of his title makes the first sentence an appropriate place for the, by policy, only mention thereof.

Yes, the Batmobile's anti-wall-of-text defense device should be deployed as needed. The point of these lines is:

I was raised with the Jewish teaching that the world is run measure-for-measure. Dovid tried to have me blocked; now he's blocked. I may also, some day, be blocked. He's charged with being a time waster. Blocking with the left hand, when needed, needs to be balanced by unblocking with the right. Those who blocked him may gain time when they need it most, if they remove the block before 30 days (a life-and-.. time-Test) namely when . . . we all know to what I'm referring. To quote an oldie, 'Nuff said. Pi314m (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Is this meant to be decipherable? --JBL (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Marijuana is legal in about 1/2 of US states now. EEng 04:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  EEng, quick, someone update WP:DRUNK and add WP:WEED as a shortcut! SITH (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I felt like I was reading "Zen and the Art of ANI"? Something more precise would help here? sorry. Britishfinance (talk)

I believe that this is a request to unblock the indefinitely blocked editor User:DovidBenAvraham. Pi314m, please advise that editor to file an unblock request himself. As for marijuana, I am perfectly capable of having a toke and a shot of Bourbon, and still writing coherently. Others, not so much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As for the honorific, the correct formulation is "So and so is an American rabbi . . . ", not "Rabbi So and so is a . . . ". We do not use the honorific, we report on it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Tumbleman

Can someone experienced in Tumbleman LTA socks please ping me. Thanks. Guy (help!) 09:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You forgot to say The Tumbleman. He likes to be called that. EEng 11:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Quenreerer

Please see the edit history at Jermaine Whitehead and User talk:Quenreerer#Jermaine Whitehead. User keeps reverting obvious spelling and grammar corrections and mass reverting my edits to the page without discussion or reason because they don't like some content dispute parts. They are now accusing me of pushing some sort of agenda, so if anyone else wants to take a look at this it would be appreciated. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, could a CU look into Avis2k14 (talk · contribs) who just posted an attack on Quenreerer's talk page as the user's first edit. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

To elaborate: Quenreerer added content to the Jermaine Whitehead page. I cleaned it up to conform with Wikipedia policy. These included grammar fixes, removal of excess URL code, removal of undue weight from the lead, and moved a stand-alone section to a more relevant part of the article. Quenreerer reverted my edit, stating the content was sourced and since the team was not involved in the incident it should not be included in that section (?). Since the user contested a small aspect of my edit, I made a series of smaller edits and explained each one in the edit summary so the user could understand what I was doing: [131], [132], [133], [134]. I then added to the user's addition with content found in the reference. The user then reverted all of my edits (except for the removal of content from the lead) with the explanation "sourced content. removed lead due to undue weight, but the controversy happened. it's all over the news." I posted on Quenreerer's talk page to try to resolve the situation, and an uninvolved editor then reverted Quenreerer's edit, stating "Per Eagles247, it's directly related to his tenure with the Browns". Whitehead was released by the Browns at this time, so I updated the article to reflect his release with a citation. Quenreerer then reverted to their version again, wiping out the new information as well. Over the next 25 minutes, Quenreerer slowly and manually restored pieces of my edits and responded on their talk page accusing me of POV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The user is now aggressively accusing an IP editor of being an illegitimate sockpuppet on the article talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup. I have already explained why I was posting there (saw the article mentioned here, so responded on the talk page [135]). Evidently Quenreerer doesn't think WP:AGF applies to IPs - or to anyone else whom he/she disagrees with, by the look of it. 86.143.228.144 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment it should be noted that this is not the first time this editor has attempted to unilaterally POV edit. Quenreerer was warned two days ago for trying to remove Greta Thunberg's honorific on two separate occasions and added added "Franchise Killer" to the infobox of Kathleen Kennedy (producer) just yesterday. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• It looks like an IP added the original vandalism to the Kathleen Kennedy page, but Quenreerer restored it along with their own edit in apparent confusion. (undid their own edit, added everything back in) Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Eagles247 thanks for the explanation. Striking it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: for what it's worth, Avis2k14 doesn't seem to be a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

SPAM using edit summary

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

---

I request that the visibility of the edit summary of this edit in Talk:Google be changed to hidden as it seems to be promotional SPAM. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Done. Guy (help!) 09:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Accusations, Attacks, and Disrespectful Dispute Resolution Activity by 2001:569:7C07:2600:34C3:F496:71FB:7EC3

2001:569:7C07:2600:34C3:F496:71FB:7EC3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

1. This user has not sought respectful edit dispute resolution with me, and instead have persistently made changes to my talk page [here] and reverted my edits on my own talk page [here], when I already told them that I have moved our discussion, more aptly, to the Lee Jae-yoon talk page [here].

I have also included that their "edits are welcome but please observe propriety and respectful practices in contributing." This user has posted on another user's talk page for help [here], but can't reply amiably to our discussion? I have responded to them in a well-meaning manner and have understood their points, yet they continue with these unnecessary actions, not resolving the issue directly with me and instead resorting to discussing it on another user's talk page. I have tried resolving this issue with this user/IP address, but he/she has moved the discussion, inappropriately, to Jjj1238's page [here].

2. Also, as I've looked into this user, contributors [23.16.167.50] and [2001:569:7c07:2600:34c3:f496:71fb:7ec3] as shown on the article's [Edit history] may likely be one and the same, as they have both responded to my edit queries, like one single person? Should we look into this as possible sock puppetry? I am quite unsure how to proceed.

3. This user has also accused me of "yelling" at them: "And you yell at me" [see here]

How could I yell at them? Why are they throwing these overblown accusations? I have sought to resolve this editorial dispute with them amicably, by posting on the right channels and talk page, but they have not responded appropriately and instead have resorted to posting elsewhere without replying to my queries on the Lee Jae-yoon talk page, and now they're accusing me of "yelling" at them.

I'm seeking disciplinary action on 2001:569:7C07:2600:34C3:F496:71FB:7EC3 and its alter-ego, [23.16.167.50]. If this merits a block, please apply said procedure. If not, please advise how we'd proceed.

Update, their last reply is: "Stop sending messages to me. I want to assist the user for resolution. And I don't want to explain it at the article's talk page. I explain it to you and you deleted it from your talk page. For the last time I am refusing to coment at the article's talk page and that's final," as you can see [here].

Again, I'm seeking disciplinary action on this user, 2001:569:7C07:2600:34C3:F496:71FB:7EC3 and its alter-ego, [23.16.167.50]. If this merits a block, please proceed. If not, please advise what we could do.

Thanks so much.

Migsmigss (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Persistent hoaxing from Fontana IP range

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

---

Somebody using IPs from Fontana, California, has been inserting hoaxes into film articles for the last four months. Take a look: there's nothing but hoaxes from the range Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1220:C4C3:0:0:0:0/52, usually involving famous film people assigned false credits. Can we get a lengthy rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2605:e000:1220:c09b::/64 blocked for 3 months. It looks like it's been going on for a while under various IP ranges, including Special:Contributions/2600:1700:4450:3010::/64, which was previously blocked for six months. I'll try to keep an eye on a few of the articles and do wider range blocks if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! You rock. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Mongillo (2nd nomination)

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

---

This whole AfD really needs to be looked into as so far we have had an undoing of prior consensus rather than a WP:DRV, and WP:OUTING claims. [136] Would any admin be willing to step in here and make a call regarding potential disruptive behavior that has gone on? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have messaged the admin who undid the AfD result, and the nominator. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It was previously deleted what, three weeks ago? Either the second nom—so soon after the event—is disruptive, or WP:G4 applies, wouldn't it? Or am I missing something? I see an acusation of WP:OUTING in the history too; that might be worth admin-ray specs if nothing else. 17:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)——SN54129

Before you opened this, I had actually already sent some information to arbcom. I find some of the links extremely concerning, and given the outing concerns, I don't think ANI is the best place to discuss them. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine to back off, personally trout Roem and Jo-Jo for the out-of-process recreation, and move on. I don't want to be part of what I gather is happening with the nominator... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The actions regarding the nominator can be discussed elsewhere then, my concern is also the out of process AfD decision between two editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

While I don't want to bring off-site drama in here, I feel this is relevant enough to be also brought up here: the nominator is currently going on a highly offensive tirade on Twitter, celebrating his success in getting the page removed and flinging transphobic insults at the person under question. The given account is (Redacted), and here's an example of the content: (Redacted). The editor seems to be putting in a large number of AfD requests due to his personal grudges, which really doesn't seem okay. This appears to be a history of the person's online behaviour going back a number of years: (Redacted) (this is obviously a biased source, but it comes with copious amounts of screenshots and archive links, which seem to affirm the points the post is making). Ashela (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed a number of links to outside sources that violate WP:OUTING, and the general tone of this comment borders on WP:NPA/WP:HARASSMENT. Under no circumstances should you add any of those links again. ST47 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Well done Ashela, that's also WP:OUTING. ——SN54129 17:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah these things should be emailed to ARBCOM.... not discussed here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I declined a CSD on the re-created article yesterday because the original deleting admin had consented to re-creation and a new AfD. I wasn't aware of the disturbing aspects discussed above, although Sk8erprince seems a bit overly invested in the deletion discussions, nor do I have an opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This does help clear the air a bit regarding the admin actions, I apologize for not knowing in advance. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The article was not salted and as such it has been recreated. Now we have improvements in the article and a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Not sure I would ascribe sinister motives to the recreation. Lightburst (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I still think this should have gone through WP:DRV to avoid this chaos. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The only sinister motives I’d say exist lie with the nominator, but I’ve since emailed ARBCOM about that as per the generally-agreed-upon action to take. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. The nominator has been indeffed twice. And was just at ANI last week with WP:TENDENTIOUS disruptive complaints. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The nominator had also been topic banned from deletion discussions in the past which might need to be reinstated if he isn't indeffed again. I admit that these developments are quite disturbing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sweet JEEEESUS he’s a piece of work. He’s also been caught sockpuppeting twice, and if I recall from the archives, Knowledge suggested a de-facto ban due to these evasions. To think this absolute messcould’ve all been avoided if they took your advice.
  Half-jokes aside, good lord this guy is just. Something else entirely. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Above editor just got blocked. Seemed extreme but what do I know. Lightburst (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think we should avoid such drama-laden phrases such as "sinister motives"; this is Wikipedia, not a Sax Rhomer. A more important aspect would seem to be the unilateral overturning of consensus. ——SN54129 18:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I know a few editors that are upset that this didn't go to WP:DRV like a normal process would. Two admin can not just overturn a decided consensus even if one of them closed the discussion in the first place. Revisiting a deletion's close is on WP:DRV, its why its there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• ...is it on DRV? Cos...I don’t see it on DRV. :V DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It never made it onto DRV. It was never deleted either or shown how it was restored. It's only now that I put in the oldcsd decline. It's extremely frustrating. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If that is true then the AfD needs to be procedurally deleted. IAR does not apply to consensus; process, as they say, can be important. ——SN54129 18:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• @AngusWOOF: I am unsure why you are so incensed by this process. You are dropping F bombs on the AfD and generally going crazy. An article can have four separate AfDs to get it deleteted. Seems reasonable that someone can recreate the article. Additionally, it is bad form to diminish the article as you have been doing. And slapping templates, and speedy deletes. Relax. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst, given that it's likely to stay now, I'm now just trying to get it into shape, fixing things like release date (2019 for NGE not 1997; Casey wasn't around to voice the original released dub, see [137]). I think it should still have the notability template until the second articles are put in, but it doesn't require a call for deletion, especially if the person is slated to have more major roles soon to easily meet WP:ENT. So I have edited my comments on that AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this relevant at all? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk8erPrince/Archive Dream Focus 18:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In a nutshell.... no, but it does say Sk8erPrince has used up all of his "2nd" chances. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Dream Focus: I think the socking is relevant. And so is the previous topic ban, and the repeated AfD's on VAs and the hit list of AfDs on the editor's user page are all relevant. All of it says the editor is WP:DISRUPTIVE. The editor's hit list is from 2017 because the editor has largely been blocked since that time. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't undertsand these comments that the decision on deletion should have gone through deletion review. That very process says to discuss the matter with the closing admin first and to try to resolve it that way. Indeed, many discussions there include questions as to why the matter wasn't discussed with the closing admin first. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That clearly does not mean that that admin can unilaterally overturn consensus though does it? No, no it does not. ——SN54129 18:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It means that the closing admin can reconsider whether consensus was assessed correctly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Phil Bridger: Agree. Seems like I have encountered many admins who have acted similarly. If an article deserves to stay it will be reaffirmed here. And if it is not worthy it will be deleted. Seems like that is the aim of AfD. Lightburst (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Lightburst, this should have then been explained by the restoring admin on the article's talk page. That would be appreciated. Then there wouldn't need to be all those Deletion contested messages flying all over the place. I hope this can be done. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I tried to organize the talk page "Contested deletion" topics. Hope that's okay. If an admin can spot check that I'm not trashing the context, please help. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems that there are several issues arising from this discussion. One is whether the article in question should have been handled in this way, a second concerns the claims of outing, and a third is whether Sk8erPrince should be editing on Wikipedia. As far as the third issue is concerned I am shocked that anyone would have considered that the editor responsible for this could ever have been unblocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Shall we discuss a community indef block/ban here, or leave it up to ARBCOM? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know what recent on-site issues I've been having, other than being warned to not out someone by Tony Ballioni the other day. Didn't someone already send Arbcom some stuff? Maybe let them handle it, if a case is truly warranted. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Being upset you failed as a voice actor, insulting people on your Twitter account and then trying to delete the articles of people you don't like, as well as trying to delete as many articles as possible for other voice actors do to possible jealously issues, seems a reason to stop you from sending voice actor articles to AFD constantly. The fact you were warned and sanctioned multiple times in the past for this exact same thing makes it likely someone will look into this. Dream Focus 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I've cited guidelines as valid reasons for deletion. Several articles that I nommed actually do end up getting deleted via protocol. A lot of your claims seems to be based on personal assumptions, with no evidence to back it up. I'm asking what recent on-site issues I have. Off-site issues seem to be irrelevant. I may have had sanctions and was even blocked before, but that's all in the past and all the restrictions have been successfully appealed. So.... do you have anything else to add, that actually has to do with my *recent* on-site conduct? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In terms of recent on-site conduct, it's only about 40 hours since your previous ANI case closed, where you were advised to listen to the feedback in other editors. During that discussion you made false accusation, exaggerations and WP:BITE a very new and inexperienced EFL editor, violating AGF, with too much WP:BLUD. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

First off, *I* initiated that ANI report. Secondly, there had been several attempts made at communication through warnings. JesseRafe and Bonadea both tried to communicate with the Korean user in question (Seo). Did we get a single response? None. Zero. Nil. Imagine editing Wikipedia, *completely* ignoring other users when they voice their concerns. That's WP:IDHT. You accuse me of "biting" the user in question even though other users have clearly highlighted that Seo has their own issues, that, if not addressed, is perceived as persistent disruptive editing. AGF is one thing, but it cannot possibly be extended to users that make absolutely *zero* attempt to communicate. I hope I've made my point very clear. Being new does not excuse a complete lack of communication. Just look at their talkpage - can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me that we *haven't* tried to sort things diplomatically before reporting to ANI? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you initiated that ANI report - which was entirely unnecessary and contained false accusations. You asked for examples of your recent onsite issues - this is an example of issues - and you were chastened for your actions by the closing admin. You don't need to re-litigate it - whether action should have been taken or not against User:서덕민 is not relevant in this dicussion. Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hilarious how you think "advising" someone is the same as "chastising" them. To quote Roem: As a side note, I advise the filer to avoid bludgeoning in future discussions and genuinely listen to the feedback of the other editors here. Doubly hilarious that you think that IDHT behavior does not need to be addressed when we've already tried to initiate conversation, but to no avail. Not to mention you use lame excuses like "they're new" and "undoubtedly editing in good faith" to defend them to hell. I'm absolutely done with how completely in denial you are. Give yourself a pat in the back for defending a mute user, why don't you? I'm so totally the bully for falsely accusing them for their blatant incompetence. But you're right - this report is about the Mongillo article as well as my "conduct" issues, so let's not derail it. You know what? I'm just so done. I just love how it's suddenly my fault when an admin doesn't follow standard protocol, and I am faulted for non-existent conduct issues. Just wow. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Nfitz: Full disclosure I also reported this editor to ANI last month and apparently my flawed report was dismissed out of hand. The question about whether the editor is disruptive has been answered over and over, through, blocks, topic bans, ANI warnings, AfD behavior etc. And yes the ANI I filed was regarding the AfD of another voice actor article. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Ooooh, where do I even begin with you? You seem to have a problem with me no matter what I do. What did I ever do to you? I can't remember a single instance where I was particularly rude towards you; not a single instance was even remotely near a personal attack. If I try to disagree respectfully, you accuse me of "bludgeoning". I bet if I had elected not to respond, you'd accuse me of "IDHT". There's just no winning when it comes to you, Lightshot. Just admit that your ANI report was primarily made to discredit the Delete camp (as well as me, the nominator) on the 3rd and final AFD of Ryan O'Donohue. It's like you're not even confident that the Keep camp would emerge victorious in the end without having to resort to such low blow tactics. As a matter of fact, your side *did* win. I gracefully conceded, since that's how it is with AFDs - discussions could go either way, and the result may not match with your stance.

Your so called report was, to put it bluntly, an utter joke. The timeline was all wrong, you did not verify whether or not my Tban was lifted, you made zero effort to try and communicate with me on my talkpage over any potential issues first. Honestly, I think you're salty that your lame proposal barely had any support, because I bet you'd be over the moon if my Tban was reinstated. I am really fed up with the way you've been treating me, so pardon my harsh tone. I did nothing to deserve this. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

My only concern is the project. But you are melting down. You have been tendentious and bludgeoning, that is the opinion of many. Now you are thrwoing around terms like Korean Fetish below. My ANI report was made to protect the project. And it got you to leave that particular AfD so that it could proceed without your interference. I suggest you start taking the advice of the many for the sake of the project. Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That is utterly laughable. "Protect the project"? You just wanted to pressure me into exiting that AFD; I would have stopped responding *regardless* of your F- report. Your report is exactly just that - utter rubbish. It was poorly pieced together, which was exactly why there was no consenus for it. Simple. As. That. Apparently, simply submitting counterarguments is the same as disruption. Brilliant. Nice logic. Give yourself a gold star. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Why do all of your problems continue to be AfD related? In light of everything that has happened in the last 40 hours maybe you should be topic banned from the process again. There has been little change regarding newcomers and the AfD problems since this revision: [138]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• the editor Topic banned twice I think we should propose another here. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be opposed to it, but want to wait for more editor input first. I do know that ANI isn't a place you want to be, if Sk8erPrince has been here numerous times then it will raise eyebrows eventually. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• What we really should have is a tban on entertainment related articles, for Prince until this is straightened out. We clearly can’t allow some one with editing for pernicious reasons. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't get why people keep insisting that my AFD behavior is problematic. I did not insult any of the participants, for starters. That's a very significant improvement compared to my past AFDs, where I was Tbanned twice for behaviorial problems and lack of civility. Contrary to what some of you may think, I am perfectly capable of adapting and learning from my mistakes. And I would like to believe that my conduct is generally okay on-site ever since all my restrictions have been lifted. Secondly, every time I start an AFD, I cite valid notability guidelines in my arguments. I would debate with the Keep camp respectfully. Nothing wrong with that. If you believe that I am nominating articles with "pernicious reasons", and it has to do with my off-site behavior, then why don't you let Arbcom handle it? None of you are allowed to out me on site, after all. Please, if there are any *recent* instances where I insulted Keep camp participants in my AFDs, I would like you to show us the diffs.

As a side note, the restoration of the Mongillo article was handled poorly, as Knowledge mentioned. I nommed the article for AFD2 in an attempt to get that mess sorted out. The 2nd AFD page looks quite messy as well, ranging from some users simply voting, while others criticized how Roem simply restored the article with barely any improvements and pretty much the same sources as opposed to getting it DRVed, and some of them even tried to suggest that the AFD was made with malicious intentions in mind. You can try to discredit me all you want, but it would not deter the new AFD at all. I would like Jo-Jo Eumerus's input on this, as he was the closing admin of the first AFD.

Anyway, I am tired of people always trying to pin the blame on me whenever things either don't go their way, or when I am somehow involved with those debacles. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Sk8erPrince I'm afraid the cat is out of the bag regarding your off Wiki conduct. Every AfD regarding LGBQ voice actors and actresses is going to be a focal point of discussion as a result of the bias. As for your on Wiki conduct, it has been pointed out above that you are at ANI regarding these AfDs, and still are bitey when it comes to newcomers. Now tell me... based on the information provided what would an uninvolved editor think? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I deny that I was "bitey" towards new users. Show me diffs where I was "bitey", or else that's an empty claim. Communication is vital regardless if you're a new user or an old user. No user is exempt from that. I am appalled that an IDHT new user (Seo) is being defended so much to the point where it looks as though I bullied them. That is unfair to me, because I expected them to respond to warnings, which they did not do.

As for being on ANI for AFDs, honestly, Lightburst's so called report was a low blow. Just because you present a case on ANI, that doesn't mean it necessarily has any kind of substance nor validity. So to answer your question: What are uninvolved editors going to think? It's anyone's guess.

Off-site conduct can be reviewed by Arbcom; they've been mentioned multiple times in this report, and some users seem to have already taken action regading that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Do your really need diffs about you being bitey after the recent completed ANI thread above, where more than one user pointed out you were bitey. Here's a diff showing you biting. If making false accusation and warnings about trolling and vandalism isn't WP:BITE I don't know what is! Note in that discussion other users pointed out a history of making false accusations about vandalism. If after that discussion, you can claim hours later that you need diffs to show that you bite, then there's are WP:IDHT issues. Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, spare me. Take your Korean fetish elsewhere. I'm sick of it. Really, I am. I am tired of how I'm being faulted even when I try to be logical with valid reasoning. False accusations, false accusations; that's the only damn thing that seems to come out of your mouth. I'm done. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Nfitz's reply, you accusing them of having a "Korean fetish" isn't going to help your case though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm really, really, really fed up with all of this. When I try my best to act civil, I get accused of making "false accusations" and bullying, even with logic and *evidence* to support my claims. I guess some users would deliberately look the other way no matter what, even when *facts* are being presented. Also, Roem didn't even follow protocol for restoring the Mongillo article (which you agree on), and now he set up a proposal to get me Tbanned for simply responding and off site "conduct issues" that are beyond the scope of ANI. Simply outstanding! --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

In the the previous discussion you'd make accusations of vandalisms. I asked for diffs, and none were provided. You made accusations of trolling, I asked for diffs, and none were provided. You called contributions "complete nonsense", I asked for diffs, and what you provided were understandable, but poor English; one diff relating to etymology was a widely-held misapprehension - nonsense perhaps, but not "complete nonsense". There was no evidence to support your claims - which were WP:BITE. Nfitz (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I've been out during the day, so I've unfortunately only been able to see all that's transpired in the last 12 hours. To answer the initial concerns raised here, my request to Jo-Jo, and subsequent restoring of the article, were only due to the course outlined on the DRV page, which asks appealing editors to first go to the closing admin. It was certainly not my intention to cause any confusion in that sense; I took Jo-Jo's statement as functionally saying there was no consensus with the first AfD, and to see if it's tagged again in the future. This all said - I think the more concerning issues are those flagged by folks above regarding Sk8erPrince's conduct, especially as it relates to AfD. Whatever your thoughts on the Casey Mongillo article, I feel that's a more pressing concern for the state of these pages. I will be proposing a re-imposition of the topic ban, or a block, in a new section below. If there's any other questions regarding the restoring of the page though, please don't hesitate to ping me. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Historically, that line at DRV's been aimed mostly at speedy deletions, and only at technical problems when applied to deletion discussions (of the "Hey, you closed this AFD as 'keep' and deleted the article anyway" and "Ahem. Did you notice that the only person advocating deletion !voted fourteen times?" variety) - the specific wording at DRV is "mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding". There's precedent for a closing admin to reopen and relist a discussion on their own authority very shortly after a close, though it's rare; reversing oneself without comment on content grounds, nearly a week after closing a well-attended AFD, is unheard-of. —Cryptic 02:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • That's totally fair. I think the wording can be tightened up there to avoid that misunderstanding going forward. As mentioned, I took Jo-Jo's green light as accepting there had been no consensus in the first AfD, but I do agree it would've been better for a more definitive statement, or pushing this to DRV in the first instance. Edit: To add, I think the sense here is DRV is the route to go, and any messiness as a result of the untimely restore I apologize for. I'm not sure where that leaves the AfD as it currently stands, as there doesn't appear to be any current consensus on what to do with the article.Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sk8erPrince will, you be willing voluntarily Tban yourself from all voice acting related articles until ARBCOM comments? —AdamF in MO (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I could refrain from participating in any AFDs until Arbcom comments, yes. The violation of which would result in an immediate sanction. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I might've missed an example in the past few years, but I haven't seen ArbCom sanction a user purely based off off-site content. I know there's been cases regarding those kinds of issues, but--to memory--they've usually been handled more formally. Could very well be wrong there, it has been awhile since I was a clerk. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify my actions on this page a bit, Lord Roem did state that a source (TV Guide) which was mentioned but not explicitly discussed in detail during the prior AFD satisfied SIGCOV criteria. Had this argument been made in the AFD it may have changed the outcome of the discussion from "consensus to delete" to "no consensus", emphasis on "may" however. Thus their argument was IMO not sufficient to overturn the previous AFD wholesale, merely good enough to have another discussion either at deletion review or "restore it and see if someone else re-AFD's". They did say that they didn't want to go to deletion review, so it became the latter. In retrospect, I believe either a relist or a second AFD immediately would have been better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• That makes sense Jo-Jo Eumerus. Question, do you think you will also close the 2nd AfD, or will you leave to another? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I am reticent at closing more than one AFD on the same topic and given the controversy - and DRV-like nature of this second AFD - it probably wouldn't be appropriate in this case anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Fair point, and thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Sk8erPrince

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

---

It's been proposed above that Sk8erPrince be subject to a topic ban related to either entertainment or voice actor-related pages, but I think a look at AfD suggests re-imposing the deletion topic ban is better tailored. I'm setting this separate section to divide that conversation from the discussion of the AfD itself above. For context, an AfD-related topic ban which had been previously imposed by the community was lifted in September after the editor promised a change in behavior. Since then, there are examples of tendentious behavior, with the editor appearing to still view AfD as some kind of fight, with winners and losers: "I'm ready for round 2" "As a matter of fact, your side *did* win." This was precisely one of the issues the editor argued he had grown out of, mentioning at the start of his appeal in September that his old achievement board of deleted articles was old behavior he wouldn't repeat.

This, taken together with a tendency for uncivil behavior throughout their recent months of editing with needlessly rough edit summaries or comments, makes me feel another break from the AfD scene would be best for all involved.

These diffs were what I've just found in the last few minutes, but I'd like to hear thoughts from others. To be precise, I'm proposing reinstating the AfD/deletion topic ban. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Prince agreed to it above. So I think we have a tban in deletion related discussions in the can, so to speak. FWIW, I hope this isn’t what it seems and we can all return to making an encyclopedia. —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - You're basically proposing to reinstate the indefinite Tban because you used your admin tools to undelete an article which was fairly deleted using the AFD process, with literally *zero* consensus to overturn the result, because it wasn't done at DRV. Yes, discussing the issue with Jojo was a-okay, but the undeletion was out of order, as noted by some users above. My behavior wasn't at all saintly, but I was trying to clean up the mess you've created as a result of the misuse of your tools; so did AngusWOOF. If you disagree with the results, then you should have sent it to DRV. I tried to speedy delete the article with G4, since it was practically identical to the deleted revision, but to no avail. So did Angus. As such, I figured that my next option would be to renominate the article for deletion, to at least get something happening, because I am dissatisfied with how the article was recreated without a new consensus.

What even is the point of recreating the article with barely any new content? The same sources and roles are being analyzed again, and it's ridiculous. We already did that the first time around. And there are proper procedures in overturning a consensus, but you decided not to do that. Now you're suddenly suggesting that it's my fault that the article is being renommed for deletion. Incredible. Look, I don't mind staying off of AFDs for the time being, until this discussion ends, but think of how utterly outrageous this proposal is. Nothing would have happened if you had simply followed protocol and worked on making the article stronger and less susceptible to AFDs in your own sandbox. And to think that this done by all an admin, whose last known activity was *last month* (Oct 18) before resurfacing to "rescue" Mongillo's article. I don't know what else to say. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support This will be the third time for a topic ban. My momma said, "You choose the behavior you choose the consequence." The AfDs need a break and the editor has shown that he cannot stop. Lord Roem has done a great job of articulating the reasons why this is appropriate. I only hope the editor can learn to operate on the project without the disruptions. They have been serious disruptions. Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the bare minimum required and I would be inclined to support a more severe sanction. In the entire discussion above, Sk8erPrince is repeatedly displaying textbook examples of battleground mentality, with constant simmering hostility, and constant comments about "your side" and "winning". The promises of improved behavior issued a few months ago ring hollow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems a bit unbecoming to judge an editor based on their reaction to the repeated and unapologetic outing and other harassment by a clique of editors who showed up to !vote en masse and deliberately baited him until he displayed "battleground behaviour". If I had filed a good-faith ANI report on an editor who was posting nonsense in our articles, and was shot down by a group of editors who had clearly followed me from a recent unrelated discussion, I too would probably be a bit annoyed. (This edit would never have been made if the editor had been TBANned or the discussion of TBANning them had even been given a fair hearing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - the on and off wiki conduct has convinced me that regretfully Sk8erPrince just shouldn't edit the area of AfD's. The topic ban would be "AfD discussions broadly constructed", meaning participating in, and initiating. An exception for participation can be made for articles that Prince has created for rationale explanation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support self imposed topic ban until ARBCOM can weigh in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see any current basis for a TBAN or site ban or any sort of ban. The comments throughout this thread about the fact that the editor was previously blocked or previously TBANned are not a basis for a TBAN now if there has been no new misconduct. Opening this second AfD after the previous one was closed as delete and then overturned by the closing admin is not misconduct. Maybe it should have been a DRV, but we don't ban users from AfD for using the wrong venue. It's a little alarming that so many SPAs have been pushing this thread in this direction, with their references to "off-wiki conduct" and worse, out of an apparent attempt to harass and silence an editor they disagree with. I'm not prepared to support any topic ban at this time. ST47 (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:SPA is a pretty heavy thing to say about other editors here without providing evidence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• To be clear, I'm not saying the editor should have a TBAN because they opened the AfD, but rather due to their tendentious and battleground behavior at AfD in general, and their behavior since the ban was lifted, a few examples of which are listed above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ST47 You missed the off wiki disturbing behavior, the fact that Sk8erprice has twice agreed to the Tban above, and use of the slur Korean Fetish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightburst (talk • contribs)

Slur User:Lightburst? It was aimed at me, but I don't know what it means - how is it a slur, it seemed innocuous - though a little odd, as I don't particularly edit Korean or anime articles. Are you suggesting that Sk8erPrince is racist against Koreans, and that this is a racist slur because the new user that they were biting may be Korean? Or is there something else going on, that I'm unaware of? Further up, and editor implied that Sk8erPrince was transphobic - is there diffs for this? Sk8erPrince - are you transphobic? Can you explain what that comment about transphobic comments is about? And what "Korean Fetish" means? Nfitz (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess what Lightburst means is that I made a personal attack against you through the usage of "Korean fetish". I made it on impulse, because I've really had it with how you described me as having hurled "false accusations" at Seo. As for "transphobia", in the absence of on site evidence, I choose to remain silent on the matter. If you think I'm transphobic, then provide diffs and prove it. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

But what does "Korean fetish" mean? There's something here I'm not grasping (out of my own ignorance) - you did hurl false accusations at that user - you are yet to provide a single diff to support your claims of "vandalism" or "trolling", and your claims of "complete nonsense" amounted to "poor grammar". As for the transphobia - I'm really not sure what to say about a tactic admission of being transphobic, in a discussion about an AFD about a trans actor. My gut reaction would be permanently ban those who act out of bigotry and prejudice - but I've never really seen this before; what does Wikipedia policy say about this ... after all, anyone can edit. Nfitz (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for Sk8erPrince, but I would personally such a comment as implying you had an extreme level of interest in Korean culture or Korean people. Something like a Koreaboo but maybe less extreme [139] [140]. (To be clear, I've never heard the term Koreaboo until I just found it.) You generally get this more with Japanese culture and people in the West [141], still I think it's happening more with Korean culture and people especially with the rise of K-pop and the like. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If I edited Korean articles significantly (or even at all), then perhaps that would make sense. But I can't remember ever editing one! That comment comes around simply because I was involved in Sk8erPrince's ANI complaint against an editor who may be Korean! I don't see what warrants this personal attack! Nfitz (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose- if Sk8erPrince is going to voluntarily stay clear there's no sense in official proceedings. I considered supporting because of the "Korean fetish" thing but since the target didn't see it as a personal attack I'm not going to call it one. As for the transphobia allegations, either provide diffs and let arbcom handle the matter- or drop it. Reyk roaming (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I do consider User:Reyk roaming it a personal attack. Initially it seemed innocuous, but Sk8erPrince did then confirm that it WAS a personal attack - and surprisingly didn't even try and apologize. Nfitz (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Independent of the actual AfD recreation process here, which seems to be getting muddled into the discussion, there's clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here with the more-than-occasional impulsive personal attack. This is just disruptive in general. I don't see how the civility issues have really improved since the incivility block and the "one final chance", so an indef honestly seems warranted as well. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now Primarily per ST47. The argument that battleground behaviour at AFD in general should merit a TBAN would be fairly compelling, except that several of the editors coming after Sk8erPrince in this case themselves appear to be guilty of the same, and giving them what they want is likely to make the problem worse, not better; I have also seen very little evidence that the "Korean fetish" and other such remarks were not the result of frustration at this ANI thread itself and the conduct of other users therein, and suspect that said may have been deliberate baiting. Encouraging such behaviour would be disastrous for the encyclopedia. Additionally, per NYB's comment at the top of the thread, the Casey Mongillo article was apparently recreated with the assumption that renomination at AFD was the proper procedure. (the original deleting admin had consented to re-creation and a new AfD -- note also that JJE's last words on the matter appear to be here.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, I think it was highly inappropriate for Lord Roem to close this discussion, essentially casting a super-!vote against an editor he was in a dispute with. Anyone who speaks Japanese can see that this edit was clearly disruptive and, yes, complete nonsense. A 3-1 majority, of whom at least two are clearly ignorant of the content and pushing an agenda against a particular user (one even admitted to not having understood the content before claiming it wasn't nonsense), is not justification for speedy-closing a community ban discussion after only 60 hours, especially not by an involved admin who is also involved in a dispute with the OP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that, User:Hijiri88 is a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of what I said! The content was referred to by Sk8erPrince as complete nonsense. I responded that while Ari doesn't mean "ant", the edit is not complete nonsense. I was not ignorant of the content, and acknowledged that at the time! The edit added information that the name existed in both Japanese and Korean, but got the Japanese meaning wrong; Sk8erPrince was significantly exaggerating. Nfitz (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that a girl's name comes from the word for "ant" is pretty much complete nonsense. Whatever it was that caused the editor who said to be subsequently blocked doesn't change that fact. I think you should keep an eye on that editor's edits going forward -- I certainly intend to -- to make sure no further disruption takes place. Also, claiming you "acknowledged" that your were "not ignorant of the content" is a weird turn of phrase; did you mean to say you were ignorant of the content? Anyway, feel free to not answer that; I had already posted twice that I thought it was time this thread was closed before you posted the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support I find it odd we can't link to his official Twitter account and point out what he has said to prove a battleground mentality, or personal grudge as some have called it. You have someone who is a less successful voice actor, who insults others on Twitter, and is clearly determined to delete as many voice actor articles as possible. Since past sanctions resulted in him simply sockpuppeting at least two accounts to get around them so he could keep doing what he was doing, and he simply refuses to change no matter how many times he is called out to do so, support permanent topic can on anything related to voice actors. If you haven't read what was said at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk8erPrince/Archive please look over it, he having a long history of this behavior. Dream Focus 10:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Didn't know past sockpuppetry matters when I ceased to sock ever since I got unblocked. And Twitter conduct has everything to do with my standing here, how? If you can't provide evidence that I have on site conduct issues, then don't say anything. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Your previous conduct can matter in helping us decide what action, if any, to take over your current conduct. If you've had related problems, it's quite reasonable for us to consider they demonstrate that we shouldn't give you much of a chance since you're not going to improve. For the reasons outlined below, I'm not going to look into this so it could be completely wrong, but my memory is your previous topic ban came about in part because of your socking, as you were using socks to submit or comment at AfDs. I think you may have disputed precisely why you decided to sock, but IIRC you did not dispute you were a problem at AfDs. If the community feels that only about 1.5 years ago you were so desperate to participate in AfDs to the extent you socked to be able to do so, and only about 2-3 months after the topic ban was lifted your behaviour at AfDs is causing major problems again, they may very well decide to re-impose the topic ban based on the sum total of evidence including the previous sockpuppetry. I do agree the Twitter stuff is not something we can consider at ANI for OUTING reasons so arbcom is the only one who can impose sanction over it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Dream Focus: official Twitter account I don't see a twitter account linked from Sk8erPrince's userpage, see WP:OUTING, and any real or imaginary twitter account has nothing to do with this discussion, see WP:OWH. failed voice actor is a personal attack which I would urge you to withdraw. ST47 (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Site Ban Redacted As a result of the section below. Subsequent replies might not make much sense now. I suggest readers consider the concerns of the article subject as suggested by Sk8erPrince. —AdamF in MO (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC). _{Comment edited —AdamF in MO (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)}

  @Adamfinmo: failed voice actor is a personal attack which I would urge you to withdraw. ST47 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  (comment redacted at community’s request) —AdamF in MO (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)_{edited —AdamF in MO (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)}

  Adamfinmo, what they're doing off-wiki isn't terribly relevant unless you're accusing them of engaging in off-wiki harassment. Either way, "failed voice actor" is indeed a personal attack. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  They are harassing the subject of the article in this deletion discussion. I struck the “personal attack”, even though I still stand by it. Cheers. —AdamF in MO (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Creffett:, maybe you didn't mean to suggest this but I disagree that off-wiki harassment is the only element of someone's off-wiki actions that can be considered. If someone has given indication that their actions here are being carried out for the wrong reasons and not to improve wikipedia, or they have a view of what improves wikipedia that contradicts our policies and guidelines and are seeking to impose it not by changing those policies or guidelines but by ignoring them, then in some circumstances it may be appropriate to stop them being able to do such actions. I don't see why it matters that these were only expressed off-wiki. I appreciate this can be complicated since editors may have reasonable differences on interpretation of our policies and guidelines. And since they are meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive, to some extent they can change simply by practice. Also, since editor's are perfectly entitled to their own views and to express them where appropriate, we have to take care that there is sufficient evidence the editor's actions here, whether because they are inappropriately influenced by their views or whatever, are the problem and not simply their views. Plenty of editors can and do have differing views, but still respect how our community operates and act accordingly. Of course, the community cannot consider such issues if the comments are not publicly linked by the editor concerned, only arbcom, hence this is largely moot. In addition, due consideration needs to be given whether it's genuinely the editor here, and whether those comments are serious or could have been misinterpreted but most of this arises with comments left here on wikipedia too. Still, I think we need to be clear it's not only off-wiki harassment that may be a concern in off-wiki conduct. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, yeah, perhaps I was overbroad in that statement. I agree that off-wiki actions are almost always going to be a case-by-case issue (since what they did, where they did it, etc. all will affect how relevant it is here). My general opinion (caveated with the fact that I've never actually been involved in any incidents which crossed the off/on wiki boundary) is that unless someone's off-wiki actions somehow have a clear and direct on-wiki impact, they shouldn't be brought up. So if you, say, found a social media page which indicated that an editor might have a strong bias, I'd say ignore, but if the social media page is inciting its followers to go vandalize the 2020 US elections page, then that crosses the boundary and needs to be dealt with. It is a difficult balance between privacy and protecting the wiki, and one that I probably should think some more on.

  In this case, however, I feel that "so-and-so is having a meltdown on Twitter" and "so-and-so is a failed voice actor, just google them" aren't clear enough problems to justify outing. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As per User talk:Sk8erPrince#ArbCom, it appears the Arbitration Committee is now looking at this situation, which is appropriate as off-wiki identifying information is apparently involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I will say that it was a smart move by @Adamfinmo: for suggesting a self imposed topic ban until ARBCOM could weigh in on the matter, and thank him/her for their efforts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

SP, has some serious editing flaws and I stand by my ivotes above because they are what’s best for the project. He is under some serious stress right now. I’m glad he took a moment to step back and lighten up a bit. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair outcome, and it is in the right hands now; time to close this ANI and return to getting to the right result at AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban - seems pretty clear that after the two previous topic bans, this user has returned to their same ways, and are exhibiting battleground behaviour in AFDs - or pretty much anytime they disagree with anyone about anything. I'd support further action if there was a clear proposal. There's no clear indication that Arbcom is looking at this user's behaviour, other issues -and no open case that I can see. No reason not to take action at this time. A voluntary commitment might make sense if they were co-operative and hadn't already been sanctioned twice for this issue - with the previous topic ban being lifted only weeks ago! Nfitz (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment there may be merit for a re-imposition of the topic ban based on available evidence but frankly I can't be bothered looking in to it. Maybe others don't feel the same but I wonder if it might be better to put this aside for now since my feeling from the crumbs I've read here is there is likely to be compelling reason for arbcom to at a minimum, re-impose the topic based on private evidence. About the voluntarily stepping away bit, I remember Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions. Is User:Sk8erPrince agreeing to a restriction which will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary? If so then this may be enough to allay the communities concerns. If not, then the main benefit would be if it's enough to allay those who feel we can't wait for arbcom. A community sanction will still be stronger since I think while a voluntary topic ban can be enforceable it doesn't need to be appealed to the community per se. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  It was slightly confusing in this long thread, but I found the voluntary proposal here [142]. Since it's explicitly only until arbcom comments, it supports my view the voluntary agreement is only useful in supporting us waiting to see if arbcom decides to take any action before we discuss any community sanction if people still feel there's a need, rather than in lieu of a community sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Update Now indeffed by Arbcom. spryde | talk 14:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Adamfinmo and WP:OUTING

Is it just me or does the comment All one needs to do is google search this user’s name and and you can see for yourself directed at Sk8erPrince very obviously violate the "opposition research" clause of WP:OUTING? It's pretty normal for editors who have admitted to engaging in this kind of behaviour to be blocked on site, but in the above section Adam doubled down on it twice. Whether or not his claims about what Sk8erPrince said off-wiki are "true" seems frankly irrelevant -- "failed voice actor" is not an objectively verifiable fact, and someone's saying it about themselves in a self-deprecating, self-pitying, ironic, or even sincere fashion would not justification for slinging it back at them in an aggressive manner, even if S8P had said as much on English Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, they should redact it entirely and refrain from repeats in the future. It's simply not appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Telling people to do an internet search, even an obvious one crosses the OUTING line. We might as well allow links to the results if people are allowed to do that. I also have no objections to removing this subsection once the concerns have been dealt with. Also when I first visited this thread I was confused why 2 different editors said the same thing. I'm still confused, but if's because of something the editor said off-wiki which hasn't been linked to by them, saying it is clearly inappropriate. (As for what to do if the editor had said it here, that's more complicated. It would be inappropriate for someone to just sling it back as an insult. But IMO there could be circumstances when it may be relevant to the discussion and can be brought up in an appropriate way.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I brought up the hypothetical of "if they had said it on-wiki" because while it would be difficult to determine the appropriateness of slinging a self-deprecating or self-pitying remark back at someone (due to the fact that we can't necessarily tell what the original intent was), it's even more difficult when we don't actually have their exact words and can't retrieve them without violating Wikipedia policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear that editors are mostly entitled to do what they want outside wikipedia provided it doesn't affect us here. If editor's want to read what some editor did elsewhere, that's their choice and none of our business. It's most definitely not a violation of Wikipedia policy to do so. However they cannot bring what they found here, cannot encourage others to look into it, nor should they allow it to influence how they act here (within reason). In other words, keep it private and off-wiki. If editors harass some editor off-wiki, then that may be a concern. As I pointed out above, there are also other aspects of off-wiki conduct which may concern us. Also, since it's difficult to put aside what you know, editors do have to carefully whether it may influence their actions here despite their best efforts and how they will handle this, which may include not commenting about the editor, and especially not taking administrative action. Still it's ultimately their choice and simply reading what some editor has said elsewhere without bringing it here is no violation. Or to put it a different way, the key point is that we cannot discuss it here in any way, not the it's illegitimate for other editors to know about it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What’s my best course of action here friends? Should I refactor my comments to remove the offending words? Would it benefit anyone to provide a longer rationale for my actions? —AdamF in MO (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologize, promise never to do it again, maybe help argue against the numerous SPAs, one of whom is probably the one who created the obviously fake Twitter account in question, and restore rule of policy and community consensus... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I’d just like to ask for clarification on the assertion that the twitter account (since redacted) is “obviously fake”. I would argue against it here, but as I’ve since learned, using off-site information that isn’t tied to the user from the user’s page constitutes WP:OUTING. So...I can’t do that, I guess. All I can ask is if I can know where you’re coming from with this.
What I can do, however, is give my word that I will see to more active edits outside of this current case where I can. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into detail, but if you can't tell why I would say that by simply holding down the "PgDn" button for about ten seconds I will say that I've got some land I want to sell you...

BTW, would you mind clarifying what brought you here? You appear not to have edited Wikipedia in six years, and your user page, as rewritten two days ago, reads like a textbook "I'm not a sock/meatpuppet! Honest!"

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, best sell me that land, because holding down “PgDn” for six seconds took me to the bottom of the page. So outside of previous WP:OUTING incidents, specifics pointing toward the alleged fakeness of the Twitter account would be appreciated.

As for what brought me here, in essence, i was alerted to the user’s off-wiki activity off-wiki (and I take it that counts as WP:CAN, though I was not notified in my capacity as an editor; the decision to become involved was my own), but the user’s off-wiki activity has not helped his case IMO — though as I understand now, again, using it as evidence in such arguments counts as WP:OUTING. And my userpage was last updated, before I changed it now, basically when I made this account as a darn kid, and it was kinda embarrassing to have that present still. So, forgive me for trying to make my page a bit more respectable than an MS Paint drawing of dinosaur teeth with the word “Rex” written, which was also a hyperlink to a subpage that was just kinda nonsense.

So, yeah. That’s that. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you notice how the reason it only took you six seconds to get the bottom of the page was that the account was apparently created two days ago? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, the twitter accounts. Off-wiki, Sk8 said he made the accounts in a means of basically doubling down — there is a LOT more than just wiki-related stuff on that twitter that points to validity. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo: (EC) Remove any mention of off-wiki issues or comments from your !vote and follow up comments. Especially remove any suggestion that editors should engage in off-wiki research. You should also consider carefully your !vote. If you cannot justify it solely from the evidence available on-wiki, then you need to change it to what you feel is justified by the evidence available on-wiki. If you have concerns about off-wiki conduct that is relevant but cannot be discussed due to outing, then bring it to arbcom although it sounds like one or more people have already do that so there's probably not much for you to add in this instance. Since others have replied, leave a note in a follow up explaining what you did and why to avoid confusion. In future, remember our outing policy and do not post any reference to off-wiki conduct unless it's been linked by the person themselves, and contact arbcom with off-wiki issues that concern you. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:I have refactored my comments. Please take a look and if there is a better way for them to appear I would certainly appreciate you fixing that for me. While I think, in this case the project is better served by ignoring outing, here, I get it, it’s not my call. If everyone evoked IAR on their own whims, this would be a sad place. Ultimate it’s not what I think right, it’s what I do. I choose to agree with the community that my actions were wrong, against consensus, ignored good principles like having good faith and charitable interactions. Thanks for your sane, cogent correction. —AdamF in MO (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo: IMO the manner you've redacted the info is sufficient. And we have adequate processes in place to deal with concerns over an editor that involve information not available on-wiki, as in fact this case seems to have demonstrated, so there's really no reason why outing should ever be required. IMO since you accept you made a mistake and have undertaken not to repeat it, that's sufficient. However you should be aware that outing is taken very seriously here, so do take care. It can lead to quick blocks. Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment:I just reported the OP Hijiri88 to ARBCOM last night for his own WP:OUTING behavior from yesterday. So it is quite WP:KETTLE on the OPs part. In addition the OP has a long history of outing others using one of many sock accounts. (Back then, Hijiri88 often edited under the sockpuppet account Coldman the Barbarian.) Here is a list of the OP's former sock accounts. I think this ANI should be closed. The editor could have been instructed without this drama. I will take this other matter up on the OP's talk page Lightburst (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Would you mind clarifying what the list of alt-accounts I used in 2013 to protect myself from JoshuSasori has to do with this? Is it just random smearing? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

LB, you edited under that username for months. I slipped and accidentally referred to you by the username I had used for you in 90% of our past interactions. The kind of false equivalency between that kind of slip and the multiple, deliberate references to "Sk8erPrince"'s supposed off-wiki is laughable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there some reason to disbelieve this isn't a genuine mistake as Hijiri 88 has said? If it's a name you used on wiki for a long time, it seems reasonable that the editor could have it on their mind and accidentally use it. It's fine to ask for it to be removed, but it seems unnecessary to make a big deal over it. If Hijiri 88 keeps referring to you by an old username when you've asked them not to, then I agree there's a problem but it doesn't sound like this is the case. The other stuff seems like very old history since from what I can tell, those accounts were last used in 2013 or earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• There is always drama, following and harassment with this OP. He is a long time editor who knows better. I have accused him of harassment twice on ANI for following. This very ANI and AfD is a follow because he is smarting over the fact they several involved editors !voted against him in two MfDs. IMO he simply cannot be on WP without causing drama and friction. Feigns ignorance when caught (seems to work well). I am out of here, and I would ask any appropriate administrator to scrub these comments in relation to my  Comment: post and Hijiri 88's talk page outing. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Harassment and outing are related but not the same thing. You accused Hijiri 88 of outing but from the description here, it sounds like it was probably a genuine mistake in referring to you by an old wikipedia user name and I don't see any evidence against this. I've been in my own disputes with Hijiri 88 and doesn't necessarily disagree with some of the other stuff, but this is not the place and probably not the time to discuss it. I'm not an admin so cannot comment on revdeletion, but if it matters to you, I'm not entirely sure why you're drawing everyone's attention to it when it remains undeleted. The general advice is to privately speak to an admin about it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would my understanding is that per the WP:RTV etc is that while you can rename yourself, ultimately old references to your username will remain assuming there are any. You are allowed to ask people to not to refer to your old username, and people should respect that. If someone does screw up, you can ask them to correct it and they should do so. But there's little point revdeleting something which is already in not only the edit history, but probably in extant pages. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure the arbitration committee is going to appreciate being called upon to participate in Lightburst's protracted pester campaign against Hijiri. Reyk _YO! 14:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW I think we're done here. Adamfinmo and others definitely violated policy, but given how secretive ArbCom is about this stuff, we'll probably never know if they were "justified". Sk8erPrince is effectively site-banned. I and others no doubt still believe the page should remain deleted pending consensus otherwise; the only thing that would change that would be a revelation from ArbCom that in fact Sk8erPrince was actually a sock of another site-banned editor before he opened the first AFD. But ANI really isn't the place to hash that stuff out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Time to close?

From what I can tell, the original concerns over the way the page was recreated after AfD have been adequately dealt with. The proposal for a topic ban of User:Sk8erPrince is not worth continuing given the arbcom indef block. The outing stuff, IMO with Adamfinmo's modifications have been sufficiently dealt with. The complaints about Hijiri88 are just weird. If anyone objects then we can keep whatever section needed open but otherwise, it's time to close. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It is all done, little more to be achieved here; let us get back to the AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You read my mind. I think there's a lot more that could be done with this thread even though S8P is likely gone for good, but I don't think anything good will be done with this thread. Might as well close. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Chuckstreet

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

---

Involved users:

Chuckstreet (talk · contribs) AnUnnamedUser (talk · contribs) Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs)

Involved pages:

Nocturnes (Debussy) List of compositions by Franz Liszt List of compositions by Maurice Ravel List of compositions by Claude Debussy List of compositions by Johannes Brahms

So this started yesterday when I found that Chuckstreet had added bold to level 2 headers, indented paragraphs, and made 3 lines between paragraphs. I decided to revert it because it was an WP:MOS violation. He shortly reverted the edit here, saying that because the MoS did not explicitly forbid it, it was justifiable. I found the talk page and found that he was already in a dispute about style. The dispute could not be resolved on the talk page, so I took it to the dispute resolution board. The request for resolution was closed because there was no compromise: either follow the MoS or don't. I had attempted to resolve the conflict on the talk page, but he decided to revert my comments on the talk page because they were "irrelevant."

In the lists of compositions articles, I removed bold from the lead because it did not bold the entire title, which means that there was an MOS:BEATLES violation. He called me a vandal, reverting the edits. See 1, 2, 3, and 4. Also see Chuckstreet's talk page for his lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy (in particular civility, MoS, and what vandalism is and is not) and various personal attacks.

Gerda Arendt is another user who attempted to communicate with Chuckstreet.

I would like this dispute to be resolved. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@AnUnnamedUser: Make sure you notify people when you post about them to AN/I, I have notified the users involved. CodeLyoko^talk 00:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Ignore me, I'm a big dumb. CodeLyoko^talk 01:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@CodeLyoko: see Chuckstreet's talk page, I did notify but he deleted my notice. He still calls me a vandal. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, My bad! My eyes must be going as I didn't see it in the page history! CodeLyoko^talk 01:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Reading what the user put on his talk page, this seems to me like a WP:OWN type of deal, as the MOS is very clear on section titles. It seems that Chuckstreet thinks that he does not have to follow the MOS and that anyone who edits the pages otherwise are wrong or vandals/disruptive editors.In any case, the pages should be the way that AnUnnamedUser put it, the MOS is pretty clear. CodeLyoko^talk 01:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Chuckstreet has kept up the personal attacks, so I've blocked him 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw the ANI notice late at night, and planned to ignore it. I replied on my talk before I saw the block, in case of interest. My view: Chuckstreet is a rather new editor who did incredibly good things such Debussy's works (now - before), a uniform sfn referencing for Clara Schumann, and major expansion of the Nocturnes (now - before). Chuckstreet and I were in peaceful conversations about the formatting, when AUU came in, reverted, went first to dispute resolution and then here, both prematurely. Where did AGF go? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am the DRN volunteer who closed the DRN request. It was filed by User:AnUnnamedUser and said that there was a formatting dispute. I asked what the dispute was, and was told that User:Chuckstreet wanted to bold the level 2 headings, to insert extra lines, and to indent paragraphs. They said that the basic issue was that User:Chuckstreet wanted to do formatting that was not described in the MOS, because it was not forbidden to do the extra formatting (e.g., bolding the level 2 headings). User:Theroadislong (not listed as a party above) disagreed with making exceptions to the MOS (that is, agreed with AAU and disagreed with Chuckstreet). I closed the DRN thread for two related reasons. First, my interpretation is that the MOS is meant to be the guide to formatting, not a starting point for formatting. Second, DRN is for content issues that can be resolved by compromise. This appeared to be a yes-no type of issue that cannot be resolved by compromise. (On content issues, if one user wants to insert a paragraph and one wants to exclude it, a compromise is to shorten the paragraph. A yes-no question is better decided by Third Opinion or Request for Comments.) I also said that one of the editors had been insulting other editors. I also cautioned User:Chuckstreet about referring to edits with which they disagreed (such as reverting their format changes) as vandalism, saying that if you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. I see no evidence that Genseric's followers have visited. Perhaps User:Gerda Arendt would have preferred that I be more diplomatic, or that I not mention in my close of the DRN thread that conduct disputes can go to WP:ANI. Perhaps Gerda can persuade Chuckstreet to accept consensus when he comes off block. That might be the best possible result. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I am ready to continue the discussion which was interrupted by noticeboard discussions and a block. Was a minor dispute about formatting headers the way that in former times was the normal way really worth it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Gerda Arendt - Thank you. Please be sure that he understands that he shouldn't refer to other editors as weirdos, or to editors with whom he disagrees in good faith as vandals. He should be unblocked by now. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hasn't edited, though. I hope we didn't manage to drive another content editor away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't really feel like responding in ANI here since I thought this whole thing unworthy, but I guess I do have to set the record straight. Everyone has misconstrued this whole situation and blown it out of proportion (maybe to justify it being in ANI in the first place, despite it's triviality and inurgency?) Firstly, NinjaRobotPirate's misguided 31 hour (why 31?) hasty block (for "still" attacking?? he had already gone and there was no one to attack) didn't even give me a chance to respond and defend myself and show you all that I'm not the perpetrator of harassment nor the rogue rejecter of the almighty MOS, but the victim of AUU's (I shall call him for short) harassment and the one (among others!) that was trying to (vainly because he doesn't want to listen) teach AUU what MOS really said (someone else not me explained to him it wasn't a MOS:BEATLES violation) and how his edits were violating MOS and other rules, including Disruptive Editing and how he was going against long-standing consensus (in the 4 "List of Compositions" articles).

My main bone of contention with him was a problem I see frequently on WP: failure to follow the D in BRD. Oh he's Bold all right, but when he gets Reverted, he thinks the D stands for Dispute (as in DRN) instead of Discuss (as in article Talk page). It's not a simple failure that could be corrected in his case, but a refusal. That along with his God Complex, or at the very least, police mentality, as if WP were a fascist dictatorship where any infraction of a rule would elicit a severe Punishment akin to death by execution by firing squad (ergo Block by ANI), where AUU proceeded to Lay Down The Law, in the form of his own personal rules he Required everyone to follow (see his response to the fake posting that looks like it was written by me with my signature username (I didn't write that, he took a post of mine from elsewhere, modified it and posted it himself in his own private (attempt at stalling and diverting another) thread, on the "Nocturnes (Debussy)" article Talk page (where it was and is so grossly out of place and off topic) - that severely violates another rule and is just evidence of further harassment of me), is what bugged me the most.

Bad enough that he singled me out for reasons I still can't figure, harassed me on my talk page, after making a mess of the Nocturnes page that I grew to realize was intentional (thus it could be termed vandalism), and several other pages I had recently edited (what a coincidence, huh?), by bragging that he'd Reverted me (false, he reverted himself and Gerda Arendt, back TO my last good edit, and then made a new edit himself on top of that, that included messy changes that had nothing to do with his MOS claims) for 2 MOS violations (neither of which was true or applicable). Then when I reverted him, politely telling him in the edit summary (a place he erroneously thinks is improper to have a conversation (ever hear of a Dummy Edit? (and no, that's not an insult, AUU, calm down and read the real WP rules))) that there were no MOS violations (on any of the 5 articles) and there was already a discussion going on in Talk and he was encouraged to join (Debussy Nocturnes), and that his changes actually violated 3 MOS rules (the 4 List of Composition articles), and also went against Consensus engendered by a consistency with 200+ other List of classical music composers' compositions articles, he then proceeded to instead vomit on the Nocturnes talk page, diverting the discussion (the actuality of which he ignored) into a ditch, and immediately ran crying to Daddy DRN, and when that didn't work, whining to Mommy ANI, a place (as it says at the top, everyone should refresh yourself and read it please) for URGENT matters and EMERGENCIES and INTRACTABLE user problems, not for petty disputes (which this wasn't even!)

I do find his DRN and especially ANI "complaints" further harassment of me. You have to look at the chronology to get the idea of what I see here; I guess it may not be obvious. Just keep in mind that his "complaints" were merely intentional misuse, designed to get at ME; he wasn't really Concerned about any of the issues he was bringing up (which on the ANI page here suspiciously changed twice again rapidly, throwing up on the proverbial wall here and hoping some of it would stick). My point is: he never had any intention of Discussing anything (having a Conversation, hey what an idea!), he was there only to disrupt and cause havoc and strife (not to mention a very active attempt at deplatforming me). And don't kid (no pun intended) yourself, he wasn't feeling "attacked", don't be naive now. Besides, I didn't attack him, did I not mention that yet? (I never actually called him a vandal anywhere; I tried to be diplomatic about it.)

How about a chronology now, or have I verbosely worn out my welcome? It'd help I think. Including my analyses and recommendations too. But first let me shed a veil or two. I'm not tied to a computer, online 24 hours a day; I have a life (Gerda wonders where I went: I've been too involved with WP and have been neglecting certain urgent matters, so I took a break until I couldn't stand the suspense anymore). I am 68 years old, an ex-concert pianist and composer, ex-filmmaker, and retired businessman (running a non-profit-turned-profit), currently living in Oregon in the United States. Ex the first because my hands are crippled due to a botched operation and complete lack of healthcare, ex the second because I lost my eyesight and ditto. I type with one good finger on a tiny keyboard, so I'm slow. I'm not completely blind, but getting there, and though I don't use a screen reader (but do use Siri), I am concerned with visual acuity on Wikipedia (which is why the "formatting" discussion on Debussy Nocturnes talk page, among other places). (MOS Accessibility is an important subset (read: exception?), I'll have you know.) Some people seem to think I'm a newbie on WP, but I've been editing it as long as it's existed, almost 20 years (I can still remember my first edit), and I've been in cyberspace since the late 1970s, and I can recognize that the biggest problem is flaming. A few (somewhat contradictory) adages would suffice here, however: You can't have too thick a skin, Preponderance is not correctness, and Don't argue with idiots, (thanks Raymond). There are plenty more, but I might begin to sound like his highness AutocraticUnctionUbiquity, so I'll shutup. I'm here on WP to contribute by hopefully imparting some of my knowledge and expertise in the pages I edit. As well as a sort of anal OCD-ness in making Lists of classical music composers' works, a holdover from my childhood where I did such things before some of the now-known catalogs were published. Bringing us once again back to AUU, who is clearly here not to contribute, but only to be a nuisance and police everybody and demand everybody (or just me?) follow the rules or wreak the wrath, and follow HIS rules, every one of which (see Talk:Nocturnes (Debussy) again) he violated himself in such a short time as the current "situation".

Chrono: oh I'm tired now. If anyone wants me to point out the correct sequence of events, as opposed to AUU's lies (3 blank lines in between paragraphs?? I don't think so, dude: there was only one, and that for necessary (for me anyway) readability) and feigned-ingenuously sophistical deception (I hope you'll know when you've really been attacked, it's a necessary part of life's defenses), ask me and I'll try to be succinct.

Suffice it to say, he started it, and I tried to (gently or not?) correct him and naively encourage him to opine in our discussion, only to have him joker my batman, and while I tried to ignore it, it was too late. To the lions, Heraclitus!

So what to do now? As soon as I was blocked, AUU went and reverted my reverts in all 5 pages (shades of one-sided edit-warring?) I need to delete that talkpage thread (again) with the fake post by (not) me; I think I have that prerogative (including the one to edit or delete my own posts), and I need to put the four list pages back to the consistency and consensus we had before, and especially I need to restore and explore the experimentation with ways to make a certain page more readable, easy on the eyes (especially if you only have half-of an), and try to have have an Intelligent and Respectful conversation about it (continuing which we were doing, at least Gerda and I), without the dangerous (yes look at all those banners on his user page, including the one that says he WANTS to be an Admin, God help us all if that ever happens) AnUnnamedUser (please ban this sort of username, among reference problems, there is a tendency to Hide behind such a handle) reverting me, or worse: vomiting on me (and everybody else!) again. How about blocking him and putting on his userpage the reasons and what he did wrong? I'd like to keep him out of our hair, at least in the classical music pages I edit and talk in. At least one volunteer/admin wondered why AUU wasn't blocked and thought he should have been. How about now? So we can be in peace.

Oh, one more thing: Robert McClenon seems to have been grossly misguided as well. Aside from his admittedly bad advice to AUU to to take the closed DRN to ANI (when you should have told him what the brD really stands for), Robert also posted on my talkpage an unfounded accusation that I "attack"ed other "editors" (note the plural) on the Nocturnes Debussy talk page (where? there are no attacks there unless maybe AUU's own DRN and God posts), whereupon I started talking about vandals (plural, thus a generalization) and said I just had to laugh at them sometimes (it can be fun!). I think we may have been talking cross purposes: I was discussing in generalizations and using smileys (see those?), I wasn't talking about AUU specifically, but some bee had got in Roberts bonnet (and appears still trapped in there (what, teach ME about consensus? hardly... I'm an expert - and what consensus are you referring to anyway?? huh?)) about something I could never figure out what. I think Robert was listening to AUU spew (mommy, he's attacking me! look look he's doing it again! help me, mommy, i'm so innocent!) in ANI without actually going on the page in question and looking at it or examining the edit history. I really don't think he knows what went on, and I'm referring to his posts here in this ANI thread (which confuse and confound me greatly). But maybe with this current post from me, things will be more understandable (or do you really want a timeline?) I do hate fabrications of accusations, so don't be coming on my talk page with your nonsense, thank you. :-/ <sigh>

Oh almost forgot, there's another party here. AUU's only accusation against Gerda Arendt is that she "communicated" with me. Ooh bad! Consorting with the enemy! ;-)

I could go on further but I've been enough of a verbositron already.

Hopefully not too abstruse.

Hey is it all right to laugh now? (Just wanna check with the PTB on that one...)

— I-Like-Being-A-Weirdo-Chuckstreet AKA I-Hate-Vandals-And-Vomiteers AKA Am-I-In-My-Second-Childhood-Yet-Or-Am-I-Just-Old-And-Tired? Chuckstreet (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was not a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I want to respond to Chuckstreet's words. I don't want to write an essay like he did: rather, I would like to keep this simple and say the only things that are meaningful.

First, I'm sorry for biting a newcomer. It was rash for me to not take the time to discuss and take this right away to the centralized noticeboards. Even when Chuckstreet said I was a vandal, I should have tried to cool down and wait before discussing again. I'm willing to discuss this again. I'll be patient, even if this takes up to a month. I'm also sorry that I didn't behave like I assumed good faith, like I should have. Although I never insulted Chuckstreet directly, the tone of my arguments was less than friendly.

That said, I should still hold true to my value of consistency. I'm hoping that we can have a clear discussion about the MoS and work toward a consensus. I'm hoping that our discussions can be more friendly. That's all I want to say right now.

@Chuckstreet:, do you want to begin this again? I'll be waiting for you. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 04:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As I've been pinged, I take this as a personal threat. Anybody else here that has some opinion and control: please block this user now. I don't need threats, nobody deserves this. Block him indef and post on his user page what he did wrong. I know he won't listen, he can't read or comprehend, but we don't want him causing trouble. BTW, how long has he been on Wikipedia (can the Admins tell?). He APPEARS to be a newcomer who doesn't understand the rules and can't comprehend them (he was obviously thoroughly confused by my "essay"), yet he calls ME a newcomer when I've been editing WP since it began (he obviously read none of my post or he just pretends, just like several other users who have tried to tell him things he just ignores).

Appearances can be deceiving, however. I still maintain that he knows and understands the rules; he's just here to deliberately cause trouble, not to contribute like the rest of us. The longer this goes on, the more he slanders me. Now he's making threats. I have plenty of people literally threatening my life offline, that have committed crimes against me and that have been reported to the FBI among others. I am really starting to believe that this person is someone I know or am acquainted with or am aware of in real life. He's beginning to sound vaguely familiar. Wake up, y'all! Get rid of this guy NOW, before it escalates any further. I'm trying to be at peace here, something I don't have in real life because of harassers and slanderers and control freaks and frauds and violent criminals like this guy seems to be - I still can't tell if he's just a misguided and immature kid or a real devious threat. I am busy editing and conversing on WP; I don't need this kind of garbage wasting my time and energy. Chuckstreet (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Chuckstreet:No disrespect, but everything you just typed above doesn't seem to have the slightest connection -- I mean none whatsoever -- with what it appears to be responding to. I see no threats and I see no slander. Is this in the wrong place? --Calton | Talk 05:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Calton - I don't know what is being referred to, but I have known that some battleground editors will see any mention of blocks as a threat. It is unfortunately nearly impossible to reason with such editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Calton: I got a message in my email from AUU threatening to start harassing me again and telling me he'll be lying in wait for me. This guy lives near me and my life has so much been in violent danger that the FBI is involved. I'm a disabled, home-bound old man, living alone, dying with no healthcare because Trump hates Obamacare and the entire government rallies behind the idea that old folks are useless to society so they should all have their healthcare taken away and they should all just die. And as I still cling to life, I'm obviously not dying quickly enough, so the goons come on my property, break into my house and assault me and vandalize my house and steal things from my yard. As well as a lot more severe and certainly devious things like commit fraud, identity theft, rip off tens-of-thousands of dollars out of my bank account, cut off my utilities, and make my life such a hell that I think I must be dead already. I get so many threatening and outright prank phone calls and text messages (I turned THAT thing off) and emails, that another just like it on Wikipedia is no different to me.

You don't know the history with this guy, and while I've tried to set the record straight to counter his lies about his harassment of me, and his disingenuous coverup and reversing everything on me, the victim, trying to make it look like I'm the perpetrator(!), I don't think anyone bothers or cares to read what I've said or wants to examine the edit history, including his harassment on my talk page which I possibly mistakenly sloughed off as being inconsequential at first. It started there, and is anybody wondering why he singled me out? Because I've already figured it out: he's somebody I know, making very real threats. And so far nobody's stopped him. I don't need other people coming into the middle of this (if that's what you're innocently doing) and undoing the protections I'm trying to place (in at least one page I'm working on), and downplaying the threat here. I really don't have time for this; somebody just help and block the guy. It might at least make it peaceful again, despite the turmoil offline. Chuckstreet (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have had to make a 3RR report about Chuckstreet, who has continued to remove a valid talk page discussion (which, contrary to Chuckstreet's claims, contains no forged signatures, no misattributed posts, and no harassment against Chuckstreet). I also fail utterly to see any harassment on their user talk page, as claimed above. This appears to be the only interaction between AUU and Chuckstreet on the latter's talk page, judging by the TP history. AUU has acted with commendable patience from what I can see. --bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Chuckstreet for a week. But I just noticed that he's alleged that AnUnnamedUser sent him a threatening email. @AnUnnamedUser: have you emailed Chuckstreet? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that refers to AUU's offer to start the discussion again, above – it ends with the line Chuckstreet, do you want to begin this again? I'll be waiting for you. Some users get email notifications when they are pinged to a talk page, and quite a lot of people use "email" about any kind of message directed to them through any electronic medium. --bonadea contributions talk 12:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I never emailed him directly, but I did ping him. Also, I do not know Chuckstreet in real life, or if I do know the real-life person, I do not know that he edits Wikipedia under the username "Chuckstreet." I will take another cool-down period and not revert Chuckstreet's edits again while he is blocked. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 19:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Harassment, bullying, persistent vandalism by Editor SergeWoodzing.

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

---

• SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toglenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Disc jockey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Urgent request to intervene and resolve the behavior of User:SergeWoodzing. He I posted an excellent photo of a DJ on the Disc jocky page which he keeps reverting for no valid reason. Talking about it on the Talk Page, has been useless. His arguments are ridiculous. His obvious reason is he wants me off of the page so he can post his own extremely poor photos and is constantly harassing, bullying, and reverting my photo to suit his own agenda which is to be in control of the page so he can post his own very poor and blurry photos. Please Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 09:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Toglenn, see WP:BOOMERANG. I would self-revert this one immediately, apologise to all editors you have insulted and go back to the article talk page, before any more people have a chance to see this. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I am asking administrators to look at this where there is disregard of several fundamental Wikipedia guidelines. The photo, and promotional sources, keep getting added without discussion being given a chance. If a reliable source could be added to the image caption, that might solve part of the problem, but not the user's tactics. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The OP is a professional glamour photographer, who in this discussion on the talk page for our article on Blond hair, declared that he often replaces images in articles with his own work, without even evaluating the quality of the image he is replacing. I have attempted to explain to him before that this could be interpreted as a form of self-promotion. The OP has a long contribution history, and obviously some of the images they have donated are valuable, but this habit of inserting their own glamour shots into articles, and reinstating them after others object without gaining a consensus, is problematic. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It actually feels to me more that the OP is trying to push their photo that they took rather than there being a need to replace the photo. I know AGF, but it's getting hard especially when they make deliberately misleading edits like this one. Canterbury Tail talk 12:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This is another recent example of the OP reinstating one of their images into an article after another editor objected to it, without engaging on the talk page. What would others say to a TBan from, at the very least, reinstating their own work into an article after another editor objects to it, without first gaining a talk page consensus? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would support a TBan from adding images directly to an article – they can upload them to Commons and then post to the article talk page proposing that uninvolved editors have a look and decide whether it is useful. Failing that, I support Girth Summit's suggestion for a more limited TBan. --bonadea contributions talk 12:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• All things being equal, in this particular case, ironically Toglem's image is better (a full-frontal, brightly lit portrait rather than a three-quarter, slightly blurry image of the top of a head); I say nothing as to the seemliness of editors fighting to restore a picture of a male in a male dominated profession on a page with nine images and only one of them a woman. Incidentally, those who know me will vouch for my views on COI/PAID editing. Goodday to ye. ——SN54129 12:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quite, it is better than what was there. I can see the argument that one still must gain consensus for one's changes, but on the other hand, the "it's promotional" and dismissing the work as "glamour shots" rings a little hollow. How would this be different from Gage Skidmore, whose quality work both increased his personal profile as a photographer, and improves the many, many articles where his work is used? Zaathras (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe some of his pictures are better than what is currently in some articles – maybe not. That is really not the point, though. The point is that nobody gets to be sole arbiter of what is a good photo, and going through articles and removing existing images in order to add his own without even looking at the existing pictures is unacceptable. If Toglenn uploads photos to Commons and then suggests on talk pages that they be added, that will presumably benefit the encyclopedia in many cases, and it will remove the glamour shot issue; that is, if there should be a consensus to include sexist images that are mere eye candy then that would be the consensus, but it's not going to be the call of one individual with a COI. --bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I second that I also think Toglenn's pictures are of better photographic quality, so he's not making up the argument. Nothing says in the policies that Wikipedia should use high quality pictures, but arguably low quality picture may not be good for an encyclopedia that wants to look professional. About asking on talk pages first, that seems contrary to WP:BOLD. IMO nothing wrong in adding his pictures to raise the quality, but if this gets disputed, he shouldn't revert back (but reverts shouldn't be on the sole reason that he changed a picture either, eg, the DJ picture was reverted back[143] because Toglenn wrote in the edit summary that he deleted the picture, instead of replacing it, was such a revert really necessary?). --Signimu (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That COI editors should post edit requests on article talk pages rather than esit articles directly is normal procedure, outlined in the COI guideline. To my mind, tha is more relevant than WP:BOLD here. It is also common practice to limit the editing rights of editors who have been disruptive, even if they do edit in good faith. If some of his images are so superior, neutral editors will not hesitate to add them to the articles in question – so why should this be an issue? --bonadea contributions talk 15:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Talk:Disc jockey, Toglenn seems to ignore WP:CONSENSUS in favor of edit warring in order to place his own image in the article. That he insists it be the lead image and include a url to his client’s booking agency makes me suspect a WP:COI. (PS: I have no issue with the photo in question being added to the “Gallery” section of the article, sans the url to her agency site). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The editor is also spamming his photos on AVN Award for Male Performer of the Year (which definitely isn't to do with promoting women in a male-dominated business as some above are strangely arguing). As the editor appears to be here to promote his photos, I think at least a topic ban from adding photos is appropriate.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem isn't that this user contributes photos to Wikipedia or adds them to articles, so if there's going to be a sanction here it shouldn't be on simply adding images. Requiring an evaluation of the existing images is essential, though. Another one I saw that I would consider problematic is at celebrity, replacing an image of Andy Warhol, who was both a celebrity and helped to define elements of what a celebrity is (and is covered in the article), with a photo of a few current movie stars (who are not covered in the article). I would think a careful consideration of the content would lead Glenn to think twice before replacing, and maybe adding his image further down if anywhere (or else to use the talk page first). Or maybe it's as simple as saying he must find consensus to add an image if it's been removed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the quality of the images isn't the problem. The bull-in-a-china-shop aggressive behavior is. I agree with others suggestion that a TBan from adding images directly to an article would be useful. Toglenn could then get acquainted with the practice of working with other editors by posting suggestions to Talk pages proposing images he has uploaded to Commons. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Using the talk page to request edits isn't particularly effective most of the time, and I think a tban on any adding of his own images would be a net negative for the project. After all, he adds an awful lot of images to articles without incident, and especially, adding an image where there was none seems entirely controversial the vast majority of the time. What about a requirement that (a) any replacement of an image must be accompanied by an edit summary explaining why it's an improvement (to ensure it's thought through), and (b) once his image is removed, it shouldn't be restored without finding consensus on the talk page first. Then, if problems continue, we can revisit. I see no reason to jump to a tban on adding images before trying something else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I agree with your assessment, and what you've outlined is pretty similar to what I suggested above (a tban from reinstating his own images if they have been removed by another editor acting in good faith). I'll draft a formal proposal below. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I admire your optimism here. The deceptiveness here where they never stated that the image they wanted to use was theirs, the false edit summaries [144], [145], [146] saying add when it's really replace, and everything above. Much COI in their edits. And nothing from them saying they understand the issues being raised about their editing and focus on promoting their images (and by extension, promoting their business). Ravensfire (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

More self-promotion. It seems there's a bigger problem of self-promotion here than just using the English Wikipedia for it. Glenn Francis/User:Toglenn has added the same "disk jockey" photo to a remarkable number of "Disk jockey" articles on different Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects, according to the list on the image page — fifty projects, I make it. (And is it likely that this is the only one of his own photos that he has used in this way, and included a link to his highly promotional Facebook page www.PacificProDigital.com with? No, I don't have enough AGF for that.) Not sure what we can do about this, if anything, but no Wikimedia projects are for promotion. Would a Commons admin like to take a look? Bishonen | talk 19:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC).

Interesting. I don't know if I've seen that come up before. I mean, sure, I've seen people add an image to a handful of other wikis, but sheesh. I don't know if we have a good mechanism for this. I mean, Commons doesn't have any more control over what happens on, say, eswiki, than eswiki has here. It would certainly be a hassle to go around and leave messages for each language. If it were some obscure topic and this were the first image on commons of that topic, I would be a little more sympathetic, but that DJ image... it's not like we're lacking images of DJs. What I do know is that there's considerably leeway on Commons for photographers to include, on the file description page, a link to a photography website, commercial or not. After all, we want professional photographers to donate images to Commons and it's not like they're adding the link directly to Wikipedia pages. There's also leeway to use the photographer's name in the filename, and to specify particular attribution language. I don't think there's any appetite to change any of that (and I wouldn't support it myself -- it's generally pretty harmless as long as it stays on that file page), but this is something else. I'll post about this on the commons VP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've posted about this on the Commons Village Pump as well as the stewards' noticeboard on Meta. It seems useful to get their perspective, being the ones who most often deal with cross-project matters. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Blond#Main Photo Change Proposal is long, but illustrates the apparent mindset of the user. Even if I thought his pictures were in general useful (and I admit that I don't, personally – glamour photos have a very limited use since they don't illustrate what normal people actually look like and in many cases they cater blatantly to the male gaze, in a way that makes me rather uncomfortable) the way it appears that he works as quickly as he can to get as many of his pictures as possible into Wikimedia projects, without any thought about whether each individual image is actually suitable or any attempt to write relevant captions, is not really what encyclopedia work is about, to my mind. There is another issue there regarding non-English Wikipedia versions – what kind of global diversity can be expected from one individual photographer who claims to be working in one small part of one specific country? In what way does it aid other language projects to be bombarded with pictures filtered through a Californian lens? Again, I'm not in any way trying to stop the user from uploading photos or suggesting that they be added to articles. I just want there to be actual consensus among non-COI editors that each image adds something to the article in question. --bonadea contributions talk 20:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Toglenn - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. User:SergeWoodzing is an established editor with a clean block log. User:SergeWoodzing is not a vandal and does not engage in vandalism. Genseric was a vandal. I strongly suspect that you do not have a plausible content issue, because you have resorted to a personal attack. Calling edits vandalism when there is a content dispute is a personal attack, and tends to indicate that you don't have a case. I recommend a short block to make the point that yelling vandalism is not a good way to "win" a content dispute, let alone a spam dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wrt "self promotion", Bishonen queries that the the image page "included a link to his highly promotional Facebook page www.PacificProDigital.com with? No, I don't have enough AGF for that." They ask " Not sure what we can do about this, if anything, but no Wikimedia projects are for promotion. Would a Commons admin like to take a look?" Perhaps you want to ask admin "Poco a poco" aka Diego Delso (creator of 614 featured pictures), every one of who's images (e.g. this one) contain "DD" in the filename and a prominent link to their own "delso.photo" website as an attribution requirement. Or perhaps ask "Diliff" aka David Illif (creator of 306 featured pictures), every one of who's images (e.g. this one) contains Diliff in the filename and a request that "Attribution of this image to the author (DAVID ILIFF) is also required". Or perhaps ask "Charlesjsharp" (creator of 188 featured pictures), every one of who's images (e.g. this one) contains a link to www.sharpphotography.co.uk. I could go on and on. These are all longstanding Wikipedians, Commoners and photographers who are fully engaged with local Wikimedia chapters and on making Wikipedia better. Their excellent photographs help make Wikipedia not suck. They get to promote themselves more than you do with your writing. Enough with the outrage and frank jealousy. -- Colin°^Talk 15:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• (Notified of this discussion via c:COM:VP.) In the instant case, SergeWoodzing is simply wrong about image use policies, regardless of whether the suggested image is basically objectively better in nearly every way, which it is. That they are obstinately and condescendingly wrong doesn't help anything. I've only engaged in the talk page for a few hours, and I'm already frustrated by whatever the non-POV-but-rather-simply-wrong version of WP:SEALIONING is that's going on there. That no one in this discussion has addressed the extent to which the other user is obstinately and condescendingly wrong is concerning in regard to what extent this is just a pile on without those opining taking the time to investigate the current situation.
  Besides that, you cannot fault someone for specifying the terms of attribution for an image, when the entire regime we have set up (including the license under which Wikipedia itself is published under) encourages content creators to specify the mode of attribution. Feel free to propose that Commons only allow public domain or CC0 images, but it ain't gonna happen.
  We ought give OP a warning and a link to VAN, but we ought not encourage people to use crappy blurry flip-phone images in our articles on the basis that they don't understand our policy and practices regarding image use. GMG^talk 23:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal - TBan

Toglenn is prohibited from reinstating any image that he has created himself if it has been removed by any editor acting in good faith. Furthermore, he is reminded that he is expected to evaluate existing imagery prior to replacing it, and any edit he makes that replaces an existing image is required to have an edit summary that briefly explains why his image is an improvement.

• Support as proposer. I don't want to prevent Toglenn from providing images of subjects where we have none, or from contributing his work and expertise to improve articles which may have poor-quality imagery. I do however think that replacing imagery without evaluating it is disruptive and needs to stop, and he needs to recognise that if others disagree about his work being an improvement, then he is expected to discuss it with them. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support the narrow TBAN on Toglenn reinstating his own images if they've been removed by another editor in good faith. While I don't buy the "I receive no benefit" argument; (millions of people use Wikipedia, and some of them are going to more closely examine the photo credits), Toglenn has contributed a number of high quality photos that certainly benefit the project. The narrow TBAN as proposed by Girth Summit should address the issue of Toglenn edit-warring over their inclusion.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Asssuming the admin applying the restriction explains the problematic behavior to the user and recommends steps to correct it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I did a super quick glance through the images uploaded on Commons, and I question if this is strong enough. He seems to be replacing decent images with his fairly often. I'd like to see him also prohibited from replacing existing images with his own. Ravensfire (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I'm hoping that the requirement that he evaluate the images prior to replacing them, and provide an explanatory edit summary, would have some effect in this direction. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Irresponsible handling of photos. Accuses others of vandalism often when he disagrees, even going so far as to add the pp-vandalism tag to a non-protected page (pretending to be an admin) in an edit war. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 17:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello AnUnnamedUser I don't know what a pp-vandalism tag is. I have never pretended to be anyone other than myself.Glenn Francis (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a good solution to the problem. Toglenn, please avoid any behavior that can be construed as overly self-promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, reluctantly, as I would very much have preferred a TBan on adding images to articles. But this is the next best thing. --bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Below, the user mentions the people who would benefit from having good photos of them instead of them on Wikipedia instead of bad ones which is rather telling. Wikipedia articles are not for the benefit of the subject, and once again this user believes his opinion of what is a good photo is automatically more valid than other editors' (also seen in some of his other posts below). The rants below make me lean towards preferring an indef.--bonadea contributions talk 06:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- Personally, I feel the user shouldn't be allowed to replace existing images at all, but rather propose it on the talk page. I get the helping encyclopedia while also helping themself bit, but they've been disruptive doing it. At the very least, they ought to be required to disclose their COI when replacing, if not also while adding where there is none. And what happens if they resort to adding without removing to get around it; we do have pages saturated with images and galleries simply because editors seem to add everything they like that is remotely related even absent any self-promotional motives. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I've done a spot check of about a dozen images added to a page. In more than half of the cases, it's an unambiguous improvement (either replacing a low quality image of adding an image where there was none). In most of the others it was debatable (for example, an older photo of a singer singing with a current photo of a singer posing). I have no problem with someone evaluating the two photos and deciding that the latter is better. In one of the cases among those I spot-checked, there was again an incident of edit warring. These results just reaffirm that the problem is behavioral with regard to the editing process, which would be resolved by the proposal here. Disallowing replacing low quality images with higher quality ones, even when they're borderline, would be a clear net negative. Let's try to address the behavioral issue and see if that solves it, then revisit if there are ongoing issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• And, of course, Support as written per my comments in the section above. Oppose broader tbans at this time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support, and since this subthread is probably now more widely read than the main thread above, could people (especially any Commons admins) please also note my post above? There seems to be more systematic self-promotion on Wikimedia projects here than meets the eye on the English Wikipedia alone. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC).
• Support, and also what Bish says. There is a ton of self-promotion going on here, across the wikis. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support due to disruptive editing, but without ruling out the need for a short or long block of User:Toglenn for personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, I've come across this behaviour from this user before, and it is unacceptable. Like Ravensfire, though, I'd prefer if he was also prohibited from replacing existing images with his own under any circumstances. -- Begoon 19:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. All that this proposal does is to expect this editor to follow best practice that all editors should follow, but it seems that it is necessary to spell it out explicitly here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support I've seen this type of singleminded addition of a one user's photos before (from other editors). While some of the additions or replacements may actually be improvements, the underlying goal is not the improvement of the encyclopedia but simply to add the user's pictures. This leads to problems with indiscriminate additions/replacements that actually harm the encyclopedia . Meters (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - also: Per WP:SPA, WP:SPAM, and in our WP:COI guideline we have WP:SELFPROMOTE. I think all this adds up to an indef (not infinite if the user want's to do more than spam his pics and link/redirect to his facebook page) block. I looked at the pictures on commons (I'll pick Alan Thicke as an example rather than one of the porn actresses) and one after another it's links to so many of our projects. Thicke alone has a link to 10 different pages on EN wiki. One link is to an article sandbox and a couple to Signpost articles, but the even without those couple links we have a HUGE spam problem with many, many pictures. The thing is however, I don't see specific rules pertaining to a person's facebook (or other) page which may be a loophole he can crawl through. Either way, we have a problem - and Commons has a problem. IMO? SPA SPAM block, but I think at this point that needs to be a community decision. — Ched (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• If you're interested in doing more research, see: His uploads — Ched (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, and also further issues, per Ched; it seems fairly clear to me that this user is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote themselves and their work. I feel like we should try to use photos that are as free as possible, and his photos require a style of attribution that is clearly self-promotional.--Jorm (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - The self-promotion here is glaringly obvious and it should be stopped. –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support whatever sanctions deemed appropriate by the community. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment As proposer, I put forward a suggestion that I believed was the minimum necessary to stop disruption. Numerous experienced editors above seem to be of the opinion that further investigation and/or sanctions may be necessary - I want to note that I am in not opposed to an extension of the sanctions I've suggested, should others agree that my proposal is insufficient. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yup. I !voted on the proposal on the table, but that's not to say I wouldn't support harsher remedies. Meters (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic ban or sanctions are way overkill from what seems to be one dispute on one article. Editors such as User:LuckyLouie are making a category error by claiming that the photographer of an image added to Wikipedia has self-promotion, advertising, COI or SPA issues. Some people write text on Wikipedia and some people take photos for Wikipedia. There are different practices wrt filenaming and getting your modest credentials and personal links on a file description page, but those are just the way it is. I would expect a photographer to single-purposely add/replace their own images on articles just as I would expect a writer to add/replace their own text on articles. Move along folks, this is a storm in a teacup.

Wrt the Disc jockey article. I agree that the great photo taken and added by User:Toglenn is far better than what we had before, and that the current leading photo is frankly a piece of shit. Folks: your jealousy of a talented photographer is making Wikipedia worse. -- Colin°^Talk 13:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE here’s why: When I started using Wikipedia, around 2008 or so, whenever I looked up a person all I would see were really bad photos of them. I said to myself. Wow, I can’t believe this, I can help. I have great photos of them. I’m going to do this person a big favor and post a really good photo of them.

That’s it. When I come across a bad photo of someone I simply add or replace with a good one. I don’t replace good photos – no reason to. That’s all I do. And it makes me feel good that I did this for them, even though they never know who did it.

All this talk about self-promotion is baffling to me – It is nonsense. IT IS NOT REALITY. Reality is that it takes time and effort to this and I receive absolutely NO benefit what-so-ever. Financially and time wise – it’s a total loss. Wikipedia says “don’t expect to be rewarded” – and I don’t. I know that from the beginning but I accept it.

Although I know and it’s a loss, I do it only for the purpose of improving the Photo content of Wikipedia up to the high standards of the Text content. I love Wikipedia because I’m really into truth and facts and Wikipedia is one of the few places to get that – and I’m proud to present high Quality Hi-Quality images for that purpose.

Although I do not expect any rewards, the last thing I expected is to be banned. Anyone who supports this proposed ban on me would be making a very bad and uninformed decision for Wikipedia and to the people who would benefit from having good photos of them instead of them on Wikipedia instead of bad ones. Glenn Francis (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Toglenn, the proposal is a TBAN from reinstating any image, and your post doesn't address this. What about the edit warring over photos? – Levivich 02:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I just want to add that I applaud ——SN54129 12:52, and Zaathras

They are they are the ones who made informed comments and brought up the point that I’m no different than Gage Skidmore (and also David Shankbone) who are also professional photographers who post photos on Wikipedia. This brings up the point that if I’m to be banned for putting up photos, then so should they. Taking up the whole issue of Self-promotion – why does this only apply to me and not to everyone who post regularly on Wikipedia? Why is that not self promotion?

I’m surprised at all the people who said Support who know nothing about me, my work, and my contributions to Wikipedia.

The only two I’ve ever even heard of is Girth Summit and SergeWoodzing. In 12 years of posting photos, I’ve only had one conflict, and that was with SergeWoodzing. I guess I’m being singled out because I decided to ask an administrator for help instead of engaging in an edit war.

Hi Levivich, In 12 years of posting, I've never been in an edit war until SergeWoodzing reverted my post. I decided that rather than enter edit war, I would aks an administrator for help in resolving. I guess that's why I've been singled out. If I'm not addressing the correct issue, I would like to know what I need to be addressing - I think it's important to know so that I can. Thanks!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs)

Well. No one else sets up their contributions to require that their name is included in the contribution. That's pretty self-promoting. --Jorm (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jorn, Thanks for your question. I'm a Press Photographer. We include our names with our photos. It's standard procedure and required in most cases. It's identifying information that is important to include. If that's an issue on Wikipedia, I will exclude that. It makes absolutely no difference to me. When you say no one else does, that's because they are not professional press photographers. David Shankbone, Gage Skidmore, and myself are the only Professional celebrity Press photographers who contribute to Wikipedia. They also include their names as part of the file name. If you see a professional looking photo of a person on Wikipedia that wasn't by one of us three, they were most likely placed there by a bot that got them from Flickr - or worse - YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs)

The filename is irrelevant; I'm referring to the attribution license, in which you require every usage to include your name.--Jorm (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jorm- Oh. 12 years ago when I first started contributing, I was having lots of problems getting my photos approved because they were professional looking and so they wouldn't approve them. (I guess I was the first Professional celebrity Photographer - and still only 1 of 3). After proving that I was legit, an Administrator named H. Martin offered to make this attribution license banner for me. He said having this will resolve the problem of always having to submit photos to OTRS. And he was right. I’ve never had to since. I really don’t understand why you think this is self-promotion. All it says is exactly what the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs)

Putting aside the other issues for a moment, just a quick comment to say the real name thing is both not a problem and extremely common. After all, he could just change his username to match his real name. There are reusers out there who also, for whatever reason, prefer to credit a real name. Guess they find it more legit or matches some style guide. Meh. Not that that should dictate what we do here - I'm just clarifying that it is common. A website is less common. In general there's considerable leeway for what one requests re: attribution language. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I first ran into Glenn's self-promotion at the Bebe Rexha biography where he edit-warred his obviously altered and enhanced image of stiff-as-a-doll Rexha into the article, removing a much more attractive action shot of Rexha performing.[147] Misleading edit summaries were used here, too.[148] Glenn attacked another editor, calling them a "delusional troll" at Talk:Bebe_Rexha#Infobox_image_revisited. This disruption has gone on long enough. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• In 12 years of posting photos, I’ve only had one conflict, and that was with SergeWoodzing. diff gnu57 04:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a no-brainer. Deb (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Binksternet’s comment about Bebe Rexha: One of the primary reasons professional photographers don’t post to Wikipedia (besides giving away our photos for free) is having to put up with BS that sometimes goes along with it. In this case someone didn’t like my photo of Bebe Rexha and so he decided that she must have been heavily photoshopped and didn’t look anything like her. Although photos are very subjective, there is this thing know as truth and facts (there’s also a thing known as good makeup, lighting, and photography). This wasn’t an edit war it was a viewer making outrageously false accusations, and based on his false accusations didn’t want it used. To resolved this, I just used another photo of her.Glenn Francis (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Toglenn, that is self-serving bullshit, and I think you know it. If you want to upload photos and offer them to the community in the way you seem to think you are doing, then you can do it via the Talk page and allow others to decide. That is normal practice for people referencing their own content on Wikipedia (per WP:COI). Images are somewhat different to, e.g., references to one's own book, but not that different. What you are doing, by your own admission, is inserting your images into articles without regard to the images that are already there. That's not "BS" or people not liking your images, you cannot possibly be a neutral evaluator of your own work. It's WP:OWNership behaviour. Calling this out is fully consistent with our gratitude for your provision of high quality photos. You need to understand: you are not the arbiter here. I've dealt with many people submitting photos via OTRS, most approach it with some humility. The closest we've come to your level of aggressive response to pushback was with user:David Shankbone, and he got pretty much the same response: Thank you for helping, but don't presume that you get a right of veto. Guy (help!) 09:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I showed the falsehood of your statement that you have had "only one conflict" in 12 years. I assert that your photo was altered because it looks fake and because it lists "Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)" as the software platform in the EXIF metadata.[149] You waffled about that aspect – "there is this thing know as truth and facts" – without explicitly denying that you retouched (enhanced, "Photoshopped") the photograph. I also pointed out that you engaged in a personal attack against a good-faith editor from Rochester, New York, who you called "Drama Queen", "good riddance to you" and "delusional troll".[150] You didn't "resolved" the problem, you just put another of your photos into the article. Taken as a whole, your insistence on using your images is promotional, and a serious behavioral problem. Binksternet (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've been flagged down as a dual enwiki and Commons admin to this thread; right now it probably doesn't need me in those roles.
  As a photographer, I generally support the inclusion of well-lit high-quality photographs over lower-quality ones. If a photographer is willing to release their work under a free license, then we should accept it openly. If there is genuinely disruption, then we can deal with it – the proposal here is, in my view, an overreaction to minor incidents that could be dealt with case by case. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: Guy, etc, FYI, photographers on Commons, and other Commoners who acquire images from third parties, restore historical images, etc, routinely insert their own photos/uploads onto Wikipedia pages and other sister projects. This is absolutely normal and usually helpful. It also very much is not the Wikipedia manner for editors to use the talk page to request others include their content.... because our own content is generally the words we add to any article when we aren't plagiarising or quoting. You seem to be trying to apply COI and referencing guidelines to content, which just isn't appropriate. Content is content whether words or images. If someone takes a great photo and uploads it for free and adds it to Wikipedia, that is no difference to someone spending their free time to write or expand a great article using their own words. Clearly we expect editors here to improve the articles (again, whether text or image) and to seek consensus if there is a dispute (whether text or image). Where we might get into COI with text, where the subject of an article tries to edit for flattery, we might also get for images where the subject of the photo wants their image to represent a topic.

Wrt attribution/promotion, inserting one's real name, user name or initials into a file path is also quite normal and practised by many highly awarded Wikipedians. The attribution template on this photographer's file description page is also extremely normal, modest and perfectly in keeping with best practice for CC licensing. I get that Wikipedian writers have a lower profile wrt attribution: the URL isn't Archaea-by-Tim-Vickers and you aren't singled-out on the talk page for contributions or links to your blog. Just deal with that and get over yourselves.

I see someone above writing " Per WP:SPA, WP:SPAM, and in our WP:COI guideline we have WP:SELFPROMOTE." despite the fact that none of those guidelines are relevant here. Please: a photographer's photo content is not more COI/SELFPROMOTE than a Wikipedian's original text content. If there are issues wrt edit warring and not improving the project wrt the content being added, then by all means discuss how they should be better handled or apply sanctions if discussion fails. But enough with the OMG the photographer's own name is in the file name, what a self promoting wanker we have here!!! attitude. -- Colin°^Talk 13:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin, to be clear, the edit warring and insulting other editors are why we are here. If he had not accused another editor of bullying, harassment and vandalism, simply for disagreeing with the use of one of his pictures, we would not be having this conversation. As for the promo concerns, I think that has been exacerbated by his admission that he routinely replaces existing photographs across multiple wikis with his own work without even checking the image he is replacing. I can see why people are concerned with that approach to editing, even if the attribution statement is quite standard. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit edit warring on a single article on one occasion never got anyone topic banned. Wrt "without checking" I think really we need more than foolish words but actual examples of where this photographer has removed/replaced/down-shifted photographs that were clearly better than his, and edit warred to retain his inferior photo. I'm certainly not seeing that (quite the opposite) wrt Disc jockey. I see a lot of people making quite ignorant comments failing to equate the two kinds of content and making obviously jealous comments wrt the promotion that all image makers on Wiki are entitled do. At the moment, people are suggesting we topic ban someone and the only evidence given is one case where they actually improved the article with a great image and got beaten into a submission by editors replacing it with crap images instead. I accept that they (along with others) edit warred on this one case, but that is only sufficient for a user-talk page warning, not a topic ban. Please give me a long list of diffs where the problematic behaviour being "topic banned" has actually occurred on en:wp. -- Colin°^Talk 14:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with about 2/3 of what Colin said. There's a lot of nonsense here that seems premised on incorrect ideas about e.g. websites on file pages, whether or not someone can include their real name in the attribution language (??), using real names in filenames, what constitutes a COI, etc. I think the analogy to article text is interesting. Presumably a professor, who is trained to write on scholarly topics, who gets a meager amount of service credit for writing Wikipedia articles, is not going to have all of their edits scrutinized for COI and special restrictions placed upon them for mentioning their university position on their userpage. It's not a perfect analogy, but an interesting one, IMO. But Colin, the thing here -- and the reason I supported -- is because there are behavioral issues. I would just want Glenn to follow the practices basically everyone else does when it comes to adding photos to pages (regardless of whether they're one's own images): ensure it's an improvement, and find consensus if it's challenged. I sincerely hope that this sanction, since it will surely pass, doesn't have a chilling effect on Glenn's (or some other photographer's) contributions here, because it has indeed gone off the rails a bit (welcome to AN/I...). The "jealous" bit is just going to distract people from the rest of your comment, though, Colin; I'd strike that FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites can you cite diffs for a routine pattern of behaviour where this photographer has clearly overwritten images with worse ones of their own. Forget what they may have said about "without checking". Surely, for a topic ban, we need a consistent long-running pattern of warring and making Wikipedia worse, with diffs. The disc jockey article is an embarrassingly bad example and sure he got wound up about it, but he wasn't the one edit warring to put rubbish pictures into the article! While the numerical !votes above might indicate a topic ban is expected, I would expect any closing admin to actually rise above mere vote counting and expect basic standards of evidence of longstanding behavioural issues, evidence that parties have tried and failed on multiple occasions, etc, etc. I see one article, one edit war, and several people other than the one in the dock are making Wikipedia worse by their edit warring with him.

I don't think the professor-service-credit analogy is helpful, other than a professor may be a subject-expert and thus knows what they are writing about more than the average Wikipedian looking at sources. A professional photographer will have the talent, gear and access in order to create images that normal Wikipedians and their iPhones will not. Photographers and illustrators are entitled to real/username credit in their filenames, and when you click on their content, you go to a page that tells you about how they want to be credited if the work is re-used, and how to contact them if you want different licence terms. Wikipedian editors are not entitled to that: they get their contributions buried in the history. Wikipedia text is collaboratively written; Commons images are not (generally) collaboratively taken/made. This is just how it is. I think the idea that a photographer consistently adding great professional-level photographs to articles is a WP:SPA just about the most embarrassingly funny thing I have read here for some time. I agree the "jealous" bit is likely to make some folk here uncomfortable. Doesn't make it less true and they should examine their motives carefully. -- Colin°^Talk 15:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If this were a tban on adding images (which I explicitly opposed), we would want to see a long-running pattern of warring and making Wikipedia worse. That pattern doesn't exist. As I've said repeatedly, it's clear this user's photographers are a great addition to Wikipedia. This is about a behavioral issue, and that's what the sanction seeks to address. As someone else said, it's basically just writing down what we expect of everyone anyway (don't edit war, and make sure it's an improvement). That said, maybe it's worth opening a warning proposal... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1RR restriction on all edits and WP:CIVILITY "only warning". I support Girth's proposal, and I would also support going further, based on my review of edits over the last six months. I think the 1RR restriction should be expanded to include all edits. I think an "only warning" (meaning, a final warning, except I think it would also the first warning, so "only" warning) to abide by WP:CIVILITY is merited. Many of Toglenn's edits were to BLPs, but they did not appear to have been notified of discretionary sanctions, so I have notified them.
  • I agree with much of what Colin writes. Toglenn's editing is not SPA, COI, or SPAM.
  • However, I think some of the edits are WP:PROMO–not necessarily of Toglenn and his photography business, but of the subjects of his photographs. For example, at Disc jockey, replacing the prior image with his image. His image is not an image of a disc jockey disc jockeying, but of a disc jockey posing for a publicity photograph, with her name prominently shown in the photograph. This would be appropriate for the article about that disc jockey; however, it is not appropriate for the article Disc jockey. A picture of a particular DJ with their name prominently emblazoned, on the article Disc jockey, is basically an advertisement for that DJ.
  • Reviewing some of the edits over the last six months or so turned up concerning behavior that seems to be getting worse as time goes on:
    • May – Natalie Alyn Lind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Replaced prior image with his image (IMO not an improvement), then reinstates it, and again (note, no accusations against the editor he was in a content dispute with, IJBall).
    • June - Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Replaced prior image with his image, which, for the record, I think was an obvious improvement, but then reinstate after revert with HTML comment Please do not change Britney Spears 2013 (Straighten Crop).jpg as main photo without a consensus of editors on the talk page., which is not how WP:BRD works, and then reinstates it again and again, the last time with edit summary "reversed constant disruptive and vandalistic edits by user:Alienatedney". Then, he accused the other editor of being a vandal on the talk page. (Note the other editor is banned as a sock, but that's besides the point.)
    • Also June – possibly WP:BLP-violating insults in edit summaries at Ryan Seacrest (... leave this kind of crap for [name of living person].) and Model (person) (... leave this kind of garbage to [name of living person] and [their employer].)
    • Aug – Incivility at Talk:Taylor Swift#Image in the infobox and on the main page: photoshopped? (diff): I’m sick of seeing these delusional disruptive rantings of User:Genericusername57. He’s a fraud. He registered his name about a month after I posted Taylor’s photo and hasn’t made even one contribution other than to come here to disrupt this article with his lies and spiteful agenda. His so-called ‘proof’ is total B.S. ... Don’t be fooled by gnu57‘s nonsense and whose only purpose of being on Wikipedia is to disrupt this Article. He should banned indefinitely per WP:CBAN
    • Also Aug – Ryan Seacrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): deletion, revert (edit summary: ... Take your Schadenfreude disorder elsewhere.)
    • Sep – Sofía Vergara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): deletion (edit summary: ... Take that garbage elsewhere.), revert, revert (edit summary: Removed inappropiate slanderous posting by disruptive editor: WmLawson‎). Then he accused WmLawson of disruption and slander on the talk page. Note: these reverts removed content sourced to People magazine, CNN and USA Today.
    • Also Sep – Incivility at Talk:Bebe Rexha#Infobox image revisited: here (To the Drama Queen who had never heard of Bebe Rexha ... good riddance to you!), here (@Binksternet – Your ‘judgment’ is seriously flawed ... If Bebe were to read what 'Drama Queen' said about her appearance she would have every right to !#$%^&*.), and here (@Binksternet ... You’re like the person who believes the Earth is flat against irrefutable evidence otherwise.), and maybe this isn't uncivil, but it's not collegial.
    • Oct – Disc jockey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Replaced prior image with his image, then 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 4RR.
    • Nov – Incivility at Talk:Disc jockey#New photo relevant?: A monkey could take a better picture than this ... You are obviously trying to B.S. your way into posting your crap out-of-focus photo (posted, then partly self-reverted); ... that would make him a liar, wouldn't it? ... I knew he had some kind of hidden agenda by his constant bullying and harassing techniques ... This kind of attitude and behavior is known as HYPOCRISY ...He believes he's privileged and above the rules. Anyway, I've reported his conduct to the Administrators notice board. I hope he gets banned so others can safely post photos without having to worry about being bullied and harassed. (posted, then self-reverted)
  • Multiple editors have addressed these issues on Toglenn's talk page, both with templates and personalized messages, e.g. here, here, here, and here. These have been deleted, so we know they've been read.
  • Whatever we think of the images and text at issue, this is not the way to handle content disputes. The warnings from multiple editors have not caused a change in behavior–indeed it seems to be getting worse–so I think a sanction is necessary to prevent further disruption. – Levivich 16:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support although I agree with Colin that adding images is just like adding text, and it's normal that the author puts the credentials (after all, we have the option to license under CCBY), the mass addition to 50 other WP languages and the unwarranted personal attack of "vandalism" (in addition to not seek consensus) seems really problematic. I appreciate the editor's work, but it can't be forced upon the encyclopedia if challenged. --Signimu (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support (warning preferred). But only if this is expressed in terms of over-riding opposition from others by re-adding images. I'd still welcome their efforts in general, and if they are indeed the best image available, then we should choose it. But that needs to be decideable, if questioned, by discussion through talk: etc. and a case made as to why particular images are best. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Warning

Toglenn has never been subject to a sanction before, has never been blocked, and steadily contributes a lot of high-quality photos to Wikipedia. There are a few clear behavioral issues here which the tban above seeks to address. On reflection, however, this might be premature. I went through the last few years of talk page messages, and although there are a couple disputes (mostly over things other than photos, I should say), I don't see so much as one formal edit warring warning.

Perhaps if Toglenn simply acknowledges that it's important to ensure an image is an improvement before adding it, and that if material is removed he should not repeatedly reinstate it without finding consensus (being basic rules all of us follow), then we can call this a formal warning and hope we don't find ourselves back here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support (first choice) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support reasonable compromise. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (first choice) Yes, some inappropriate behavior, but let's please try hard not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Paul August ☎ 16:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This seems reasonable on its face, but from reading his comments, it appears Toglenn feels he's done nothing wrong, doesn't recognize that edit warring and personal attacks are against policy, and doesn't seem to understand how consensus works. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support in addition to other sanctions (e.g., for civility) or as a second choice (e.g., for edit warring), per my comments in the previous proposal. – Levivich 16:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Thank you Levivich for the kind of analysis/research that should be performed when considering sanctions, rather than ignorant rants about self-promoting SPAs above. I make no apologies for that insult because I see a bunch of experienced self-entitled bullies attack a good-faith contributor who is so inexperienced at talk/forum discussions, he can't even get the indentation right (look at the contribs -- you guys spend more time yaking on this page in a day than this guy as done ever). One thing missing from the analysis, however, is the warring by others. For example, on Britney Spears, Alienatedney reverted four times and their first revert did not explain why. Simply "undo". That's just rude. These photos don't just take themselves, and although the edit represents a minute of work, the photo might have taken hours of donated time. Levivich mentions an HTML comment he added, but he may have picked this up from Taylor Swift, which had a similar comment before Toglenn added his image. My guess is that Toglenn is unaware that some articles are hotbeds of edit warring over lead images and he may step into this war and thus step on the toes of some hotheads with settled ideas. Also he should appreciate that articles such as Disc jockey could be illustrated with any number of images and it may be less obvious to others that his choice is superior.

However, since this AN/I was raised by Toglenn, I think it would be most unfair if a warning was not also given to User:SergeWoodzing for edit warring at Disc jockey and making spurious arguments (we don't require Chef is illustrated by a celebrity chef, for example). Lastly, all the people who made comments like "Glenn, would you still be fighting for this particular photo if it wasn't one you took and uploaded yourself" should go and replace "photo" with "this text you wrote" and whack themselves with a wet trout for ridiculous bullying over a contributor adding their own content, content that may have taken hours of work. -- Colin°^Talk 18:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin, hi - I've been mulling over your comment for a few hours now, and feel I have to reply. Would you be prepared to be specific about who you are accusing of being a self-entitled bully? As the proposer of the above section, I can't shake the feeling that I am included in that criticism; yet at the same time, I feel that I have made my best efforts to act professionally and courteously when dealing with someone who, in my judgment, does not extend that same consideration to those who disagree with them. If you are going to make comments like that, which you describe yourself as insults, would you be prepared to be clear about who you are directing them at? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 22:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Girth, your comments have been quite measured in comparison to some that I am criticising. I'm sure they know who they are. I do think you have failed to examine the other parties involved in the edit warring and their portion of blame. I think you and others have also failed to consider the relative inexperience of this editor wrt Wikipedia discussions and policies. What AN/I (on Wiki and Commons) often fails with is the "angry customer" situation. Toglenn came to AN/I as an angry customer: he'd gone to some effort to take this photo, process it, upload it to Commons and noticed that the Disc jockey article didn't have a lead image. He added his and then some **** kept deleting it. So he came here asking for help. While the experienced folk here, with Wiki:talk contrib histories that go into tens of pages long know not to call someone else a vandal or troll, he really is a relative newbie when you look at the contribs. Failure to deal with an "angry customer" is where folk concentrate on tone or naughty words used, and fail to try to understand. The first response he gets here is someone basically telling him he's been a fool and should **** off and apologise. Then we got lots of people who clearly haven't the first clue about photographers on Wikipedia taking moral judgement against the photographer for promoting himself. So he's not just a fool but an asshole too. Queue more "ban the self-promoting asshole" comments, which just encourage more "ban the self-promoting asshole" comments, and before long we get folk now proposing he can't add images to Wikipedia any more. The actual degree of disruption/warring involved is really very minor indeed. I've been on Wiki for a long time, and know lots of editors with clean block logs who cause more disruption before breakfast than this guy has in his whole editing history. If you really sit back and look at the Disc jockey situation, you might consider that he really did have a reason to come to AN/I and at the most, both editors should have been warned about edit warring and the other guy educated about image sourcing nonsense he was using as a justification for his warring. -- Colin°^Talk 14:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to state that I have read all the comments written here and have gotten the message loud and clear. The mistakes I made will not happen ever again. I have decided that I personally will not upload my photos to the pages. I have an assistant that can do that - My assistant has also read these comments and understands the issues. This I will do volentarily, and gladly because it will relieve me of the stress of doing it myself. No need to issue formal warnings or anything else. All rules wil be followed. The problem is solved, and I am quite happy about my decision to leave this chore to my assistant.  : Thank you all!Glenn Francis (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you describe the instructions you will give to your assistant so that further mistakes will not be made? Otherwise this could just be a shifting of responsibility to another account directed by yourself, which is a violation of WP:MEAT. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware of the paid-contribution disclosure requirement in the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use that applies for English Wikipedia. Also note that conflict of interest concerns remain if someone under your direction or is associated with you uploads your photos. isaacl (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment User has repetitively displayed behavior in multiple conflicts, apparently not gaining experience in dispute resolution with any of them. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 20:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet My assistant is my girlfriend. I do not pay her. If there are any special requirements about a girlfriend uploading photos, please let me know and I'll comply. Instructions are simple: just upload the photo to commons, then place into article according to rules. Refrain from discussions and do not argue with anyone. Any problems, just walk away. She's a smart cookie, very friendly and pleasant - you'll like her.Glenn Francis (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this should be the end of the matter. Please we have seen enough of Wikipedians trying desperately to include article-text or reference or article-subject-concerning matters into photography as though that was different to writing. I think we see that Glenn accepts he has got personally worked-up about reverts by other editors (reverts that nobody here seems to be at all concerned about) and has chosen a method to add some distance. Every single one of the hundreds of thousands of NASA photos on Wikipedia contain a "promotional" link back to NASA. Every single one of the thousands of superb Google Art Project scans of famous art works contains a "promotional" link back to GAP. Text editors are mere minions and our credit is miserly. A photo is worth a thousands words, as they say. Move along. -- Colin°^Talk 22:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose as not strong enough for an editor who started this with an over-the-top allegation that a content dispute was vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Let met get this straight? Someone went to AN/I with an "over-the-top allegation" and you think therefore they should have some arbitrary punishment as a result? Like nobody ever went to AN/I with an "over-the-top allegation" and walked away.

The accused was User:SergeWoodzing who was indeed edit warring at Disc Jockey. Let's remember that Toglenn added a great photo to the lead of an article that did not have a lead photo. So, he improved Wikipedia. SergeWoodzing removed the photo, meaning the article no longer had a lead image. If a IP had done that, we'd have called it vandalism. He made Wikipedia worse. His argument "that photo of an unknown person with a caption alleging unsourced info does not belong there" has so many fundamental flaws and ignorance about the sourcing requirements for images. When the image was restored, SergeWoodzing posted to the talk page and immediately removed the lead image without waiting for agreement or working towards consensus -- he was edit warring plain and simple. Once again the article had no lead image. If an IP had removed the lead image from an article twice in succession, he'd not just be called a vandal but would likely now be blocked. Again Serge makes the ignorant criticism about "caption of info that was unsourced". This got the response "Why in God's name are we having a debate about reliable sources, on whether a person in a picture with giant pink letters saying "DJ Bad Ash", is a person named DJ Bad Ash?" from User:GreenMeansGo. In the argument that followed, Serge then claimed "It is not impossible for a person to pose falsely as a disc jockey". At this point, if this had been an IP, folk would be asking them to stop trolling. Looking at the other edits made, I see they have a particular issue with making spurious citation requirements for female DJs, but not the male DJs. So, really, if we examine Serge's edits in a neutral manner, we may indeed conclude it is a fair assessment that they engaged in vandalism, edit warring and trolling. I think actually they honestly believe they are making WP better but have some really strange ideas about the sourcing requirements for images, and possibly an issue with female DJs.

Wrt sourcing for images: we adopt an AGF approach if a photographer takes a photo of someone/something and make a claim (filename, file description, caption) that it is indeed the someone/something they claim it to be. Serge would only have needed to do a google image search to confirm what "Bad Ash" looked like. For example, Serge, if someone takes a photo of a flower or mushroom or insect and claims it to be a particular species or variety, we do generally accept that unless someone has a good argument that the claim is unlikely or offers a different description. Very few of our images and captions have any kind of citation/reference that the image really is what the caption says it is. We don't get our images from a professional stock agency. -- Colin°^Talk 08:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin, I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Serge is not guilty of vandalism, and you should retract that. You don't agree with his arguments, which is fine. I don't agree with your opinion that the photo was an improvement, which is also fine - we can disagree without accusing each other of vandalism, which is the problem here - Toglenn repeatedly reinstating their pictures at multiple venues without gaining consensus to do so, and making wild accusations of vandalism against people who disagree with them. Please don't let's start carrying those accusations on here. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Girth, please take the care to read what I wrote. I did not accuse them of vandalism. I am arguing that a reasonable neutral person examining just the edits and talk page comments could indeed come to the conclusion that he was vandalising the article (repeatedly removing the lead image on spurious grounds), trolling on the talk page, and had a problem with female DJs. I am responding to someone voting that this user must be punished for making "over-the-top allegation" of vandalism. It is, you know, possible to accept another's opinions are "reasonable" without actually agreeing with them. What is a fact is that Serge repeatedly made the article worse and did so by edit warring. Most edit warring situations have two or more guilty parties -- it is quite hard to edit war on one's own. Most of the examples listed above by Levivich, if you actually care to examine them, involve other editors edit warring, reverting without edit-summary, and being unreasonable. -- Colin°^Talk 14:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin, we'll have to agree to differ on this. I don't think that any reasonable person could see Serge's actions in the way that you do, and I don't agree with your characterisation of the addition, or the subsequent removal, of the photo. Let's remember that it wasn't Serge who first removed it - it was an IP editor, who left an edit summary suggesting that it was promo. Toglenn reinstated it, Serge then removed it again, and Toglenn reinstated it again - already in the full knowledge that two editors disagreed that it was an improvement. This kind of behaviour is what I am seeking to prevent with the proposed sanction above - if a photo of his is removed, he should discuss it first before knee-jerk edit warring. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hard to understand where the assumption came from that I am adverse to female disc jockeys, and why that assumption has been repeated here more than once. It is uncalled for in any case, as anyone who knows my work (and me in the real world) would know. I added the female image to sv:Discjockey. I've also added women to sv:Bartender and Chairperson and Queen mother and List of Swedish monarchs and probably at least a hundred other articles, one as recently as last Tuesday. I try very hard to be fair. Perhaps, in this case, I was not as fair as I should have been and want to be at first, but that was not intentional. If we're all as fair as possible, we'll enjoy Wikipedia work more. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Girth while we can disagree how this user should be dealt with, can you at least accept that Serge was edit warring (twice removed the lead image without consensus). Serge should not be edit warring. Why are we not seeing both editors being equally warned not to edit war? Can you also accept that most articles should have lead images, and Toglenn's image was a perfectly good image of a DJ. So I maintain that his first edit to that article made Wikipedia better. Which part of my "characterisation of the addition" do you disagree on? And when I say Serge made Wikipedia worse by twice removing the lead image from an article, which part of my "characterisation of the removal" do you disagree on? And when I claim Serge's rational was very odd indeed -- suggesting even that the person might be an impostor and that the DJ was "an unknown person". Let me Google that for you. It seems to me that Serge would rather edit war and add little "citation needed" tags rather than bother to do some Googling and fix it themselves.

I agree all editors should not edit war. But also that all those caught edit warring should be warned. Why have you not criticised Serge? Do you suggest sanctions every time someone has been found to be edit warring and arrive at AN/I? Even when the person has a clean block log and has never troubled AN/I before? Sanctions are a last resort imposition of authority on another editor when all other means of discussion have failed. To request sanctions, and to continue to request them, even after the person has admitted they got things wrong and proposed a good solution, well that doesn't seem fair at all. -- Colin°^Talk 21:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin There's quite a lot there, and I'm on mobile so forgive me if I miss something. So, Toglenn started edit warring before Serge even got involved - and this appears to be standard practise for him - that's my chief concern. When the IP reverted him, he should have hit the talk page. When Serge reverted him, he should definitely have gone there. He's been editing for ten years - he should know that. Yes, we can agree that a lead should have a picture - but it doesn't follow that any picture is better than no picture. Without wanting to get into the content dispute here, there is a disagreement between two good-faith editors about whether the addition of the image was an improvement. After having been reverted twice, the onus is on Toglenn to gain consensus for his image - it's not on Serge to gain consensus for his revert.

If this was a one-off, I'd agree that a simple warning was appropriate - but it's not. There is a history of inserting images, being reverted, edit warring, and then resorting to insult and hyperbole. This is the first time it's ended up at ANI, but it's far from the first time they've fallen far short of civility requirements. If Serge also has a history of trolling, gender-biased image preferences, or removal of good lead images, no one has brought that up - that's why I'm inclined towards sanctions for Toglenn, but see no need for them for Serge.

And just to reiterate this point - my proposal above hardly constrains the editor at all. It simply requires them to gain consensus if they are reverted, and to use an explanatory edit summary when replacing an image - I mean, that's just good practice, it's hardly an impediment to contributing. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Garth since you seem to be deliberately avoiding apportioning any blame on Serge, I don't think it worth arguing with you not his. You simply aren't being impartial. I don't think many editors would respond to an IP edit/revert by striking up a talk page discussion, especially one who's only edit summary was "promo?" which is clearly nonsense. The history log show Troglen improving wikipedia and facing on occasion other edit warriors. You keep forgetting that. The problem I have with your "sanction" is that it is just that. You didn't ask simply that Toglenn be reminded never to edit war over his own pictures and warned that future edit warring may lead to sanctions. You went straight to the option where your (and other's here) authority is used to threaten, intimidate and coerce a weaker player (and Troglen is hugely inexperienced wrt WP editing, talk page discussions, etc, if you just look at the filtered contribs). That is the dictionary definition of bullying. As I said, there is little point arguing with someone who has as clear bias and is only interested in rationalising their actions. This AN/I topic should have been closed with a warning to both parties and that was the end of it. I'm unwatching. -- Colin°^Talk 08:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin I'm sorry you feel like that. I don't agree with your analysis, either of this current situation or of the various users' contributions histories. I won't respond to your other points, since you indicate you no longer wish to discuss this, but I'm saddened that you think that because I don't share your perspective, you conclude that I must be biased, and a bully. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Users mistakenly call things vandalism all the time. It's not a good thing, but it's very easy to just think of it interchangeably with "bad edit" or "edit that hurts Wikipedia" until that gets beaten out of one's head. If warned and done repeatedly, sometimes it'll earn a block or a tban for battleground behavior. It's rare that we see as a first warning (for edit warring, calling something vandalism, etc.) a formal indefinite sanction (on a user who has already more or less agreed to the guidelines set forth in this thread). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Colin°^Talk 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per ROPE etc. I'm not familiar with the "large numbers of high class photos provided", but happy to accept that, and that it's a net positive. But from examples given here, it's not universal. And those are a problem, when they're being added against the efforts of other editors. DJ Ash in particular (sorry, that's not a good illustrative image)

It's well recognised that we have a problem with the self-promotion of images, often dreadful ones. We also have many cases where there is a surfeit of images, but a lack of good ones. In which case, we have to discuss which to use, often by first putting forward some criteria on how we're going to select. "It's my own image" should never be part of that. If a photographer can say, "We had a lack of images showing this aspect, so I went and took one", then that's great. Even if they can objectively claim, "My one is just technically better". But they should be able to pitch their image and have it chosen by consensus, because it really works better, not just keep shoving it back. If Glenn can accept that much, I don't think anything more is needed here, at least as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

To GIRTH: To Girth, My apologies if my writing seems to be “Invective” (yeah I looked it up) I see extremely well presented, logical, researched, supported, organized, and convincing presentations and all stated in a very calm manner such as the writings here of Colin, GMG, Rhododendrites, and some others. I seriously wish that I could do that.

But all that perfect and eloquently written presentation is all in vain when speaking to someone so ignorant, biased, and totally unwilling to understand anything that they don’t want to. Those editors may as well be talking to a wall.

Girth, It’s not a matter of simply disagreeing with someone’s analysis, it’s a matter of you ignoring and shunning the extremely factual and obvious no matter how many people and how well they explain it to you.

• COMMENT: I only come onto Wikipedia to post a photo and then leave. I do not come here to argue with anyone, that's the last thing I want to. The only replys I make are defensive when people start attacking me. Those defensive replys of mine that people are posting are only posting what I said - they are NOT POSTING the reason I was forced to have to say them. They are not posting what the attacker was doing or saying to provoke me to have to respond. - That's the most important thing - WHY I had to say what I said.

So the people who are reading the comments and then saying 'support' have no idea what they are doing because they only have half the story and no idea what went on beforehand or why I responded as I did. Then there are others who just make up stuff out of thin air and call it truth. Example #1. From User: AnUnnamedUser writes (Referring to me) "even going so far as to add the pp-vandalism tag to a non-protected page (pretending to be an admin)" - This is an outright lie - I have no Idea what a pp-vandalism tag is, or a non-protected page - and would never even think of trying to pretend to be an admin. Example #2 "His image is not an image of a disc jockey disc jockeying, but of a disc jockey posing for a publicity photograph". No - It's a real DJ actually DJ-ing at an event as proven on the DJ Talk Page.Glenn Francis (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Toglenn, this is another example of your jumping straight to invective. You say that someone is telling an outright lie. Is it not possible that they have made a mistake about this? Or that you did actually do this once, perhaps even accidentally, and have forgotten doing so? Rather than accusing them of lying, why not ask them to substantiate their claims - AnUnnamedUser, you have said above that Toglenn added a page protection tag to a page inappropriately, but you didn't provide a diff - please do so, or you should retract this claim. As for your second point, whether it's a DJ DJ-ing or a DJ posing for a picture at an event where they also DJed, that's a matter for the ongoing content discussion on the talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit. You are correct and I thank you. I did not consider that the editor could have made an honest mistake. (I do that all the time). But I'm learning things. It's rare that I go onto talk pages or forums and I'm not a good writer - I hate it actually (that's' why I'd rather just take pictures). Here is the proof that DJ Bad Ash is a real DJ and that my photo was taken while performing at an event an not a publicity stunt. This link was on the DJ Article page but deleted by someone. real. http://www.prphotos.com/store/category.cgi?&category=search&query=%5Eevents%2Esql&q2=4th%20Annual%20%22Team%20Up%20for%20Tourettes%22%20Fundraiser%20%2D%20Arrivals&x-start=0&ps=5&xgrouped=1&results_per_page=100&start=96 Thanks again Girth

Revisiting this event, I acknowledge that these photos of DJ Bad Ash are not the usual photos you see of DJ's. This is Hollywood where the DJ's smile for the camera and are not hidden away in cubby holes.Glenn Francis (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC) COMMENT: In the 12 years or so that I've been posting photos on Wikipedia, I've never had any real problems until I posted a photo on the 'Blond' article that User: Girth Summit didn't like. He is the one who is leading this "Hate ToGlenn for posting photos on Wikipedia" crusade and disinformation campaign. It is vengeance, and should never be tolerated under any circumstances.Glenn Francis (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Toglenn, hi again - I just noticed that you'd added this. I can't really understand why you think I hate you, or I want vengeance - I'm not even sure what I would want vengeance for, you haven't wronged me in any way. I do feel the need to correct a couple of points you make though.

I don't know why you single me out as disliking your photo on Blond. As anyone can see, I was not the one who reverted it, I just participated in the discussion afterwards, where four five editors (including myself) agreed that the photo was not an improvement, and no one other than yourself opined that it was better.

I also don't see why you are describing that discussion as a 'real problem' - it wasn't a heated discussion, nobody insulted anyone, it was just a discussion where you didn't manage to convince people that you were right. You did end up saying that we had WP:OWN issues, which seemed a bit odd, but other than that it was a reasonably civil discussion. Levivich's diffs above seem to suggest that you have had several much more heated interactions with users before and since that encounter.

To make my own position clear, I do not hate you, and I don't want to stop you editing. All I want is for you to stop edit warring over your images (that means reinstating without consensus when people revert you - see WP:BRD for the process as it's supposed to work), and I'd also like you to stop assuming the worst about other editors, calling them vandals and bullies etc., whenever they disagree with you. Whether this thread closes with a warning, or with a formal TBan, that kind of stuff needs to stop. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Topic ban on adding his own photos on any article here; he can propose an addition on the talk page of the article, but can't add them himself

• Support a topic ban on adding his own photos on any article here: he can propose an addition on the talk page of the article, but can't add them himself. And the main reason for that is that I don't agree with the claims by some here that his images are high quality, they're not, instead they're heavily, and crudely, photoshopped, with colours excessively saturated and sloppy sharpening (especially of hair) and softening (some parts of female faces softened, other parts not) in an attempt to hide the fact that most of them are blurry and badly lit (heck, from a technical standpoint even I could do better than that...), so the only use for them I see is in cases where no other pictures of the subject in question are available. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support at the very least. But it's likely moot now anyway since he's going to have his girlfriend do the work. Aside from an editor here and there attempting to whitewash and make excuses for the behavior issues, I still think we're looking at a "tip of the iceberg" problem here. We frown on professional writers coming in and doing paid editing, but I guess sliding a business card in with every picture is not a problem for some folks. — Ched (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no need, as shown by any evidence here, to go this far. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - ??? We have a user who routinely uploads high-quality images (more than 1000 of them) and puts them into articles. The vast majority of the time, it's a straightforward improvement and uncontroversial. Gets into some editwarring and a nasty disagreement. User has never received an edit warring warning, has never received a block, never received a sanction. We have two proposals which issue a warning or apply a formal tban on the problematic behavior. During those discussions he more or less agrees to abide by the rules set forth. ...and then comes the harshest proposal which just hurts Wikipedia? This is why ANI stinks sometimes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

"High-quality"? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Huh? Whether a specific photo is an improvement in a particular article is up for debate, but are you really going to go with the argument that these aren't high-quality images??? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See my comment above. The technical quality of the pictures (and I have looked at lots of his pictures on Commons, so I'm not talking about one or two of them...) is disappointingly low, which is why I wrote that they should be used only if no other pictures of a subject are available. And yes, I know quite a lot about photography, including digital photography. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

To Thomas.W: I did not come here to argue with anyone. But this reckless comment by Tom is so outrageous, so irresponsible, and blatantly false that I have to respond. I'm a press photographer and in addition to that I sell my photos on celebrity photo websites and on stock photo agencies worldwide. Before these photos are accepted and published, they have to pass a very stringent quality control process, and all of mine easily pass. How stringent? Here's the description on one site I sell on called Alamy https://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-how-to-pass-qc.pdf That said, there are defiantly less than stellar photos in my gallery. Those were photos that I took between 2005 -2010; 10 - 15 years ago. Digital cameras and software then was not what it is today, and I was in the learning stages of photo editing. Most of them are still on Wikipedia articles today. So to look at old photos and proclaim that all ALL my photos are poor quality is highly irresponsible, and inexcusable.

• Oppose This is going beyond ridiculous. Topic banning a photographer from adding photographs is akin to topic banning a writer from adding any article text. The evidence is that the vast majority of photographs are added without problem and are warmly received. In the few cases of trouble, other editors are equally to fault. Certainly the example that raised this (Disc jockey) does not support such a ban, and is more suggestive that User:SergeWoodzing should be examined wrt sanctions. As noted, the photographer has volunteered to let a friend do the Wikipedia editing, so really this whole topic should be closed to stop yet more ridiculous topic ban suggestions sprouting. I agree with Rhododendrites, this stinks. -- Colin°^Talk 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Like I said above let's PLEASE try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or perhaps how about: let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. Paul August ☎ 14:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is using a baseball bat where a fly swatter would suffice. Calidum 19:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT: I only come onto Wikipedia to post a photo and then leave. I do not come here to argue with anyone, that's the last thing I want to. The only replies I make are defensive when people start attacking me. Those defensive replies of mine that people are posting are only posting what I said - they are NOT POSTING the reason I was forced to have to say them. They are not posting what the attacker was doing or saying to provoke me to have to respond. - That's the most important thing - WHY I had to say what I said. So the people who are reading the comments and then saying 'support' have no idea what they are doing because they only have half the story and no idea what went on beforehand or why I responded as I did. It takes two to have an argument. So why aren't the people who were harassing and attacking me not being disciplined? They drew first blood -They were the instigators- whatever I said wasn't nearly as bad as what they said. And why not SergeWoodzing? Fair is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT I see that some editors here have expressed concern that I’ve posted photos on foreign language Wikipedia’s, falsely stating that the reason is for self-promotion. That’s simply not true. This is a recent thing I started brought on by request.

Contrary to the popular opinion of many Americans, the U.S. is not the only country in the World. I know so many people who live in foreign countries and most are multi-lingual. Since I started posting to Wikipedia, around 2008, people have been asking me if I could post my photos on their countries Wikipedia’s.

As far as photos of people are concerned, the vast majority of them on the English Wikipedia are Horrible! It’s much much worse on the foreign Wikipedia’s. Most pages don’t even have photos. I simply give them an image in which they can do whatever they want with it. They can use it, delete it, turn it upside-down, I don’t care – it’s their Wikipedia and they can do with it whatever they want. The reception has been very positive.

With the exception of a few editors here who have commented on this thread, this sharing of Images on other Wikipedias is universally considered a good thing, and I receive a whole lot of Thank-yous.

I do not understand why there are actually people who oppose this sharing images for other people to see. Selfishness? I don’t know – I’m not a Psychologist. I believe the purpose of educational websites such as Wikipedia is to share information, not just locally, but globally.

Closure?

I don't know if there's much more to be said in this long thread - it might be good if an uninvolved admin were to close it. FWIW, I still think a TBan as proposed above might be the better way to go, but there also seems to be significant support for a warning as a first step, and I wouldn't contest a closure along those lines. So long as the edit warring and incivility stop, that's all that matters. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Dinotrux Article has same false/uncited information being repeatedly added by anonymous users (AGAIN)

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

---

Same situation as over a month ago - an anonymous user constantly adds uncited information about an upcoming season to Dinotrux. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dinotrux&type=revision&diff=924287762&oldid=923359613 A mod protected it awhile back from anonymous users, but literally the day the protection expired, the person added the info back. They will not pay attention to citation-needed templates and are ignoring the talk pages. Requesting protection of page again, and possibly IP ban (if that's possible, not sure how that works here) -Ishmayl (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have filed a request for page protection over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If you need this or other pages protected in the future, that's the place to go! --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I wasn't aware! --Ishmayl (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note I've rangeblocked an IP (Special:Contributions/2602:306:BCAE:4750:0:0:0:0/64) for a year that has been adding unsourced content like this since July 2015. The RFPP for the page has been declined, so this thread can now be closed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Persistent misuse of minor edits and refusing to discuss

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

---

Davidsmith2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently marking all edits as minor and refusing to discuss objections to their doing so. I have brought this up on their talk page here, here and here. A quick glance at their edit history shows that essentially all of their edits are marked as minor and not explained. None of the edits is actually minor but major examples include, this, this and this. I have tried on many occasions to address this and have sent the formal explanation as to what constitutes a minor edit. I reverted changes with which I disagreed and have been reverted with the explanation that my reverts are 'vandalism'. Oddly this is the only edit the editor has made which was explained with anything other than 'minor'. The edits are not terrible but they need to be explained and abuse of the minor edit mark needs to stop. I would propose a short ban or a topic ban preventing marking edits as minor when they're not.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I left the user a message. I also fully protected Si King for 24 hours to stop you two from edit warring and to force discussion on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. From my POV, I would be happy for this section to be closed as dealt with.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Reporting user: NEDOCHAN

The user is persistently removing my edits to several pages; Si King, Jamie Oliver & Hairy Bikers, to name a few. User: NEDOCHAN has displayed the same behaviour against several other Wikipedia users. The user seems to have a vendetta against me and my work. It can't be all my work doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards. Nobody else has complained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsmith2014 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davidsmith2014: As noted above, NEDOCHAN raises legitimate concerns about your editing. Regarding your edits at Si King, I suggest you start a discussion there about the material you want to add, with an eye toward building consensus for adding it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Davidsmith2014, as I said on your talk page just to make it clear, you need to stop misusing the minor flag. I don't think there is anyone familiar with wikipedia and the minor flag who would consider your use correctg. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Page protection for Si King has expired. There should be no more warnings for the editor. If Davidsmith2014 reverts again, a block should be the next step on WP:NOTHERE grounds. Jerm (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks and hyperbolic rants from user Salamandra85

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

---

Salamandra85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing Me Too movement in a way that has caused other editors to warn them and this user to post some... intense responses on their talk page: Insisting other wikipedia pages can be used as sources, Accusing others of "censorship" for reverting their unsourced OR, and posting a huge "STOP" graphic and bizarre wikilawyering in response to warnings. Among other things.

Just now, they stated that my request that they edit with a calm, neutral and encyclopedic voice is "act[ing] like [accused rapist and sexual harasser] Harvey Weinstein".[151] As I recently did some cleanup on the article this person is so upset about, and reverted their problematic edits, I would appreciate some additional admins stepping in here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks in that post. The long text at the top of their talkpage is a little worrying. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC).

Intractable behavior of users CorbieVreccan, Bishonen, Yunshui

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

---

The user CorbieVreccan ascribes to me words I never said, like suggestion to split the article based on race suggesting that I am a racist, which is personal attack (based on nothing), e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924429901&oldid=924318432, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMe_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924432202&oldid=919441977, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924432873&oldid=924431211 . Nevertheless, the user CorbieVreccan is not blocked for that. Also CorbieVreccan writes "this person is so upset" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=924636213&oldid=924635385). And how do they know my state of mind, whether I am upset or just whistleblower calmly watching the Wikipedia rules are obeyed? That could be considered harassment as if I violate something because I am upset. There are many other troubles with what the user CorbieVreccan wrote.

For example, if someone writes about "Impeachment inquiry" for Donald Trump, even on his personal page, that is not a personal attack but the requirement of the not negotiable the most important neutrality rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), and "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.".

The words of Ms. Burke about the movement, "If this grows big, this is going to completely overshadow my work", especially cannot be personal attack as long as that was said by herself. When I said "This is not how neutrality is defined by the Wikipedia rules. Maybe you want a simple and nice picture of the situation. With this you act like Weinstein." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMe_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924609930&oldid=924599548) I meant that Ms. Burke did nothing to deal with that case and those her words was an aid for him and was in fact threatening the movement (e.g., it failed in 2015, as provided by the section in the article, and fortunately succeeded due to efforts of Ms. Milano), and supporting that such viewpoint of Ms. Burke means to support the side of Weinstein, which is obvious and could be even placed in articles' body, or in other words, to act "like" (not "exactly as") Weinstein (covering and/or helping rapes, definitely not raping itself, as clearly follows from the context).

Then the user CorbieVreccan suggested me to edit other articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMe_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924599548&oldid=924538485). Then I suggested to do the same to them. I mention this just in case if this is supposed to be harassment.

Concerning opinions and original research in talk pages (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=924690573&oldid=924689679, in particular, in relation to some my explanations about the rules in Wikipedia just in case, with which there is nothing wrong), they are definitely allowed there. If I were not following the Wikipedia rules as explained on my talk page, I would just reverted the changes of CorbieVreccan, as they do.

The lead section (in a compact form, btw) of the Me Too movement articles has been existing without troubles until it was edited by Squishyg on Oct 25, 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=922967652&oldid=922966902), adding controversial original research, for which a later made minimal necessary corrections. That went yet normally. Then on Nov 1, 2019 CorbieVreccan extensively added original research, violating also the neutrality rule, in the lead section, inflating it, and partly in the article's body (starting from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924084881&oldid=924049691). Then I made minimal corrections if CorbieVreccan didn't like the previous compact lead section. At least I can ask for the sources for the extensive original research of CorbieVreccan with "citation needed". But even that was removed too! I added the very basic secondary and other sources fixing the neutrality. All that was reverted by CorbieVreccan on Nov 3, 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924429901&oldid=924304268 . Adding one more source by CorbieVreccan (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924433583&oldid=924429901) did change nothing because it has nothing to do with "workplace" in relation to Ms. Burke. I saw one source where a "work space" ("They are the survivors of sexual harassment and assault that occur in ordinary work spaces, or schools, churches, homes of friends or family members, or the streets of their neighborhoods.") was mentioned in relation to Ms. Burke, but as one of cases, not "especially in the workplace" as stated now in the lead section without a source confirming that.

Taking all that into account, the user CorbieVreccan demonstrated they are very biased about the article of Me Too movement, including insertion of the biased original research and removal of key points with secondary and other sources, violating the neutrality rule, and that they persisted, I assume bad faith of them, which is why I consider this vandalism (just to mention here) which seems to persist if the user is not blocked.

So I ask to block the user CorbieVreccan at least for months to prevent vandalism, and also the user Bishonen for supporting that, blocking me without a good reason and breaking the rules, and for selective judgment (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924690020&oldid=924616178 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924690179&oldid=924690020 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924859409&oldid=924690179 together with what is provided here). Also I ask to withdraw the admin rights of the user Yunshui for ignoring the corresponding unblock request from me (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924862541&oldid=924861175). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamandra85 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Salamandra85 is now reporting normal editing and admin actions as vandalism.[152] This is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLE.

Something I forgot to mention in the first report: While I'm not certain this is a legal threat (it's certainly wikilawyering and more chronic misrepresentation of policy), this comment of Salamandra's should probably be noted, as well: "(The Wikimedia Foundation) might have to intervene by the law, which is why they write they usually don't do that, but that is possible."

Not that it deserves to be addressed here, but, if anyone bothered to read that rant above: No one called Salamandra85 a racist. What this user did was insert text stating Tarana Burke's founding of #MeToo was specifically to empower "young women of color," and then deleted sourced text where Burke says it's also "an international movement for justice for marginalized people in marginalized communities." Then Salamandra85 argued on talk and in further edits that this somehow makes "Burke's movement" a separate one from "Alyssa Milano's", so there should be multiple articles, and that Burke should be removed from the lead entirely. This is Salamandra85's opinion, and not supported by the sources. This user's edits show a pattern of a fan of Alyssa Milano, pushing a POV that involves removing or downgrading content about Tarana Burke, who Alyssa Milano et al acknowledge as the founder. Also, I didn't add any new content to the article. The lede was flagged as incomplete, so I moved stable, sourced content from the rest of the article up there to flesh it out, and have since reverted weird OR and attempted POV-pushing from this user. That's it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User is now reverting to messed-up versions again, including adding commentary in article space: [153] I've rejected their edit (the article is PCPed), but this needs more intervention. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

CIR/RGW issues

I encourage people to look at the contributions of Salamandra85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and consider whether we possibly have a WP:CIR issue here. For example, the English in [154], [155] and possible WP:RGW with the unsourced addition at [156]? Guy (help!) 10:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a language issue, obviously. Anyway, I've indeffed for persistent personal attacks, disruptive editing, misuse of noticeboards, wasting the community's time, and showing no comprehension of or interest in attempts at advice and warnings. If somebody would like to complain that I'm "involved" because Salamandra "reported" me to ANI, above, go right ahead. (For myself, I don't think I am.) Bishonen | talk 14:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC).

Bishonen, Endorse. Not worth the effort. is it September again or something? Guy (help!) 17:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Potential account sharing

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

---

I was gnoming and came on the account of User:GreatScottoftheAwesomes. A quick look at his userpage suggests their password. Since it's not a username of mypasswordis xxxx I couldn't post it to the Username board, so I thought I'd point this account for possible action from admins . Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• The account hasn't edited since 2007... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• And in any case, they're having you/everyone else on : Passwords must be at least 8 characters. ——SN54129 19:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• The password is not literally what was on the page so I don't think we need to do anything here. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, I revdel'd the password, and figured as long as the 4 people above didn't try to hijack it we'd be fine, but (a) apparently it wasn't the password, and (b) xaosflux posted it here (!), so I guess I'll go unrevdel. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I did try to hijack it, it failed :) But no need to leave it visible on the page nonetheless, I didn't bother with deletion as it wasn't actually the pw (in which case I would have sent it in for a g-lock). — xaosflux ^Talk 19:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

How come, in the last couple of days, we keep bumping into each other, and you keep being right about stuff and I keep being wrong? It's annoying. Stop it. If I think about this long enough, I'm pretty sure I can figure out a way to spin this as incivility on your part. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Being right all the time very annoying. Bishzilla block the young Xaos, make Floquenbeam happy? bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 20:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC).

I do like being called young! — xaosflux ^Talk 20:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Renewed political POV-pushing and personal attacks by WhiteStarG7

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

---

WhiteStarG7 (talk · contribs) and his IP sock 2A02:587:3A0D:F500:1C5F:3FD1:6B8A:F0A6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), coming from a recent 48h block for edit-warring, have been engaging in their usual anti-communist POV-pushing by rearranging the position of combatants in infoboxes (!!!) to place the communist factions lower down at Greek Resistance, European theatre of World War II, and Italian Civil War.

When reverted by me and Havsjö (talk · contribs), he has reverted again, and launched accusations that we are communists [157] and [158]. The edit history at European theatre of World War II makes clear that the IP account is the same as WhiteStarG7, who just after logging himself in to get involved, also proceeded to attack another user at his talk page.

Given the hard ideological line evident with this user, his deliberate disregard for facts (claiming that EDES, a regional organization with some 12,000 fighters was "by far the largest organisation" compared to EAM-ELAS with over 50,000 fighters and a nation-wide political movement a million strong), the previous block, and the aggressive tone, he is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but rather to troll around. Constantine ✍ 20:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Same sockmaster account came to my talk with insults just because I warned him in the past about socking. This account needs to be indeffed. Dr. K. 22:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Noting that NinjaRobotPirate indeffed the account. Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. Dr. K. 03:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive and unpleasant editor

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

---

Editor SeasSoul is near the 3RR limits at Ford Corcel (I don't want to push the editor into violating them), refusing to discuss, deleting all messages left on their talk page and generally being unpleasant. I reached out to one of the other editors he is warring with and received this response:

Dear Mr. Choppers, you are absolutelly right about SeasSoul: this problem has been going on for a while. Weeks ago, I have asked help for the administrator MilborneOne who protected Fortaleza Airport for 2 weeks but at the end of which problems started again. Another well-known administrator, Jetstreamer tried to politely intervene but was received with coarse language on his talkpage. Epistulae ad familares also tried to intervene without any success. All notes that were left on SeasSoul talkpage were deleted and all messages left on Fortaleza Airport were disregarded. SeasSoul acts in many places; I am aware of his acts in Brazilian airports articles but apparently his actions go way beyond. In most articles he places new airlines services always without a reference; when they are correct - and most of them are - I just place a citation needed note and let it be. However, in the aviation project, the worst case is Fortaleza Airport: the article needs editing badly but almost any edition that is not according to his will is reverted. That's why we have a charter airline (Sideral) listed without destinations! I suspect but cannot prove that the same person acts under different accounts because similar situations have been found under the nick Mateusportuga and last year the account CBG17, which was very active at Fortaleza Airport was blocked indefinetivelly. Not being an administrator and not willing to start an edit war I do not know what to do. I believe, Wikipedia should be made aware of this. (Brunoptsem)

I am not familiar with the other problem editors' styles and cannot say whether SeasSoul is a sockpuppet, but SeasSoul is clearly not here to engage, discuss, nor to build a better WP. I would welcome either a comment on their talkpage, or a short warning block perhaps. Or perhaps someone fluent in Portuguese could get them to mend their ways? Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Going further in the situation presented by Mr. Choppers, there were at least twice clear vandalizations related to the president of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro and of the Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, and multiple issues with 2019 Northeast Brazil oil spill and the National Museum of Brazil. (Brunoptsem (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC))

One issue is that SeasSoul has marked 87% of his/her edits as minor edits irrespective of whether they were minor edits. See xtools.wmflabs and Special:Contributions/SeasSoul. Toddy1 (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems like this is either a case of WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR but in either case, the user should probably get a at least a short block for disruptive editing. I'm not a huge fan of an Idef yet but the user definitely needs a wack with a cluebat. CodeLyoko^talk 16:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, his talk page has been blanked once again. (Brunoptsem (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC))

With multiple complaints and no response from this user, I think a block is needed per WP:NOTHERE reasons. Jerm (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Quickly using some Hermeneutics tools based on types of editing, behaviour, vocabulary and themes there is a possibility that Cruks blocked in 2012 and Monart blocked in 2014 are related to SeasSoul, maybe even the same person.(Brunoptsem (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC))

They've blanked every notice/warning they've been given, including the one I left about WP:COMMUNICATE. Seems like ample evidence that they have no interest in working collaboratively. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, communication is required. Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 06:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC).

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

AFD with potential external canvasing or other shenanigans

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

---

I try to stay out of trouble and off the notice boards. In fact, I'm not sure if this is an issue for ANI or SPI or some other process. But an administrator who does probably ought to peek in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survival Edge Technology. There's certainly a possibility of external canvassing or sockpuppetry, but perhaps several new users with a keen interest in this specific topic merely need to be welcomed to the project... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely some socks here, but I don't know who the master is. Maybe the one who created the article? I'm just guessing though. A check user should find the master or link the socks to each other. Jerm (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Xavier2209 (talk · contribs) and Akshatver (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed to the article creator IKPlusOne (talk · contribs). The other two accounts created to comment at the AfD are more likely WP:MEAT. I've blocked the master account for two weeks and indeffed the confirmed socks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thnx! Now is there a clerk who can archive this as a SPI case? Jerm (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably quicker to just do it myself: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IKPlusOne.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jezebel's Ponyo Thnx again. Jerm (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Charles Burnett (director)

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

---

Charles Burnett (director) has been vandalised by Oberontheelfruler (talk · contribs) but a simple reversion is not possible because it would reintroduce links that appear to be blacklisted. Can someone else restore it? Dorsetonian (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Already fixed by another editor. MB 20:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup, done, just went ahead and removed the offending link during the undo. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Dorsetonian (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Hoaxer inserting false references

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

---

• Special:Contributions/71.234.178.78
• Special:Contributions/2601:180:8200:63D0:440F:41BF:FCA1:A488/64

Both IP ranges have recently been used to insert misinformation into pop-music articles. All of this person's edits either are unreferenced or have bogus links to "dailyh.com" and "hothollywood.com": both parked domains with no content. He or she is predominantly concerned with adding false or unverifiable information to pages related to the singer Lizzo and promoting "Claudia Momen", a purported celebrity flautist who does not appear to exist. Cheers, gnu57 21:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked both the single IP and the IPv6 range for one month.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. gnu57 23:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

IP refusing to communicate

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

---

• Special:Contributions/2.217.39.9

This IP keeps adding subcats which are not needed as they are overruled by the parent category, as per WP:SUBCAT. Nearly all of the users edits are the addition of such redundant categories, and they have been asked to stop by several users. No response at the IP's talk page. At Toyota Starlet, the user has been reverted seven times by three different users but still persists. WP:NOTHERE as well as WP:CIR.

As a side note, will English language WP ever reconsider not requiring registering before editing? I am curious if there has been at least a discussion about this. Sometimes it feels as if half of my editing time is wasted mopping up IP nonsense.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Require registration. I blocked the IP for 48 hours. Please check their other edits and notify me if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I will reach out if the IP starts up again.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Targetted harrassment

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

---

Hi there, the administrator *Diannaa (talk · contribs) has been targeting the pages I've been creating for deletion without even studying to see whether her copyright claims are correct.

When a bot showed that text from my article Assyrian-Canadians matched text from aina.org, I was told that they owned the copyrighted material and I had all of my edits deleted, with no warning. It turns out that aina.org was plagiarizing the content on their website, and linking to the original article right on the page I referenced, just some slight due diligence would have shown that the statements made regarding aina.org being the copyright holder of the content were false, but the bot's consensus was used as truth.

Next the article The Assyrian Tragedy was placed for speedy deletion, for apparently violating copyright laws again.. this time I knew the website which wrote the article I copied from had a terms of service stating their material was free to be copied and in the public domain, however this wasn't taken into account by Diannaa before requesting a speedy deletion for the article! A rather rash reaction, for information that was in the public domain, but I was punished before this was even confirmed.

Perhaps you can see the unfair targetting by Diannaa and maybe place another administrator over my work, that doesn't react before understanding the situation.-Ramsin93 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ramsin93: - can I suggest that it isn't really indicated as targetted harassment - 2 instances, both quite easy actions to have taken. Obviously it's irksome at best to have your content deleted when it's legitimately here (though adding the notice template helps cut down on them) but they've corrected themselves on request both times and aren't pursuing all your other content work. Diannaa is quite an active admin (35th most in the last month), so it would take more than 2 pings to demonstrate targeting. Hopefully the issue won't reoccur. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Seeking de-escalation over at User talk:Dennis Bratland#Kinda bitey reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett

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

---

I have also reached out to Bradv over at User talk:Bradv#Can you intervene over at User talk:Dennis Bratland#Kinda bitey reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett, but I carbon-copying this request here in an attempt to de-escalate the situation that arose at User talk:Dennis Bratland#Kinda bitey reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett following Dennis Bratland's concern over my tagging some potentially excessive citations post-my nominating Erica C. Barnett for deletion. I respect Dennis immensely, his discussion contributions, and editing, but feel that his replies to me have been somewhat bitey and he is failing to assume good faith by assuming that I would've read many WP policies (which are numerous). When informed by him that I should avoid tagging an article after nominating for AfD, I promptly heeded his suggestion to remove the tags. So, I'm just seeking either Bradv or another administrator to de-escalate the situation, remind Dennis to be less bitey and to always assume good faith, and remind me to update myself on certain policies that Dennis highlighted (i.e., WP:BLP).

Thanks,
--Doug Mehus (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've collapsed the discussion, since it's not helping those who only care about whether or not to delete the article. I stand by my complaints of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and gaming the system. We have an AfD nomination that claims all sources cover the subject only tangentially, yet the very sources that are specifically about the subject are tagged {{refbomb}}. The AfD claims the subject hasn't received significant coverage, yet the refbomb tags seek to suppress multiple sources. It's very hard to interpret that innocently. The claim that the sources are redundant is easily disproved: simply read them and you see that the cited sentences have facts found in one source but not all of them. And THREE footnotes is excessive? Why would any one say that except when they have an ulterior motive? Two handpicked editors are invited by name to join the AfD, one of whom has already !voted delete. Does not look good, does it?

  Dmehus says they've never read WP:BLP. Perhaps they are that innocent. But if so, they need to understand how WP:POINTy and gamey this looks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for collapsing the discussion. Dennis Bratland, I realize you have been editing more regularly than me so it may be difficult not to be at least somewhat cynical, but honestly, I wasn't trying to suppress any sourcing. I was just thinking they'd be helpful reminders to take a second look at some of the duplicative sources to see whether are all necessary. I've seen a number of articles at AfD whereby editors have added multiple sources for the most basic of facts where only one source was needed.

Nevertheless, I think there were incorrect assumptions made on both our parts. You failed to assume good faith in assuming I'd read WP:BLP (I haven't)—I've read through most of WP:Notability and some of WP:Citation needed, but not that one.

I acknowledge that my nomination statement could've been worded more neutrally and I shouldn't have added those tags, but on the latter point, when you suggested (albeit somewhat bitey) I remove them, I did. I do not want this to be antagonistic; you are a strong editor who does good work. You may be more of an inclusionist than my deletionist philosophy, and that's OK.

Can we move forward quickly and amicably, setting this to bed? I am willing to make any changes to my AfD nomination statement. In fact, if you would like to word it more neutrally, I am happy to have you do so.Doug Mehus (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, don't hesitate to rewrite an AfD nomination. The shared goal is to have correct AfD outcome, so the page should give other editors good information to make a decision. We can delete the collapsed discussion so nobody else gets drawn in. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, I am fine with leaving the collapsed discussion, in which I corrected your second top tag to a bottom tag, or removing it. I will leave it at your discretion. I rewrote the AfD, removing what I viewed as the most problematic word—all. If you feel anything else should be modified, please feel free to discuss on the AfD's Talk page so I can consider/make the change.Doug Mehus (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Two general notes:

ANI is more a place for escalating, and not all that good at deescalating. :)

XfD is one of the most contentious and policy-heavy areas of the project. It's a venue that has real consequences and can easily lead to bad feelings for those involved. IMO apart from perhaps an arbcom proceeding it is perhaps the most important place in projectspace to have a solid understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines beforehand, because one would surely run into lots of conflicts and accidentally take up people's time unnecessarily otherwise. Consider this food for thought based on this thread more than a specific comment about the discussions that led to it. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Stalking and ad hominem

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

---

User:Bacondrum has repeatedly accused me of being here having an axe to grind. Some of the accusations they used in Talk:Call-out_culture: "grind an axe about feminists or the alt-right", "attacking Wikipedia for being a leftist conspiracy", " recuse yourself from editing political pages" (nevermind that Call-out culture is not particularly political), "pushing partisan right-wing politics", "[I] post fringe conspiracy guff".

They even stalk me around in Wikipedia, looking at my contributions intent to reverting anything they could find, despite the page not being on their radar (eg: The Manipulated Man).

They first arrived on the scene reverting my change including claims from Jonathan Haidt in Call-out culture, totally disregarding the consensus of its inclusion in the Talk page.

I'm afraid they will continue to harrass me. Not that it would stop me from contributing to Wikipedia. Looking at User_talk:Bacondrum you can see they got recently banned for 2 weeks due to edit warring. Since this user has had a track record of such behaviour, how do you advice that I proceed?

(Note: I was advised to post here by User:DeRossitt who also wrote that User:Bacondrum "has a long history of behavioral problems that have been met with increasingly lengthy bans. And they mostly arise from the same few articles.".)

- Sridc (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc, Some WP:DIFFs would be helpful here. DeRossitt mentions "the same few articles". What would those be? Is there a specific area in which Bacondrum is having issues? A topic ban may be in order. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The accusations I quoted in the first paragraph can be found in this particular section: Talk:Call-out_culture#The_two_feminist_sources. Since you asked for diffs: diff 1, and diff 2. Elsewhere in that talkpage User:DeRossitt referred to a "behavioral roadblock" to progress on this article; presumably he was referring to reverts and edit wars from User:Bacondrum and others, but I'll let them respond. I do feel that User:Bacondrum has been hindrance to improving Call-out culture; but they are also particular problematic in another related wiki page: Talk:The Coddling of the American Mind (see under "undue detail, pov clunky" section). - Sridc (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum has removed a bunch of relevant text from both Call-out culture (see here for diff) and, mass deleted a bulk of The Coddling of the American Mind (see Talk:The Coddling of the American Mind), which is presumably the result of the "behavioral roadblock" which User:DeRossitt refers to. - Sridc (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

First, I've not accused old mate of anything. I would argue for a WP:BOOMERANG here. Most of the edits he refers to happened a fair few months ago, before he had made his first edit (so had nothing to do with this fella at all) - I removed fan cruft and massively undue content, I discussed removals, compromised when challenged, I've not edit warred or done anything else against Wikipedia guidelines. I can say with absolute confidence that I've done absolutely nothing wrong on this occasion. I and another editor Simonm223 have raised issues about a CoI with this editor. Look at this editors edit history - They've been edit warring, and going on the twitter feeds they have shared with us, I have reason to suspect they have an agenda, editing with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and are WP:NOTHERE, they certainly have a expressed strong redacted and this redacted. Shared this with us about redacted yesterday. I've not made personal attacks or stalked this fella, just looked at recent edits and a twitter feed they shared with us without prompting. Bacondrum (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have struck some off-wiki links per WP:OUTING Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc shared the tweets with us, here and here. Sridc is harassing me if anything, talking about my past edits, from September - accusing me of stalking and ad hominum attacks. I'm responding to this accusation by pointing out their recent edits over the last few days. I've not used Sridc's twitter feeds (which they were sharing with us) to challenge anything, I have challenged some undue content on the grounds that it was undue and some piped links that worked like an advent calander. Remember Sridc shared the tweets with us and I am merely pointing out that they suggest a strong bias on the subject and I cautioned them against bias editing, nothing more. Investigate properly and you'll see what I'm saying is true. Bacondrum (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't think either of us had done anything wrong, it's a content dispute. I don't think either of us deserve any kind of sanction, but since Sridc wants to make spurious claims against me I think a Boomerang is in order. Bacondrum (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

(EC) I just expressed strong views about inappropriate outing, but the problems here seem somewhat minor. One of the URLs is in their diff posted here at 05:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC) [159]. Although that diff isn't of the edit which introduced the URL, the previous diff confirms it posted by the OP [160].

I don't know who made the Tweet the OP posted but I believe it isn't the OP. While we should generally refrain from talking much about what random other people have Tweeted (or whatever) for BLP reasons, to some extent it happens. More to the point, talking about someone having posted that URL seems fair enough if appropriate and that often means it's best to post the URL so it's easy for people to understand what you're referring to.

Another one of the URL's is one of the four links currently on the subject's personal website they disclosed on their user page [161]. Given the indirect linking I'm not really comfortable posting it here without very good reason, still it's not like this was highly indirect given how short that website is. Also to some extent talking about how someone said "I like cats" on their website that they voluntarily disclosed isn't that different from talking about someone posted a URL for an external account on their website.

The third link, well it looks like something posted on the account linked from that personal website. We're starting to get to a stronger level of indirect linking that I'm less comfortable with.

But still I think the major issue is it's not clear to me there is sufficient reason to post those other 2 links, from what Bacondrum said although I haven't looked at them myself. Even if the OP has views most of us don't like, the key question is, what's the evidence they're letting it inappropriately influence their editing here?

Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, DeRossitt repeatedly urged Sridc to make a report against me and referred to me as a "behavioral roadblock" here and then advises Sridc about what a bad egg I am here. Is that not harassment? Bacondrum (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that you aren't the one who started this thread, but while I did not look in great detail, even if there is some violation of something, those diffs seem to minor too worry about at ANI. And I say the exact same thing to User:Sridc. It's probably best if you both just try to put aside any personal disagreements and work together to improve Wikipedia, using whatever form of WP:Dispute resolution as needed. For example, if I look at Talk:Call-out culture#The two feminist sources, I see a case which looks like it could have been a simple case where both of you agreed on some change to the article, but unfortunately it wasn't, starting when you left some comments which although I'm sure intended in good faith, were IMO never likely to help. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think NE is right on the nose here. The diffs are pretty mild for both sides. Y'all should take a breath, forget the past, and get some dispute resolution; I recommend a third opinion, or a formal entry at WP:DRN. But in the future, both of you ought be more civil, and always remember to focus on the content, not the contributor. Sniping back and forth is not an effective way to make content. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both, I appreciate your feedback and agree. Bacondrum (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Might as well close this thread as "both editors advised to seek Dispute resolution", however, it seems to have flared up again almost immediately with a new thread below at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bacondrum's behavioral roadblock; assuming that there is no point in merging the two threads? Britishfinance (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor returns

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

---

• Shadegan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ANI report from June 2019

Back in June I wrote on this board hoping to force Shadegan to communicate his concerns instead of keep reverting removal of clear POV and going on personal attacks.[162] The user has now returned and continues his disruptive editing. Firstly, they have changed the status of Iraqi Lurs as a revert directed at Feylis and the issue here is that the former is a povfork of the latter. I have consequently opened an AFD (Articles for deletion/Iraqi Lurs).

Secondly, they have readded information based on references from the early 20th century that has since been debunked (like Laki language not being a Luri dialect.[163]. When I confront his edits, he calls me edits ethno'centric[164]) Shadegan has been a disruptive editor since 2015[165] on various pages and I cannot understand why they have not been sanctioned. --Semsurî (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely for having continued with the "ethnocentric" personal attacks despite having been repeatedly warned to refrain from those. El_C 16:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive edits 41.113.67.29

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

---

Could someone with rollback rights look at the edits that 41.113.67.29 is making at [166] and [167] They are disruptive and may be vandalism. Netherzone (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for finding and reporting this vandal, but you can use Twinkle to revert vandalism yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you NinjaRobotPirate for letting me know. I did not realize I had that right. Netherzone (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Netherzone, the thing to know here is that "rollback" means a couple different things. Twinkle has a rollback function which restores a page to a specific revision (through what I can only assume is a mix of JavaScript and black magic), and anyone can install and use Twinkle. Separately, there's a rollback permission which does something similar. Confusing, isn't it? Anyway, going to close this, but if you have any questions about using Twinkle feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Jokestress: Topic ban violation, resumption of bad behavior, and POV pushing

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

---

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

Jokestress, who is open about being Andrea James, has recently resumed editing Wikipedia after a 6.5 year break, and went right to making problematic edits to a transgender related article. Essential background for this user should be read at the Sexology Arbitration Case. That case found that Jokestress has repeatedly asserted, without evidence, that users she is in an editorial dispute with have a conflict of interest with the topic at hand.[168][169][170], that Jokestress is a prominent party to an off-wiki controversy involving human sexuality, in which she has been sharply critical of certain individuals who disagree with her views, and has imported aspects of the controversy into the English Wikipedia to the detriment of the editing environment on sexuality-related articles.[171], and, most importantly, decided that Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles. The information in the preliminary statements (and in the links therein for additional background) is also very revealing as to her behavior patterns and POV.

Some concerning statements made by Jokestress touched on at ArbCom

Stalking Hello. Your username suggests you have an official connection with Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada. Your idiosyncratic communication style and edit patterns also suggest a connection with this school and the province in which it is located. I am happy to provide diffs off-wiki if you wish....Thanks for the reply. As I said, I am happy to provide diffs off-wiki. Also as I said, I didn't include them because they do include identifying information. [172] Statements about pedophilia Another major issue with how this is presented is the undue weight we give to the term as co-opted by psychology etc. to describe a disease/disorder. Saying "pedophilia is a disorder" is merely reification of the concept and a violation of WP:NPOV. The term paidophilia existed for centuries before being appropriated by Krafft-Ebing to describe a psychopathology. It's only since the moral panics of the 1970s that a whole cottage industry of catching and "curing" this population emerged. [173] "...survey of human adult–child sexual behavior worldwide indicated it has occurred throughout history with varying degrees of acceptability and was much more prevalent in the past...."; "Intuitively it is obvious that the sexual abuse of children inflicts deep psychological harm. But there are also reasons to distrust this intuition. First of all, it could reflect an irrational taboo about the sexuality of children. The idea that children should be sexually innocent is not universal; in fact, it is relatively modern..." [174] Note: this is a quote by Herostratus of a now deleted article written by Jokestress, who never denied having written those words, and who had just recently created the article. [175] Those interested in getting this policy reviewed should do so at Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection and should make no mention of their reasons for involving themselves in this topic, particularly if their sexual interests have any connection with this subject. [176]

After that case, she left Wikipedia for 6.5 years. I joined Wikipedia during this period, and first learned about the details above while looking into an article of hers that got deleted at AfD.

During this period, she has apparently continued to maintain her activist mentality of bending Wikipedia to a certain POV, the hostile us-against-them approach, and her attitude about WP:WINNING, as evidenced by some of her tweets.

Tweets

This @CreativeCommons infographic I made ended up in a 2018 @thamesandhudson book by @sally_hines! One of my dim bulb haters tried & failed to get the accompanying article deleted from @Wikipedia. Support my newest #dataviz - The Transphobia Project: [link] [177] Deletionists continue stripping @Wikipedia of helpful disambiguation pages. Now they are even stripping away redirects that might help young visitors. Amazing to watch the site slowly gutted from within like a termite infestation. #wikipedia [178] Now that @Wikipedia drove away #sex & #gender minorities, deletionists & fringe ideologues have free rein to distort coverage. They even want to delete helpful redirects, having already gutted articles, disambiguation pages, & images. I could be banned just for citing this: [image of transfan definition] [179]

Now, her recent behavior. At her return, she went straight to the lead of the article Detransition, adding in that Direct, formal research of "detransition" has shown political parallels between the ex-trans movement and the ex-gay movement. along with adding a Vox piece that claims The debate about transgender children and “detransitioning” is really about transphobia. Jokestress was rightly reverted by Genericusername57 who said Rv per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Please discuss these changes on talk. She then went to the talk page to claim This is a classic "phenomenon vs. term" political debate. This biased article reifies a transphobic ideology akin to the ex-gay movement. She then proposed an activist, totally non-WP:MEDRS source. She later suggested another such source in the following section, even though it was after getting the first warning about her topic ban (mentioned below).

Making a comparison to the "ex-gay movement" is a direct violation of her topic ban. Additionally, it is clear that the Sexology arbitration case was about transgender issues just as much as sexuality. She was warned about this by two editors on her talk page, [180][181] but both times she removed it claiming it was being archived, which it wasn't. [182] Note that a similar topic ban handed out recently was on human sexuality, broadly construed, but For the sake of clarity, this includes all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues. Likewise, the Sexology ArbCom case's discretionary sanctions, though now rescinded as redundant to the GamerGate discretionary sanctions, were authorized for all pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification. [183]

Given this editor's pattern of behavior, the same as that which got her topic banned by ArbCom, I am suggesting a reaffirmation of her topic ban on human sexuality, and a clarification that the topic ban includes transgender topics. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It's been interesting to watch so many productive editors who are sex and gender minorities be brought up on similar charges over the past few years. Look at how many trans editors had to be driven from the project just to get deadnaming deemed unacceptable. Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at the double standards sex and gender minorities face as editors. My 50,000+ edits and thousands of created articles have stood the test of time, except in cases where Wikipedia was made worse because I and others are unable to respond to people less knowledgeable about the topic, like the removal of Transfans mentioned above. I can't even quote a dictionary to help save a useful redirect without someone running to someplace like this to get me banned. Here's how I see it: I am one of the most productive and notable Wikipedians in history, but people want to ban me from discussing my area of expertise because of the medicalized bias pervasive on this project's coverage of sex and gender minorities. It's almost as if that bias could be measured. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, which is why I stopped by again. I actually care about the stated goals of this project, but the hemovanadin drama, the Transfans drama, and similar problems like these charges here need to be addressed in a methodical manner if this project has any hope of representing the full breadth of human understanding. Jokestress (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"I am one of the most productive and notable Wikipedians in history" Wow. 2001:4898:80E8:9:3553:4405:E938:1AE (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is a crystal clear violation of the (admittedly relatively old) topic ban. I was about to explain to Jokestress how she could go about appealing the topic ban, but I get a little confused with the older ArbCom cases. It appears from the Case page (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Appeals and modifications) that Jokestress could appeal this at WP:AE, WP:AN, or WP:ARCA. Is that true? Or since she was directly named in the ArbCom case, does she have to go thru WP:ARCA? Also, why isn't this listed at WP:EDR? Hopefully, someone more expert in ArbCom-ology will chime in soon to explain the particulars.
  Anyway, @Jokestress:, if you want to resume editing in this topic area, you'll need to get the topic ban rescinded. Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission, but ArbCom sanctions are generally not one of those times. Until/Unless the sanction is removed, further edits on the topic of human sexuality will result in a block of up to 1 month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  With the caveat that I'm in no means an expert on ArbCom, my read of the appeals and modifications section is that AN/AE could be used to appeal whether a specific action should have been sanctioned, whereas ARCA is the place to go to get the TBAN lifted wholesale. The whole thing is confusingly worded - "Important Notes" bullet 3 mentions that "these provisions" don't apply to people directly sanctioned by ArbCom, but isn't particularly clear about what provisions do apply to people directly sanctioned by ArbCom. Anyway, I suggest being bold and heading for ARCA, since one of its listed purposes is Requests for amendment are used to: ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans). (emphasis mine) ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Floquenbeam. If someone versed in the byzantine world of ArbCom tells me where to beg for absolution, I'll stop by. Jokestress (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It should go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Take a look at [184] for an example of an appeal of a restriction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded! Jokestress (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reaffirm topic ban for transgender clarification. I see no reason this can't be handled here. We clarify or reaffirm topic bans all the time. The sexology case clearly concerned transgender issues as well. And human sexuality is a broad topic, which significantly overlaps with gender (including transgender) aspects. We have various articles, including Transvestic fetishism, Gender variance and Childhood gender nonconformity that show this overlap. Childhood gender nonconformity, for example, very much aligns with an eventual gay, lesbian, or bisexual sexual orientation. Prospective studies have shown this. Furthermore, even Jokestress's first suggestion at Talk:Detransition shows overlap between sexuality and the transgender topic. But even if one thinks human sexuality doesn't cover detransition, it's still the case that making a comparison to the ex-gay movement, as Jokestress did at Talk:Detransition, is definitely on the subject of human sexuality, and therefore a topic ban violation. I do not see that, given their views (including on our policies and guidelines) and how they notoriously try to go about getting those views implemented, this editor should be allowed to edit sexual or gender topics. This is a person who considers all medicalization a bad a thing, and has repeatedly tried to undermine Wikipedia rules such as WP:MEDRS. I especially don't see how anyone (except for pedophiles, child sexual abusers, and related POV-pushers) can be comfortable letting this person edit pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics. For anyone thinking "that was years ago"? As seen by their off-Wikipedia activity and recent behavior once finally back on Wikipedia, Jokestress has not changed in all of these years. Jokestress has simply behaved the same way off Wikipedia. Because the editor hasn't changed, I expect them to go on about how I'm supposedly the problem, but I stand by what I stated (back in the ArbCom case against this editor and now). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Flyer22 Reborn, I understand what you're saying about clarifying/reaffirming topic bans here, but my understanding is that those are almost always community-imposed. Since Jokestress was TBANned by name in an ArbCom ruling I think it would be better to leave the decision to ArbCom . ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  And I understand what you are saying. But this is a community matter. This editor is very much a threat to the community, and I feel that it's best handled by the community here at ANI. Jokestress trying to paint this as silencing a transgender person does not cut it. For those of us who were there -- who know how problematic this editor was at pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics, and other topics -- this was never about Jokestress being transgender. Wherever this goes, I will oppose this person editing sexuality and gender topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Point of order - To the best of my knowledge, we cannot "reaffirm" an topic ban done through arbitration enforcement (WP:BAN). We can do a community ban, but that is separate ban (and superfluous in the presence of a ban from the arbitration committee). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The reaffirmation is that Jokestress shouldn't be editing these areas. This thread has reaffirmed that. And it was needed since this editor ignored the two warnings on their talk page about it and kept editing at Talk:Detransition. It should not have taken this ANI thread for the editor to acknowledge that they should stop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is a WP:AE matter, and has already been "clarified". There is no need for any WP:ARCA action, as there is no missing clarification to get at. (Unless Jokestress wants to appeal, since ARCA is also the venue for that. It would be ill-advised given the critical nature of this thread and the non-constructive behavior that lead to it, immediately upon Jokestress's return to the site and to the same topic area.) ArbCom already clarified (in the Fæ ARCA) that "human sexuality" includes transgender issues, which everyone knew already. Trying to skirt that is just WP:WIKILAWYERing. Given that Jokestress was T-banned from this entire area by ArbCom, and the topic area is also covered by broad WP:AC/DS (with various broadly construed sex/gender scopes merged into the same sanctions), and Jokestress was misusing Talk:Detransition in a WP:FORUM / WP:SOAPBOX manner to point to primary-source and highly politicized "research" (suggesting criticism of non-heteronormative sexuality is all about "ungodliness") in a known predatory journal from a publisher whose entire website is on our blacklist ... Well, this is clearly actionable, it's an AE matter not an ANI one, and there's not much more to say about it here productively. I went over this in more detail at Jokestress's talk page (where everything critical seems to be immediately archived by Jokestress without acknowledgement). Given the tweets evidence above, this looks like WP:SANCTIONGAMING by a WP:SPA.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC); revised 20:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The initial Talk:Detransition post is only a couple of days old, and Jokestress has been consistently posting there since. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Bacondrum's behavioral roadblock

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

---

• Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sridc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Call-out culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has been going on revert spree for days under no reasonable grounds. I find them to be a big roadblock to any and all attempts of mine to improve Call-out culture while sticking to Wikipedia standards. This user has used ad hominem attacks towards me in the past (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Stalking_and_ad_hominem) and, as far as I see, they show no sign of stopping.

Presently, the user is engaged in reverting a very reasonable change I'm making to the article, of making the introduction paragraph remain accurate while using reliable sources.

Their revert of my change

For the Talk discussion, see Talk:Call-out_culture#Opening_paragraph. In brief, their arguments have no validity. You can read the discussion for yourself.

Previous reports on this user:

- DeRossitt also noted the same about User:Bacondrum in Talk:Call-out_culture#Haidt's_book.

- User:Bacondrum was recently blocked from editing for 2 weeks due to edit warring. User_talk:Bacondrum#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion.

- Sridc (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sridc: Why did you need to open a separate thread? There is already a thread open on Bacondrum (which you started). As I see it, you aren't following the WP:BRD cycle. Bold - you made a bold change. Revert - Bacondrum reverted your change. Discuss - the step where things fell apart here. You need to engage in discussion, and if that fails, dispute resolution. Its time to get formal dispute resolution, or hold an RfC, or seek a third opinion. There are no behavioral issues that warrant a thread at ANI. If you two cannot play nice, then maybe an interaction ban is order, but we have not reached that point yet. This is still a content dispute Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Oops sorry, looks like I opened it on the wrong notice board. But is WP:DR really the place? The problem is not with just this one particular change; the problem is with the _pattern_ of such behaviour from this user. In as simple language as possible, I think this user is intent on maintain their political bias in Call-out culture. Here are the facts I know:

- They once voted for deleting Call-out culture altogether

- They deleted large portions of text from the page (well from Cancel culture which now redirects to it).

- They immediately reverted my edit to that page mentioning Jonathan Haidt (despite my getting consensus about it in the Talk page beforehand).

- They reverted several more edits in that page.

- Currently, I made substantial improvement to the synopsis of the page, which this user is also reverting. Their reasons *never* made sense. This is why I think they are here to maintain their political bias. I may be wrong, but I can't think of any other explanation.

Do you think WP:DR is the right place? Or is it Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? What can I expect out of it? I just want this behaviour to stop so I can be productive in expanding this article. - Sridc (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc, Focus on the content, not the contributor. I'm not seeing a big problem with Bacondrum, and they seem to be trying to ensure that the lead of Call-out culture is neutral. Not sure how they can have a political bias surrounding this article...? In terms of dispute resolution, which is what I recommend, there are a variety of mediated discussion types and other ways to get feedback. See my comments at the thread above regarding that. Remember, nobody owns an article. You have to work with other people to create articles, and that process can sometimes be difficult. But if you remain civil, and keep working at it, some great things can happen. Remember, both you and Bacondrum have the same goal in mind: creating a great article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek - Okay. I'll remain patient and give this one more go. Furthermore I'll try to follow WP:BRD. If nothing works, as you recommended in the thread above, I'll post in WP:DRN. Thanks for your help. - Sridc (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc is encountering the same kind of behavior and tendentious editing that got Bacondrum banned several times before, Bacondrum has just gotten a little better at not crossing the clear-cut lines and thus it's harder for uninvolved editors to see how disruptive this editor is. Bacondrum engages in war-of-attrition style editing, in which they revert reasonable editors' good work, those editors protest, Bacondrum responds with word-salad explanations that misrepresent the situation and misrepresent Wikipedia policy, and Bacondrum ends up succeeding because few editors care enough to stick around for that kind of maddening dispute that goes in circles. After Bacondrum's three or four bans, I had hoped their behavior would be kept under better control. But they never learn. DeRossitt (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a much better and more succinct description of the problem than I can ever make, thanks. - Sridc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, DeRossitt - See them reporting me in ... bad faith: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sridc_reported_by_User:Aquillion_(Result:_) CaptainEek, I see little reason to be patient at this point. - Sridc (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You reverted six times on that page in 24 hours. Even if you were unaware of the WP:3RR, you still refused to self-revert when I pointed it out to you. One 3RR violation doesn't generally do very much in any case, I just reported you there because you have to stop doing that. --Aquillion (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc, please know that I 100% agree and side with you in this dispute that has got you so frustrated. I do think you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia a bit more because I think it will be hard for you to resolve disputes through the Wikipedia processes if you are not familiar with rules as basic as the three revert rule, which is mostly why Bacondrum has been banned in the past, if I recall correctly. I feel like not knowing the 3RR and lodging these complaints is a bit like jumping in the deep end without knowing how to swim. Having said that, I believe you are 100% correct to be aggrieved by Bacondrum's behavior. DeRossitt (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

DeRossitt Thanks for the advise. I'll do better, re: following Wikipedia processes. I guess it is for the good of all. I'll also reduce the frequency of my editing/ commenting activity here, which would also gives us a fair chance and time to review the changes and/or arguments. While my journey here began with a bunch of frustration I hope it will become a smoother ride from here on! - Sridc (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, DeRossitt. Unfortunately it didn't take too long for me to open a BRD complaint (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Call-out_culture). I'm convinced that there is indeed a behaviour roadblock to progress in this article. I don't envision opening content dispute complaints every day on this article, so please provide a better suggestion as to how to proceed. - Sridc (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, DeRossitt - The reason a new editor User:Aquillion arrived on scene to revert my edits (which lead me to file a BRD complaint) was because User:Bacondrum invited them to do so by posting on their talk page. See User_talk:Aquillion#Call_out_culture. Here's what Bacondrum wrote to Aquillion: "Hey, the kids at Call-out culture are back at it, adding back in excessive and unreliable sources, again. I'm done fighting the dodgy citations on the page, not by choice, but hey I don't want to get blocked. Would you be interested in casting some uninvolved eyes over the new section?". Question: is there a Wikipedia policy against such brigading? - Sridc (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If you check the date, that message is from months ago, long before this dispute. I got involved this time because the large amounts of talk and article edits made the page spring up on my watchlist. In any case, for me the main objection here is sourcing - from my perspective you've been removing good sources and replacing them with worse ones. I cannot understand why a Forbes contributor piece would be preferable to two peer-reviewed papers, or why you'd want to completely rewrite the lead around that piece after removing its best sources. EDIT: After reviewing the history and the sources a bit more, I'm sort-of feeling like this was just a mix-up - two sources got accidentally placed in the wrong part of the lead, then removed for not being correct for the place where they ended up, then another source was placed where they were originally meant to be and the text was rewritten. --Aquillion (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Yes. Fortunately I get the feeling that you are indeed doing the edits in good faith. I've addressed your latest points in the Talk page, and also went ahead and made a bold change to the intro paragraph. Take a look. I don't appreciate the "reverting as the default" modus operandi. I'd like you to talk about my changes, instead of reverting and expecting me to initiate engagement. It is not like I'm gonna vanish after making a few edits to this article. I signed up in Wikipedia mainly to improve this article! - Sridc (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Your most recent edit is completely unacceptable (Haidt's book takes a position of strident advocacy, meaning it cannot be cited without an in-line citation; nor is it peer reviewed or anything of the sort, making it worse than the sources you replaced); and you still moved down the two academic sources, while rewriting a well-sourced lead with academic sources to random opinion, stated in-line as fact, sourced to a pop-culture book. Furthermore, by removing the lead and removing the sources under dispute, you broke the WP:3RR. Please self-revert and take it to talk. I get that you object to these sources, and that you really like Haidt's book, but you need to slow down now that it's clear that there's no consensus for your proposed changes. --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This is harassment, Sridc is clearly WP:NOTHERE. I call for a WP:BOOMERANG his behavior overall warrants an investigation. Also, DeRossitt seems to be gaming wikipedia by encouraging Sridc repeatedly to report me here, here and here, their behavior is pure harassment. Bacondrum (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: - please note that User:Bacondrum is still continuing to accuse me of acting in bad faith. See this diff of their comments posted literally minutes ago. I've elaborated on this diff in my response to User:Nil Einne below. - Sridc (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sridc: A few points. One what on earth is a "BRD complaint"? This section seems to literally be the entire place in the entirety of Wikipedia where that phrase occurs. WP:BRD is very good practice, but there's no real noticeboard to file a report on someone not following it. Probably the closest thing is WP:ANI, after discussing it directly with the editor but even then it will need to be more specific than simply not following BRD. Two, if I'm understanding the opening correct, the reason for this second thread Bacondrum is because it was intended for DRN. But this complaint is definitely not the sort of thing suitable for DRN. DRN, as with all forms of WP:Dispute resolution is intended to be a way to try and resolve a content dispute by good faith discussion, and in the case of DRN, involving another party. It's not intended to be a place to discuss behavioural problems or for complaining about another editor. In all content disputes, editors need to put aside their differences and WP:AGF that each side is trying to make Wikipedia better based on our policies and guidelines. Also do understand there is no where you can get some other editor to "rule" on a content dispute, nor anyone entitled to do so. The closest that can happen is that an editor can assess a discussion and determine if there is consensus for something. This happens solely based on the discussion and our policies and guidelines, and explicitly not the closing editor's personal analysis of the content. Three, if there is dispute then someone has to initiate discussion. There's often little point worrying too much about who does so. Four, while I've already said I don't believe there is sufficient behavioural problems for ANI from either side, you're definitely not helping us believe you have a point on the other side when you manage to violate something as basic as 3RR. Finally and five, as with others I strongly suggest you focus on resolving the content dispute via the means available e.g. DRN. Hopefully it will be resolved and maybe you'll learn something. As I said before, remember to put aside the behavioural or a belief someone is a "roadblock". Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

−

I want some kind of action taken at this point, old mate has edit warred, completely ignored advice from admins, harassed and wasted all our time with what must be a record number of reports in such a short time. They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. At the very least I want the harassment to stop. I mean how is he asking me to resolve the dispute, 20 seconds after he reports me multiple times, hardly trying to bury the hatchet. Bacondrum (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please. Bacondrum (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I agree with your points, in general. The complaint about Bacondrum still remains though. They still continue to violate WP:AGF and accuse me of acting in bad faith. See this diff for the latest instance, which happened literally minutes ago. They are attribute malicious intent on my part, eg: "Sridc, you can't erase women or feminists from the discussion.". They are intending that I feel shame because I'm doing biased editing, eg: "Shamefully biased editing from you". They accuse me of "blatantly WP:CHERRYPICKING" (when the fact is that I actually proposed to include the feminist view in the lead in addition to the more prominent viewpoints) and pushing my "own POV" (whereas I'm encouraging the article to stay neutral). They accuse me of being WP:NOTHERE. They have written twice now that they are "no longer willing to engage with Sridc" - and yet they do continue to cast accusations towards me. You can check the diff for the context of these quotations yourself. As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, I do admit that I have unintentionally violated a revert rule, but I take it to be a learning process and aim to do better. There should however be no excuse to tolerate repeated personal attacks. - Sridc (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please. Bacondrum (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sridc: Those aren't personal attacks. Now, in terms of action, which you are both clamoring for. For starters, we could ban both of you. But that's not very productive is it now. Realistically, I do not see either of you being banned (don't push your luck though). If you two are really so fed up with each other, we could institute a 2 way WP:IBAN. That would mean neither of you could talk to each other, revert each others edits, and a few other things. If you both would like an IBAN, we can institute a voluntary (but quite binding) one. Otherwise, I see few possible actions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I thank you for your measured responses. I want to say something in my defense - I only ever saw this as a content dispute and made no reports, I've not clamored for action against anyone. I only asked for action very recently after Sridc has been subjecting me to an onslaught of spurious reports to admin. I'm still willing to work on content dispute, I just want this fella to ease off on the battleground editing and the endless reports Bacondrum (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to try work with the parties at DRN to resolve this as a content dispute if they agree that this is a content dispute and not a conduct dispute, and to have this thread closed, just as the previous one was. I will demand that they discuss content and not contributors, and they be civil and concise. Do the parties agree to abide by my grounds rules, and will they withdraw any complaints here, at least as long as I am working this dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Sridc, User:Bacondrum, User:Aquillion - Please respond and let me and the admins know that you are willing to work this as a content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I reckon that could work, I'll give it a try. thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am willing, yes. Thanks. I'm already seeing some progress in Call-out culture (still more work to be done). - Sridc (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would only be willing under the stipulation that the article, or at the very least its lead, be reverted to the last stable version before mediation starts and that any additions or changes from there be agreed-upon. The current version severely damaged the article's neutrality by placing extremely WP:UNDUE weight on Haidt, and I do not think I could reasonably focus on mediation while the article remains like that. I want to make it clear from the start (so we know whether mediation is feasible or whether it would be better to just go to an WP:RFC) that citing Haidt in the lead or relying on his definitions without in-line citations is a hard nonstarter for me and that I would never, under any circumstances, agree to any version along those lines unless there's a clear consensus on the talk page supporting it. I know these preconditions might be annoying, but if we can't agree on something that, to me, is so basic then we're better off avoiding dispute-resolution (because it means the fundamental content dispute is irreconcilable) and instead getting more voices involved via an RFC or the like so it's not just a few people at loggerheads. --Aquillion (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc has got straight back into me rather than content at the mediation page. I came to it sincerely and after Sridc's comments I don't think it can be done, this should not come back on me it is Sridc is refusing to participate in mediation in any real way, he just launched straight back into attacking me. He has been harrassing, making personal attacks, editwarring and completely ignored any attempt at sincere mediation. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I have started mediation between User:Sridc and User:Bacondrum. I invite User:Aquillion to join in, but dispute resolution is voluntary. I do not intend to impose any pre-conditions on the mediation. If an editor wants to take part in the mediation for the purpose of requesting that the dispute be settled by an RFC, they may take part to that extent. Comments or complaints about editors are not permitted. If there are comments about editors, I will fail the mediation, and it will come back here for a decision as to what sanctions are needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I suggest that this thread be closed with a notation that mediation is being attempted to address the content dispute, and that any disruption of the mediation will be reported back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello 911, I want to report User:Billiekhalidfan

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

---

Hello everyone.

First thing first, let me introduce myself : I'm BetterOfThatWay, an autoconfirmed user for now. Simple right?

• There's this editor I've been fight with since the first day I created my account. Since the first day, we've been in perpetual conflict over basic things but the more time would pass, the more things would get worse to the point where editor made me blow a fuse resulting in me getting blocked for uncivility. I deserved it, not going to lie. I've been used to all these shades this editor has been throwing but today, enough is enough.

• Today, while surfing on Wikipedia trying to find an edit to improve, I've noticed that I forgot to justify an edit I've made. My bad. The edit in question had been reverted by the editor I'm reporting stating "Unexplained edit swap" but then I reverted the edit but this time, I had given a source but it was the wrong one. After hours of research on finding the source I had found, I gave up and thought that it should be better if we classified the genres of an album by alphabetical order because I've seen other editor doing it, so I thought that it was the right thing to do but that was before Billiekhalidfan decided to revert it once again, making sneaky comments about how I've been blocked before. That is the current situation I have to deal with whenever I edit something on Wikipedia. That is what I open Wikipedia too. Sneaky comments about how I have been blocked before from this same person who has been blocked themselves. You see the irony?

This editor has been engaging in editing wars with me for months not to mention the many times this use played the victim in order to justify their behavior. Whilst I've been blocked and warned threatened many times by editor, this editor has been able to get away from everything they have done or said.

The problem is that this situation has been going on for months now and I'm reaching breaking point to please ask for peace. I ask for this conflict to he resolved one time for good. If one has to be banned or blocked. Then so be it.

Regards.

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• @BetterOfThatWay: can you provide us with any diffs? Hard for us to search the whole history of everything.Lightburst (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BetterOfThatWay, please provide diffs of this behavior. Also, the "911" comment here and on Billiekhalidfan's talk page aren't particularly funny. creffett (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to provide the most relevant diffs. Note that these are not it all. This been lasting for a while now.

[There|https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/923327638]

[185]

[186]

When I sincerely apoogized for the personal offenses I've deliberately mace.

[187]

When I was told that I was ranting when I was trying to make amends?

[188]

These are not it all. It has been during for over 3 months now. I'm honestly over it.

funny@Creffett:

@Lightburst: Please note that I'm aware that Wikipedia is not the place for happy ending and I'm only raising this discussion by recommendation of User: Ad Orientem I want to drop the stick and stop having to fight whenever I log on here. That's it. That's all I want from Christmas. (Unsigned comment by User:BetterOfThatWay)

I looked at the diffs and I looked at the interaction between you two. It's very hostile. This is over the genre of a band, quite possibly the dumbest thing to get into a fight over just behind the infobox wars. What I don't see is either of you engaging on the talk page to solve this. Perhaps an interaction block is a solution. Honestly I just wish you two would stop being so uncivil over something so trivial. 2001:4898:80E8:9:3553:4405:E938:1AE (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Ad Orientem: because he warned Billiekhalidfan of incivility. You both need to stop. 2001:4898:80E8:9:3553:4405:E938:1AE (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like poor Ad Orientem has warned both of you on separate occasions to cut it out with the incivility. 2001:4898:80E8:9:3553:4405:E938:1AE (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Question Has Wikipedia Dispute Resolution been tried? Doug Mehus (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@2001:4898:80E8:9:3553:4405:E938:1AE: literally the dumbest things ever. It's been happening for months. I don't even know what to do but to tell you that I feel frustrated, now I don't want to edit anything or even try to use talk pages. I just want this to be over but the other editor seems to be loving the cat fights and shades. I don't know what to do. I'm not trying to make myself the victim because I'm so wrong for even entertaining it and leave it rich this point where I have to bother a bunch of people for this. I've tried to apologize and move on but it kept happening over and over. And when I asked him to stop being uncivil to me, he told me to "hush" and "look who's talking" as if it justified in anyways what he's been doing to meBetterOfThatWay (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: Dear, I've read every essays I could on how to solve conflicts. Doesn't work. BetterOfThatWay (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Calling someone you don't know 'dear' can be read as condescending. Also I really suggest you just stop trying to change genres. The world won't burn down because something is labeled pop when you think it should be something else. 2001:4898:80E8:9:3553:4405:E938:1AE (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Good point. If this is regarding a music album, I would see how the music album is categorized at AllMusic.com and use that genre. That's what library cataloguers often use to catalogue recorded sound/music. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BetterOfThatWay, I didn't take take your reference to me as dear as condescending and I can appreciate how frustrating this may be, but I'm just trying to look at this objectively. WP:ANI is, in fact, about escalating a dispute, as editor Rhododendrites explained to me. Thus, I was just wondering where you had tried the DR noticeboard whereby volunteer dispute resolution editors are assigned to mediate disputes. If that fails, then by all means, bring it to WP:ANI. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I only looked at the most recent dispute. You've been edit warring to rearrange genres and add a source that plainly doesn't state what it is used to cite. While doing that you avoided the talk page and repeatedly insulted the other editor through summaries. This is not a good look for you. It would be advisable to drop it and move on. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@2001:4898:80E8:9:3553:4405:E938:1AE: I used "dear" as a mark of respect and definitely not to be condescending in any ways. I apologize. But thanks for your "help". It was a damn greeeat pleasure. I know the world is not going to burn down, I was simply trying to make a change on the article. You didn't help me at all, I just feel INSULTED.

BetterOfThatWay (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: I've already tried to use the talk page with this same editor many times but it always ended badly. See for yourself please.

[189]

[190]

[191]BetterOfThatWay (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221:

If you didn't notice, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. If only you had tried to give it a deeper look, I guess, you would've seen that I have been trying to stop the stick but it kept coming back to my hands (get it? haha) I simply returned the insults back to that editor that's been insulting me for months. Instead of giving plain advice it would be nice if you only tried to solve the problem? BetterOfThatWay (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@BetterOfThatWay: First, I think you misunderstood Someguy1221. I'm fairly sure they were telling you to drop this ANI thread since it's not likely to go anywhere good for you, see WP:BOOMERANG. Anyway, I don't see how you can claim you are trying to drop whatever it is and move on, when your most recent edits are telling an editor to "GET A JOB" and "it's hard when dealing with special specimen like you (trust me, it's not meant in a good way)"[192] followed by all you posted here at ANI. When your own behaviour is so poor this doesn't lead me to believe it's worth knowing in detail what the problem is. I suggest you stop the insults, no matter if the other editor is also insulting you and focus on resolving your disputes via methods of dispute resolution you said you've already read about. Considering how few of your recent edits have been to article talk pages, it's difficult to believe you're properly following any decent form of dispute resolution. And I'd note that all forms of dispute resolution entail more than you and the other editor being involved when you cannot resolve it by yourselves. Therefore it's not possible for the dispute to only involve you and another editor if you're following some form of dispute resolution, unless people find your dispute so pointless that no one can be bothered to get involved. I'd also note that if you misrepresenting what sources say, then that's likely a big part of the problem, whatever mistakes someone else is making. BTW, when I wrote nearly all of the above, I was unaware of your recent block and the concerns expressed. Whatever mistakes the other editor has madem you can see even without being aware of any of that, your recent behaviour is simply a terrible look. You cannot fault another editor for you telling them to "GET A JOB" or calling them a "special specimen like you". Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BetterOfThatWay, I didn't see any negative interaction on the part of the editor whom you brought to ANI per your # 65 source. In fact, regarding music genres, the reason "rap music" redirects to "hip hop music" is because it is a reference for the preferred term—hip hop music. Thus, hip hop music should be used. Could he or she have explained it better? Yes, but it's pretty tame. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: So wait you're telling me that I should not respond when I get insulted? Sure sir, sure. Secondly, you're being so caught up in your own damn opinion and focusing on my behavior (which has been pretty poor) that the point of this thread literally ' fleeeeew over your head' . Your majesty, you literally missed the whole point. You're not even realizing that I created this thread in order to help resolving the actual conflict that's been lasting for almost 4 months now. Not to get the other editor blocked or banned or even bash them. Understand that for God's sake. But as I can see your help and opinion had been everything but helpful in resolving this issue. If it happens again, don't pretend to be SHOCKED. AND YES! When making assumptions, at least verify that you're correct. When I was telling the editor to "get a job", I was making reference to the actual meme where the caption says "Stay away from her, get a job" that's it. Assumptions gets you nowhere, dear. BetterOfThatWay (talk)

BetterOfThatWay, I would strongly advise against you referring to Nil Einne as "your majesty" and, subsequently, to "dear". The former is a pejorative/derogatory usage on its own, but paired with dear, that confirms your dear reference is also pejorative/derogatory. I can appreciate how unsettling this, but if you're not willing to take the target user to Dispute Resolution, with a mediator, who may or may not recommend taking this again to WP:ANI where an interaction ban may be recommended, then all I can say is where I see this heading and it could be to an editor or an administrator recommending a temporary ban of some sort of yourself. If that happens, I would strongly encourage you to review WP:BLOCKING and ensure you do not try to circumvent any potential ban (i.e., by creating multiple accounts) in the future as that only makes things worse.--Doug Mehus (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

'So wait you're telling me that I should not respond when I get insulted? Sure sir, sure' Yes, that is exactly what you should do. We're mature people who generally ignore others that wish to be a pest. Those people that do insult others often get sanctions when brought attention to by others. What you've done here is bring attention to your own bad behaviour just as much as the other user's. In honesty, the repeated attempts to tell both of you to drop the stick wasn't people telling you that the other editor's behaviour is unacceptable, it was telling you that BOTH of your behaviours weren't acceptable. Additionally, becoming aggressive or sarcastic with people here isn't exactly going to win you any favours. As respectfully as I can say it, and as many others have said to you before, retract this report, ignore all further interaction with the other editor and return to contributing. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 17:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BetterOfThatWay? Doug Mehus (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Well. At least, I tried. 🤷🏿‍♂️ BetterOfThatWay (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have no idea what this Yeetcetera is doing here, nor do I know what BetterOfThatWay is doing on Wikipedia besides trolling: I have blocked them per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Drmies, I checked the logs. I don't see a block. In process? Doug Mehus (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

POV pushing and disruptive editing in Plimpton 322

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

---

• Plimpton 322 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• There is a POV pushing on the Era style in the article by an Admin, David Eppstein, and other users, failing WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. The admin argumented that there was no consensus, but without rasing any concern in the talk page. After a day without response I decied revert their edit and then they gave an explanation. Said explanation is based in their personal POV, and contradicts the facts on the issue as I stated. User:Wcherowi said that "If you want to avoid such a reference, use the Chinese calendar!", which is pretty racist given the context. When I tried to tag the article rising the issue the Admin revert it without explanation. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And now another admin, User:Johnuniq, made the accusation that I tagged the article to show "displasure" and that "nothing on talk shows a POV problem" when there is a whole section discussing the issue. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

    Rupert loup, It looks like you're trying to change 'BCE' to 'BC'. Something like that really should be addressed at WP:MOS's Talk page, possibly with an RfC, to build consensus. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Doug Mehus: But there is already consensus on that. The users said that my edits violated WP:ERA and MOS:VAR. WP:ERA clearly states that the use of AD/BC and BCE/CE is "depending on the article context" and MOS:VAR states "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". I already explain in the talk page why is a substantial reason to change, sytemic bias in Wikipedia is a problem and the reasons for their reverts, when they gave one, were opinions, which is POV. They accuse me of violate this policies, they reverted my edits without any explanation in their edit summaries H:FIES. I base my reasoning in what the Wikipedia consensus on the labels not in my personal POV. I find it extremly worrison that admins try to push their bias in this. It's one of the foundation of Wikipedia that should maintain neutrality and there is a total disregard of it right now. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Rupert loup, Okay, I stand corrected then. In this case, BCE does seem to be appropriate. Thus, I support that.Doug Mehus (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• This started at 23:38, 6 November 2019, a little over 48 hours ago. Any chance of engaging in the discussions there for a while? The article is not a highly contested topic and a few days of discussion won't hurt anything. After that, if you are still not getting any support in a dispute where four other editors disagree with you, try a noticeboard or WP:DR. This is a content dispute, not something for ANI. By the way, it is not a good idea to revert six times in 48 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I pretty sure that a racist comment by an user, Personal attacks by accusing me of violating policies without any explanation and continously reverting my edits by an admins with any substantial reason is something that deserves and ANI. You also accused me of disruptive editing and still you didn't give any explanation for that. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That's hardly a racist comment - and making accusations of racism without clear proof is a personal attack. Given your edit-warring and an apparent attempt to win by calling others racists, I strongly advise your to drop this. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A Western user joking with that I should use a "Chinese calendar" in a discussion on Western bias is pretty racist and unecesary, that added to the stuborn attempt to maintain that bias at all cost made it pretty racist. I won't going to drop anything. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement with your edits is not racism, and the reference to calendars is obscure at best, and mostly appears to be poorly-considered - your ethnicity, whatever it is, isn't apparent. You don't get to win content and style arguments by disparaging those you disagree with. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Bill Cherowitzo is a professor of mathematics in the University of Colorado, is a Western and white person. He didn't hide their identity. That comment is racist, I find it racist and I won't going to drop it. The accusations started against me. They are who are accusing me because my statements. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The first revert against me was a direct accusation, the Admin didn't engage in dialogue in the talk page after a day, and didn't explain why they weren't assuming WP:GOODFAITH. There were no reason to revert my edits in their summaries nor in the talk page. Revert without engage in dialogue is disruptive editing. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

• This is continuing at meta:Stewards' noticeboard#Bias and Admin abuse in English Wikipedia. It would be great is someone uninvolved could discuss with Rupert Loup (talk · contribs) the "racist" claim at their talk—I can't seen any racism in "The difference between BC and BCE is purely cosmetic since they both refer to the birth of Christ. If you want to avoid such a reference, use the Chinese calendar!". Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should read about what is an ethnic joke, the articles that I pointed don't state that the difference are "cosmetic", I raised the question on WP:BIAS and that response is racist to me in this context. You don't need to make that remark if you disagree with what I said, it was totally unnecessary and of bad taste. Rupert Loup (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Also David Eppstein is still accusing me of violating WP:ERA still with any proof of that. This is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Rupert Loup (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to set a record for WP:IDHT. EEng 05:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not who is reverting edits without discussion, also you didn't give any reasoning. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Now you actually have set a record for WP:IDHT. EEng 06:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You are fortunate to have avoided a block for edit warring. Your comments about how this is not a democracy would seem to indicate a lack of respect for how we build consensus around here. That's a problem. And no, the comment about the Chinese calendar was not racist, so you should stop saying that it was. Lepricavark (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a policy WP:DEMOCRACY, I'm citing that policy. Consensus is made by arguments, arguments that are not been given by those who are reverting tendentiously. I'm still waiting in arguments in how AD is related to this article. If you want me to stop saying that the comment is racist you should explain to me how is not racist because I already explained that I find it that way. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The comment ("The difference between BC and BCE is purely cosmetic since they both refer to the birth of Christ. If you want to avoid such a reference, use the Chinese calendar!") is not racist because it is a harmless suggestion that one way to avoid an disagreement regarding whether a date should be adorned with BC or BCE would be to use the Chinese calendar which makes no use of those terms. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

How is that response a "harmless suggestion" when is a direct response to my comment of sistemic bias and the content that I stated. Why the tu quoque response? I'm talking about bias and they answer me with hypocrisy. It's not harmless to me. The personal attacks here are not harmless either. I'm still waiting for their response. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree your personal attacks falsely accusing someone of making racist comments are not harmless. I don't think that's why you meant, but the only personal attacks I've seen have come from you. I'd support a block of you, if you don't stop falsely accusing someone of racism. Nil Einne (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think the advice of “drop the stick” is relevant at this point. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  I suggest we simply stop responding at this point. It's Rupert's choice whether he gets himself blocked now. EEng 06:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

LlewynYiming

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

---

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

I blocked LlewynYiming as a self-confessed block-evading sock of indef-blocked sockpuppeteer Yimingllewyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (help!) 13:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for a sleeper check or CU confirmation, you should post to WP:SPI (or a CU's talk page). But since we're here, LlewynYiming, SteveSmithFanCricket, LlewynYiming000, and Llewynyimingdoppelganger are all  Confirmed to Yimingllewyn. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, thanks, I doubted there was anything so subtle. Just checking it wasn't a Joe-job. And it's not. Guy (help!) 16:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yiming was told they could resume editing if they followed WP:COMPROMISED, and they did declare all their doppelganger accounts. (But since they created SteveSmithFanCricket it appears their little brother was them) – Thjarkur (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yimingllewyn is not eligible to create a new account. He was blocked for CU-confirmed sock puppetry and vandalism, not for having a compromised account. Admins should just ignore "my little brother did it" in unblock requests. Linking WP:COMPROMISED is a waste of time and gives CU-blocked editors the impression that they're allowed a clean start. They are not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Right. Even if they want to register a new account because they lost the keys to the old one, they should start by filing a formal unblock request via the TP of the old account or some such. They can't just go back to editing, especially on the same topics. Guy (help!) 21:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Recommended topic ban over repeated personal attacks and disruptive editing

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

---

I recommend either a topic ban for everything related to Turkey, broadly construed, or a complete site ban as per WP:NOTHERE for Buhedyar, whose bad behavior continues despite several warnings. The user's activity appears to be to push a strong nationalist POV, combined with actively trying to suppress information about the Armenian Genocide. While that might be acceptable if done in line with WP rules, Buhedyar repeatedly engages in edit warring [193], [194] and [195], [196], deleting sourced content about the Armenian Genocide [197], changing sourced sentences such as were killed to died [198], [199] etc. In addition to the edit warring and content removal, the user also takes a hostile tone towards everyone who disagrees, including making repeated ad hominem arguments related to ethnicity such as claiming that my defense of a scientific study he dislikes is due to feelings "towards Turkish people" [200], calling other users both vandals and trolls while invoking their ethnicity [201] and claiming their edits are unreliable because of their (assumed) ethnicity [202]. In addition, unhelpful phrases like "get wiser soon" and "shut Persian irredentists up" are also indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset. In short All of the above edit warring, content removal and overall hostility is from today alone. The user has repeatedly been warned over their battleground behavior [203], [204] but dismisses warnings as "pro-west hypocrisy" [205]. I see no indication whatsoever that this user is here to contribute to Wikipedia, only to push an agenda and doing so in a disruptive manner. As this behavior continues despite several warnings, I suggest either a site ban or topic ban on Turkey and Turks as per WP:NOTHERE. Jeppiz (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Even after this report was filed, Buhedyar continues to edit war, , four times in just a few hours [206], [207][208], [209] in addition to filing a bogus retaliation report below [210], abusing an article talk page to attack me [211], and vandalizing ANI [212]. Jeppiz (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Reductio ad Nationalismus

I recommend either a topic ban for everything related to Turkey, broadly construed, or a complete site ban as per WP:NOTHERE for Jeppiz, who continues to threaten actual contributors and fails to discuss in civilized and logical manner. Wikipedia is not some place that you can get someone banned after you lose an argument and get upset. I believe this website was created solely for information, not emotional anger. You possibly cannot be truly mad at someone wasting his time here to provide quality information regarding history and genetics. Speaking of the things that this user accused me of, I didn't say "due to feelings "towards Turkish people", I said "due to feelings "towards science or Turkish people". Because both are possible. Speaking of that discussion in Turkification page, I was only reverting vandalism done by him so I possibly cannot be at fault here. I was told to take the matter to the discussion page and all I got was short replies which indicated that the user didn't read any post that I made there and continues to threaten me. And about the irredentism post, I believe the user failed to read what the person wrote. Because it was him who accused us of being irredentist first. And I believe the user refuses to engage in a civilized argument with me. Speaking of the Armenian genocide, I just wanted the picture to go and didn't say anything about removing the content altogether. And obviously, there is a difference between "died" and "were killed" since most Armenians died of diseases and hunger, not by Ottoman bullets. Buhedyar (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This "report" is pure disruptive retaliation after I reported the user above for content removals, edit warring (including violating 3RR) and repeated ad hominem attacks. See my report above. The user has been warned by several users already. I guess I should thank them for proving my point.The user has of course failed to provide any diffs showing me to do anything wrong, and also failed to notify me as they are required to do. Jeppiz (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Update: The user still doesn't seem to realize that he is supposed to debunk the points of the counter argument and this cannot be done with single-line sentences. I don't care if you have been here for years. Where is your argument? Show me your argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhedyar (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Buhedyar, really no need for the running commentary, an admin will be along to look at it soon enough. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Creffett, will an admin help this guy win an argument? If no then why should I care?Buhedyar (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NOTHERE A look at their edits and their behaviour here, including trying to remove Jeppiz's ANI-report, gives me the impression that Buhedyar is here only to "have fun" and do some trolling, not being here to build an encyclopaedia... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thomas.W, I don't believe you read any of what I posted. Also it's actually "encyclopedia". A troll would not bother himself with posting a wall of text that has actual sources in it. Speaking of behavior, I find his crusade against science is wrong. Here is what I wrote. What a terrible troll I am. Creating sections to provide information and adding information! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkification#Fossilized_studies on the other hand all I get from this user is ban threats and tantrum. Not sure if he tries to get me angry because he knows he lost the argument after those magnificent single-line replies that don't even touch the point i'm making. Buhedyar (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want to be seen as simply trolling, stop behaving like you're simply trolling (creating a subsection that was just a copy of Jeppiz's report, with the user name changed, trying to delete Jeppiz's report, etc...). Your behaviour is what decides whether you will be taken seriously here or not, and whether you have a future here or not. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I see that Bbb23 indefblocked the account.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Boeing720

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

---

Boeing720 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that he simply must violate our WP:BLP policy to "expose" the father of Greta Thunberg. While Greta Thunberg could be considered a public figure, her father clearly is not.

Relevant comments violating WP:BLP by Boeing720 follow, with responses by other users.

• 06:46, 29 October 2019 It's her dad , [name of father redacted], who uses her. I suppose he is some kind of communist. And I'm ashamed to carry the same national passport as [name of father redacted].
• 13:17, 29 October 2019 warned
• 04:13, 30 October 2019 BLP discretionary sanctions alert
• 04:13, 30 October 2019 warned
• 05:01, 30 October 2019 warned
• 23:10, 30 October 2019 And by that I mean what I wrote about [name of father redacted] running Greta. I think the dad is a very dangerous man
• 00:01, 31 October 2019 Cullen328 blocked Boeing720 with an expiration time of 31 hours
• 16:42, 7 November 2019 The not adult girl, like I wrote, has at national television SVT, program Skavlan brought up her psyciatric diagnosis at least twice. ... The dad owns lots of shares in a company that has gone sky-high at the Stockholm stock exchange ... But without being experts, the dad has through his daughter pointed out not just aviation wrongfully, but range of products.

I find the continued attempts to imply that Greta Thunberg has psychiatric issues caused by her father to be especially egregious, yet he repeated the implication after his block expired.

At this point it is clear that Boeing720 is on a crusade to right great wrongs and has no intention of ceasing his behavior. Further warnings or short blocks are unlikely to have any effect. We could try a topic ban -- I am 99% sure that he will violate it, but we could try. One way or the other, this behavior has to stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, why repeat it here? Wouldn't diffs suffice? That said, I would support a tban from Greta Thunberg broadly construed, since they seem able to make constructive edits on other topics (based on edit count and block log). Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If he was posting this sort of thing on some obscure page I would have limited myself to diffs, but because all of the above has already been posted on the very visible User talk:Jimbo Wales and because Boeing720 has repeatedly failed to understand or acknowledge warnings, I felt it to be worthwhile to add the extra information. I have no problem with it being deleted instead of archived after this case is resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Topic ban I'd been watching this unfold on Jimbo's talk, and had hoped that 4 admins telling Boeing they were in the wrong would do it. But I guess not. Boeing does not seem to understand why they are wrong (which if they're reading: you keep adding unsourced controversial information about a living person. Even if its just on a talk page, BLP violations aren't ok anywhere on the site. You are adding conspiracy and fringe theories about non-famous living people, which does our readers, the public, and the person a disservice). Also, for the life of me I cannot understand the obsession with Cullen's sig? Discussion is not a license to break policy. Cullen, and several other people, have explained that very well. I think a topic ban on Greta Thunberg broadly construed would be good. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef: The reported user has been nothing but problems since they started editing here quite a few years ago (after getting indeffed for sock puppetry on the Swedish WP), and obviously haven't learned anything over the years (see this diff from 2014 where Bishonen tells them "... you absolutely cannot add your opinion, or your conclusions from primary sources, or things that are "in the air", to articles", and also points out that they already by then had been told the same thing multiple times before, by multiple users). Their talk page history is full of warnings for just about every kind of violation of the rules here that anyone can make, including NPOV- and BLP-violations, and repeated warnings for unsourced additions and using both articles and article talk pages as forums. An inability to learn that is an endless waste of other editors' time, so I quite frankly can't see why we should allow them to continue editing here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support at a minimum, a topic ban on Greta Thunberg and her activities and her family, broadly construed. Additional evidence of the problem can be found at User talk: Cullen328#Are you an Admin, of what have you warned me ?. I do not understand why this editor fails to understand BLP policy, and why they are hung up on my signature, but this has to stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Thunberg (all three) topic ban. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban and an outright site ban if he posts any further WP:BLP violations as he did at WP:JIMBOTALK, for which I just blocked just to show that yes we actually do mean it. Guy (help!) 21:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Leaning indef after reviewing multiple prior incidents. This person is unusually impervious to clue. All the talkings-to he's hasd about sourcing over the years and he still does this? [213] And this? [214]. Hopeless WP:CIR problem. Guy (help!) 23:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I am forced to agree with indef at this point due to CIR. Please see the unfiled ANI report I mention below for a summary of my many encounters with this user. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support TB from Greta Thunberg for now. I have seen similar arguments that Boeing720 is providing yet not from any reliable sources.--MONGO (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think I support an indef here. I tend to agree with Tom and Guy, and I don't believe a topic ban from the Thunberg family is nearly enough for the purpose of reining in this editor. I did spend a good deal of time very fruitlessly trying to explain sourcing and NPOV to them in 2014 (I think my exhaustion at the time comes through in the post Tom links to above), and this Thunberg thing demonstrates yet again that it didn't "take". Taking their BLP violations to Jimbo's page, after a number of admins have tried to explain the problems and the rules to them, is pretty bad. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC).
• Support indef: based on Thomas.W and Bish above, but also include the rediculous unblock request, and altogether this editor just does not get it. They can try a SO in 6 months if they appear to demonstrate a clue by then. Agent00x (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef: Extremely difficult user. See User:DIYeditor/Boeing720 for an ANI report I decided against submitting previously. Personally I like this user and wish there were another way. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Am I allowed to host a document like that in user space? It is strongly worded and that is why I didn't submit it back in Feb 2018. I didn't want to come down any harder on a CIR case than necessary. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Reading it, he definitely should be banned from anything relating to computers and so on. Completely incompetent. EEng 04:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, while this ANI report is in progress. When it is closed, add {{db-author}} at the top of the page and it will be deleted. See WP:POLEMIC. Johnuniq (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Tban from Greta T. Difficult user with WP:POV Lightburst (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Forget the TBan - indef/CBAN them for the repeated and egregious WP:BLP violations. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 01:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support indef with monitoring of his talk page and TPA revoked if he repeats the behavior there. I retract what I wrote at the top of this thread about a topic ban being something that we might consider. If anyone has any doubts, the last two unblock requests at User talk:Boeing720#November 2019 make it clear what needs to be done. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Indef block, I don't think this is an editor Wikipedia needs, particularly given they have just come off a block for the same issue so are clearly aware what they are doing is not appropriate. Should Boeing720 mature / change their views over time, we can remember that indefinite does not mean permanent, and they can explain how they have changed their ways of thinking and improved their competence when requesting an unblock in six months or a year. Fish+Karate 13:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

 Note: I'm copying the contents of User:DIYeditor/Boeing720 below for reference (minus the duplicate userlinks) since it was cited as the reason for the block and it's likely not going to exist permanently. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Contents of User:DIYeditor/Boeing720

To be as polite as humanly possible, Boeing720 is the most stunning CIR case and Dunning-Kruger effect example I have encountered bar none. Any attempt to correct thinking errors or behavior results in a response that there is no problem, that the error is not an error, that the user is highly competent, and a lengthy teeth-pulling process of walking through the situation many, many times, often with the same problem recurring weeks later as if no memory of the prior discussions exist. I must admit my own failing at the end of this to be completely civil. I am exasperated with Boeing720 and have reached the point that I think it is not possible to work with him. I do not believe any warnings or communication of the issues will actually be effective and that the user will ‘’inevitably’’ come back with the same problems as if nothing has transpired. This user previously reported himself to ANI with an end result being a closure “before he gets himself blocked” or something to that effect. These examples I provided originally in his self-report to ANI but they bear re-examination: I first encountered Boeing720 on C (programming language) while cleaning up[215] a series of edits he was making. The bad grammar made the sentences nearly indecipherable and for example one reference offered was literally "This was stated by a computer and high skilled Swedish programmer at university level, by 2001". Also on a technical level the knowledge presented was very rudimentary, superfluous to the article, and sometimes wrong. Subsequently I kept and eye out and these[216][217] are typical of the kind of corrections that are necessary to every major article edit Boeing720 makes. Explaining[218][219] patiently in detail what the grammatical and sourcing problems are has never had any effect, he argues past the point, often asserts his expertise, becomes aggravated and most problematically: continues making the same mistakes. For examples of the conversations see Talk:Register (keyword), Talk:C (programming language)/Archive 16#Recent edits, User talk:Boeing720/Archive 4#Unsourced opinions/commentary (and the section above it) and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 39#Report myself, OR (?). Since that time: Inserts POV/OR film summary and watching advice in Fanny and Alexander. He created highly POV/OR film description at Grisjakten after being painstakingly informed about POV and OR in film summaries re: The Putin Interviews, the subject of the self-reported ANI, and in other discussions for example the above. I struggle to explain a persistent grammatical problem that had been corrected previously several times, user denies typing what he had typed (common behavior), and arguing over whether it is appropriate to use Google Translate as a dictionary vs. a proper Swedish-English dictionary at User talk:DIYeditor/Archive 1#"annual rings" was the words - had nothing to do with "anniversaries” Requires teeth-pulling to understand WP:INDENT even though it had be raised before Inserts very un-wiki-like warning at top of Adobe Flash Player article, before the lead, then argues for the appropriateness of it at User talk:Boeing720#February 2018 on the grounds that the magnitude of the situation was reason to disregard all rules/standards. And the finale, the CIR situation that broke this camel’s back. Boeing 720 had created a very weak Register (C programming language) to try to give some kind of programming advice about Turbo C, a discontinued and essentially antique compiler, and has argued tooth and nail (see talk page) about it being updated to offer a more modern and universal perspective. Which is fine, difference of perspective/opinion right? Well now he is back with a ridiculous (those familiar with C will understand why) code example that he feels proves optimization doesn’t render “register” obsolete. This is after we established that a similar example of his programming at Talk:C (programming language)#Example was not fit for the encyclopedia. Then perhaps the most stubborn, tedious and absurd dispute yet ensues at Talk:Register (keyword)#Example disproves wherein he gets absolutely everything wrong, repeatedly, and in painful ways, before declaring victory. Unfortunately reading through all that to catch the nuances of these encounters is as tedious as dealing with this user has been, and this is not an exhaustive accounting of the situation. That said, I think a careful review of these repeated issues will reveal that a warning would not be adequate. This is not a two-sided issue and an interaction ban would be damaging to the project because Boeing720’s activities need to be countered. It is not possible to work with this user, and despite him being here to build an encyclopedia and operating in good faith, I am asking for an indefinite block at this point.

Looks like he has decided to try to evade his block with sockpuppets, and he has been posting pretty much the same content with the same accusations against various Wikipedia editors on the knowyourmeme.com forums and on Reddit. Nothing we can do about that here (I did notify the abuse departments on both websites) but if anybody has a need to know, I have all the information saved. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boeing720 for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It is beginning to look like the IP in question is someone else. Why the IP is focusing on the same page where Boeing720 had his BLP problems is a mystery. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

207.197.0.0/17: Schoolblock needed?

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

---

• 207.197.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

This school IP range had a 1-year block expire in September. Since then, it's been used to make about 120 edits, with, by my rough count, fewer than five constructive. I'd take this to AIV, but something has always felt a little bit ... off ... about blocking 32768 addresses without an archived discussion. Anyway, perhaps another block is needed? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I blocked a smaller /24 range (256 IPs) for a year; looks like nearly all of the vandalism was coming from there. If you are still seeing vandalism from beyond that range, let me know and I can expand it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User: Adam.Izgin

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

---

This user joined Wikipedia with the intention to undermine Assyrian related article, presumably due to some personal views.

His user page says: "working against Assyrian propaganda"

And he is taking to discussion on the Assyrian Genocide talk page, trying to push personal opinion on how Assyrians should be refered to as "Arameans" in the article, with no scholarly reference or any reference for that matter to back it up. Can you please prevent this user from editing on Assyrian related Pages? They've clearly stated their intention to "Work against Assyrian propaganda" which entails carrying personal opinion and confirmation biases throughout their editing work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsin93 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

His first edit was vandalism, which was immediately reverted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Assyrian_people_footer&oldid=924828912

in fact all of his edits look similar in their personal opinion and vandalizing nature. Ramsin93 (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Oversight needed

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

---

Oversight needed for two BLP-violating edits (currently revdel'ed) at Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal. Thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done @MelanieN: please see Wikipedia:Oversight or the edit notice for this page for better ways to report suppression requests. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will know that next time. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Latexgoads repeatedly reinserting unsourced genealogy in Scientology articles

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

---

Latexgoads (talk · contribs) inserts claim that L. Ron Hubbard is a descendant of a "Balthazar DeWolf". This is not backed up by the cited sources. (Even if sourced, it would be unnecessary trivia)

diffs: L. Ronreinserted re-reinserted, James Ronald Jamie

Feoffer (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It is sourced, he is his descendant. Two sources here:

• LE GOUROU DéMASQUé, Sceptique
• A Surgeon with Custer at the Little Big Horn: James DeWolf’s Diary and Letters, 1876, by James Madison DeWolf, University of Oklahoma Press, May 25, 2017, Introduction

Scientology keeps on erasing this information for decades to substitute the DeWolf absolutely obvious descent with fake news stories about a french DeLoupe fictive french ancestor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latexgoads (talk • contribs) 00:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Latexgoads (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources you list don't connect L. Ron and Balthazar. (correct if that's wrong) Feoffer (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Extreme paid editing by Shueisha employee removing sourced content of very real accusations

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

---

User:Crboyer is removing ALL MENTION of criticism of Weekly Shonen Jump because he is an employee of Shueisha. Koavf (talk · contribs) has exposed this already, he CANNOT remove SOURCED CONTENT from pages like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_designated_terrorist_groups&type=revision&diff=925302497&oldid=925302475Esperance2121 (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

First, I am not a paid editor. Second, user's Anti-Weekly Shonen Jump campaign outs them as a sock of Cow Cleaner 5000 This is the investigation page. Third, their source doesn't back up their claim. Crboyer (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This user has gone way past 3RR at List of designated terrorist groups even after being warned. In addition, after a quick look at the edits this user is making, it's clear to me that the user is adding pure vandalism to pages simply to cause disruption. They're adding a comic book magazine title to List of designated terrorist groups, which is ridiculous and pure vandalism. Definitely WP:NOTHERE. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Esperance2121 is legitimately making the claim that the same comic/magazine that reports on updates for video-games and anime is somehow affiliated with a terrorist organisation. Clearly a case of NOTHERE as User:Aoi noted. -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 08:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Aryakin2006

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

---

User:Aryakin2006 appears to be the a block-evading User:Aryashahnaughtyyyy/User:Aryashahnaught, someone mind blocking? Also, one of them was CU-blocked and the other was globally locked as an LTA but I didn't see an SPI - anyone familiar with this LTA? creffett (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

I made a mistake moving a page

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

---

Hello, I nearly finished an article in my own namespace here, but mistakenly moved it to the User page of 'user' and not to the article space; [[220]].--Lirim | Talk 09:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It appears the article was deleted by an administrator. AryaTargaryen (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

It's not deleted, it's at the correct name: List of Billboard Top Christian Albums number ones of the 2000s (no comment on whether it's notable, though...). Check before you post. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Disregarding the hostility in the above comment, i see now i mistakenly assumed the article was deleted when i checked the link Lirim provided.

My bad. Note to self: Writing a reply on ANI in the early morning is not a wise idea. AryaTargaryen (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

There's no hostility in my reply, but please note that this notice board is for admins and experienced editors, not editors with a grand total of just over 200 edits, since editors with that little experience simply can't know enough about the inner workings of WP to be able to consistently provide correct answers. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Tom, get off your high horse and stop the hostility - this forum is for *anyone* to seek admin assistance and/or to try to help. If people make a mistake, how about you just point it out to them civilly and help them learn too? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Inexperienced editors giving bad advice or wrong answers is a problem here, and in this case the OP had spent many hours on creating an article, but made a very easily made error when moving it, and asked for help here, only to be told by someone who obviously didn't have a clue that the article had been "deleted by an admin"; an answer that would make most new editors simply give up, and never try again (the creator of this article isn't new, but that doesn't matter here, since it could have been a brand new editor...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem, but your solution stinks. All I'm suggesting is approaching it with friendly and constructive guidance rather than "You're not worthy, go away". Is that really too much to ask? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Thomas.W: until I read your most recent reply I thought your comments were addressing the op when actually they were addressing AryaTargaryen. This clarifies that you were not attacking someone for asking for help, but instead attacking someone for attempting to help. This is marginally less bad, but there was still no need for the lack of civility. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a bit daft, but I can't see how the simple comment "check before you post" can be seen as being an attack, and the rest of what I posted was simply an explanation for why inexperienced editors shouldn't answer requests for help here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not just "check before you post" that's the problem, but that in itself comes across as condescending. The point is that this forum often descends into an embarrasing example of incivility and hostility, and admins and experienced editors should be leading by example. With two very experienced Wikipedians saying pretty much the same thing to you, I think you need to examine what sort of example you want to set. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If you check my contributions you'll find that I'm not one of the editors who descend into "embarrasing examples of incivility and hostility" here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Acroterion

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

---

I am unable to use WP:RFPP due to admin Acroterion reverting my edits and revdelling them. Please block or desysop. wumbolo ^^^ 13:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: You are able to use RFPP and other disruption-reporting boards, but you are not allowed to post BLPVIOs in doing so. You know perfectly well that's our most important, universal policy, and while doing so once might be accidental, twice seems less so. Suggest this is withdrawn vice boomerang fly past. ——SN54129 13:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Three times. Wumbulo is disrupting to make a point. At least they didn't repeat the name here (and that's not a dare). Acroterion (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I welcome your opinion on my request. This is about you preventing me from even making the request. And I don't want to explain what happened because you want to block me. wumbolo ^^^ 14:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Serial Number 54129: please leave this to admins, you have no idea what my edits were. wumbolo ^^^ 14:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You are posting in edit summaries and edits what is speculated to be the Trump administration whistleblower.; Unless and until the name is plainly reported in the usual media, it's a BLP violation to repeat the speculation. You know that perfectly well. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am hereby violating my TBAN, but I must correct this bullshit. I did not say ANYTHING about any whistleblower. I made a policy-based request with NO mention of any whistleblower. wumbolo ^^^ 14:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Per Serial Number 54129, I saw the edits to Drmies and Acroterion's talk pages, as well as the unprotect request. Of course this is disruptive, complete with the demands for blocking and desysoping admins. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanking you, bob  :) ——SN54129 14:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying that Acroterion is lying about you posting a clear BLP violation? That's a pretty bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see how it works out for you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You posted a name, several times, that has been speculatively linked to the whistleblower, requesting that the article title associated with that name be unsalted. You're trying to narrowly frame your way past BLP to make a point on a highly sensitive BLP issue. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You are a bad liar. I am TBANned from AP so I wouldn't edit whistleblower areas. I am trying to make a RFPP request unrelated to politics, simply related to a policy violation committed by the original protector (who happens to be an oversighter!). wumbolo ^^^ 14:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: saying please leave this to admins and then I am hereby violating my TBAN seems like a phenomenally bad idea. ——SN54129 14:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Boomerang. O3000 (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• First, I only see one recent edit, not multiple. Second, the edit has been oversighted, which makes the whole issue moot.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: For the record, the (two) edits were revdel'd rather than oversighted. ——SN54129 15:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I might be getting something wrong, but in the last 150 edits on the page I only see one edit, 13:40, 9 November 2019, and it has been oversighted (otherwise I would be able to see it).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

[221]--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Wumbolo edited many different pages on which their edits were initially deleted and later oversighted. And, for the record, I don't think the issue of Wumbolo's misconduct, including violations of their topic ban, is moot.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

We can not make any conclusions on the basis of oversighted edits. It is clear that if they post something sensitive again they will be blocked on the spot, but for the time being I do not see how we can discuss their actions without diffs.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: Wumbulo's "you are a bad liar" comment - posting the rumored name of a person central to the biggest thing in American politics is most certainly a topic ban violation if your topic ban relates to American politics. However, I was addressing the BLP matter, rather than looking into your topic ban. Had I realized in the first place that you were under AP restrictions, I would have blocked you for boundary-testing. Would you rather I had done that, instead of doing revdels and scolding you? For Ymblanter's benefit, Wumbolo was posting the supposed name of the person who first accused Trump of misconduct relating to Ukraine - but that is based on rumor and has not been substantiated in reliable sources as is required by BLP. The name has been oversighted on that basis by an oversighter. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

And no, Wumbolo doesn't get to ban administrators from his talkpage like this: [222] [223] to evade consequences or criticism. Acroterion (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

History of edit warring, POV pushing on political and racial topics

• GergisBaki (talk · contribs)
• Ashkenazi Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Genetic studies on Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Continuing on several articles today, deleting sourced content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I boldly deleted and haven't re-deleted. The text I deleted is obscuring the plain fact that DNA studies indicate Ashkenazi Jews are overwhelmingly European on the matrilineal side. (The paragraph misleadingly conflated studies describing an original Middle Eastern ancestor with studies concerning the total percentage of Middle Eastern ancestry.) GergisBaki (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Where are the diffs? There is no discussion in Gergis talk page, you cant just send a warning and then report him.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Will provide diffs. And yes, given a lengthy edit history, multiple warnings and a block. See user's talk page. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Links to most recent deletions above. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

For good measure, there's

• White Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

GergisBaki has indeed been edit warring on White Americans. Check the page history starting on October 29th. [224] They have been edit warring, using their own preferred definitions rather than going by the sources, and making false statements about what is in the sources. And some of this was after being warned on the article talk page. [225] And there has been a whole litany of issues with them as seen by their user talk page. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Username change and unblock request

• Can someone deal with User talk:Pynf6PLq*8bl? I'm fairly sure that's breaking the bot for User:Cyberbot I/Requests for unblock report. (I've reported the possible problem to User talk:cyberpower678.) To be clear, I have no opinion on whether the editor should be unblocked. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually just noticed it's also a request for a username change. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

For clarity since someone changed my subthread into a thread, this arises out of the discussion above #Unblock request now at two+ weeks, editor apologized, seems simple enough? as I noticed it when researching the above. It's very loosely related since it's making it more difficult to assess what's going on, although I'm not sure it matters much. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nil Einne, Bobby Tables? Guy (help!) 14:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

TFBCT1's editing on longevity articles

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

---

• TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of the oldest living people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oldest people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor TFBCT1 has for years been knowingly and flagrantly using unreliable sources or sources deemed inadequate by the community for inclusion (from before 110th birthday, over 1 year old, no specific date of birth) at List of the oldest living people, Oldest people, and elsewhere. This has been explained to them many times, but they refuse to change their behavior, which has flared up again in the last few days as is seen in the first three difs.

1 They re-added using Find-a-grave an entry that was removed for lacking a specific birthdate, when that's obviously not a reliable source.

2 Their original addition of this entry.

3 Adding two invalid entries. The source for Eugenia Zuniga Jeldres was from before she turned 110, which the community has long deemed invalid as proof of being a supercentenarian, and Maria Vivaldelli was added with a link to a longevity fan website.

4 Here they re-added a removed entry with a source pre-dating 110th birthday and launched a personal attack against me.

5 Here they removed, for the fifth time, someone else's entry of a woman with a source pre-dating her 110th birthday at List of American supercentenarians, which shows they know such entries should not be included.

6 A thread about their inclusion of an entry whose only source was an image randomly uploaded to an image upload website, where it took three editors and a trip to RSN to get them to stop trying to add the entry with this source.

7 A long thread under "Major issues with Japanese supercentenarians" where they edit warred and launched personal attacks because long-standing consensus was being enforced, which they didn't like, yet they didn't do anything constructive to solve the problem.

8 Where they re-added two invalid entries to Oldest people based on hearsay and a Japanese report they had never seen.

9 My well reasoned statement and work was met with this 10 unconstructive, and absurd response for an experienced editor.

It's clear from years of evidence that TFBCT1 has no interest in changing their behavior and will continue to flagrantly ignore Wikipedia polices, such as WP:V, and long-established consensus in their pursuit of including any entry they want listed. They will also continue their personal attacks (the latest saying I have OCD) and habitual habit of making maintaining these lists far harder then it needs to be for other editors. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm obviously involved in this, and I will second Newshunter12's take above. These lists have enough trouble as it is with people adding random "I heard it somewhere" names, and this makes it even more difficult to keep things in order. That last diff in particular is a nice example of a personal attack, and one that has no place anywhere but especially in a contentious topic; this topic area is finally a little calmer, trying to reignite the powder keg is a terrible move. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that they have re-added the entry for a third time stating the sourcing is fine and there is a YouTube video of her to. This was reverted by an imposter account (pretending to be me using a similar username) belonging to an IP editor who has been stalking me for nearly a year, sending death threats to me and other longevity editors, and trying to get me blocked. Please be forewarned they may try to further troll this complaint. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You have to admit, there's a kind of poetry in sending death threats to a longevity editor. EEng 09:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

All issues identified by Newshunter12 were except the few current ones on the List of the oldest living people summarily closed without incident or cause. He is trying to re-hash old occurrences that have no current relevance. I'm going to be very specific as to the current situation. In the past Newshunter12 had been the one to add new individuals to the List of oldest living people. In recent months he stopped doing this, so I put my time and efforts into taking up this task. I added nearly 25 entries in recent weeks. Newshunter12 showed back up again after a long absence and removed seven entries from this list. This resulted in a bout of edit warring on the page due to dissent with his decisions(which I was not a part of). Of the seven removed four had been added by me. (2) of the cases were "good faith errors" on my part. Newshunter12 then proceeded to open a talk page discussion entitled "sourcing issues" which the main purpose was to defame and attack me and accuse me of doing something deliberate. The posting was so inflammatory that another editor warned me via my talk page that I was being threatened by Newshunter12. So I proceeded to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFBCT1 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I have never done anything knowingly, deliberately, or maliciously to undermine Wikipedia. I have been tirelessly editing the longevity pages for over 15 years probably with more dedication than any other editor. I feel very disrespected by Newshunter12. I do make mistakes, but no editor should be attacked in this manner especially when investing substantial amounts of their time and energy. Newshunter12 and I do have different visions of Wikipedia, he sees things more in "black and white," I like other editors see some areas open for interpretation. He is rarely willing to compromise and not just with me, but with any editor. This idea of "always having to be right" does not work well on Wikipedia.

One last note, I find it very inappropriate for Newshunter12 to incessantly mention the "constant death threats" he receives on Wikipedia, not only on talk pages, but also, within page histories. And to accuse this person or that person of being the certain "troll" perpetuating these threats. This type of personal drama has no place on Wikipedia.

I'm sorry I'm not able to provide you with specific links, diffs etc.. I'm not a young person and I'm not computer savvy. I just wanted to be able to paint a clear picture of what's going on. TFBCT1 (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

My above difs and statements speak for themselves about what the truth is and isn't, but I think it's worth mentioning that, "The posting was so inflammatory that another editor warned me via my talk page that I was being threatened by Newshunter12" was done by the very IP troll who has been stalking me since last year, not some concerned onlooker horrified by horrible Newshunter12's actions. So much for drama has no place on Wikipedia, TFBCT1, and I apologize that I don't appreciate someone repeatedly talking about beating me to death with a hammer and some such because of my longevity edits. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Point in case. Newshunter12's response is purely reactionary, defensive. Nothing constructive. Nothing cooperative. Maybe it's just a matter of maturity.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a new way of referring to me as a child to your vocabulary. "Childish","Infantile", "Manic", and "you are about 12 years old" were getting old. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again. Reactionary. Defensive. Attacking. Non constructive.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm the one who's deleted most of the threats against Newshunter12, and I can understand if you didn't see what was going on at the time, but acting now as said notification was a good faith note of concern is just feeding the troll. And if you think this is blown out of proportion, I've gotten a few myself (I personally prefer leaving those out for others to see, but understandably most people would rather not). This certainly isn't to accuse you of being behind it or anything, but it is a genuine, serious issue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

And how is this appropriate for inclusion in “talk pages” and “page histories?” And why should Newhunter12 be able to lash out at one arbitrary IP address and then another as the likely “death threat” perpetrators on public page histories? It is clearly not appropriate. And I strongly admonish you not to insinuate that I have any involvement. When in fact, I received a message from a Newshunter14 on 4 July 2019 on my talk page accusing me of being the one leaving threatening messages on his talk page and threatening to have me banned. Followed by a message from Newshunter12 stating that was an “imposter” account and he had nothing to do with it. I find everything about Newshunter12 to be untrustworthy.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As should be clear, and as was explained at the time in a couple places, the Newshunter14 account (as with the one which popped up today) was an obvious impersonator. I blocked the account for exactly that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect when I’ve been persistently attacked by Newshunter12 in situations which no other editor has identified, and go away when he disappears why should anything be clear to me?TFBCT1 (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: Please post diffs of these attacks. Tiderolls 20:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said previously, I’m not young, nor computer savvy and I don’t know how to post diffs. The last (2) times I felt attacked by Newshunter12 were 3 July 2019 when I received a threatening message on my talk page regarding the removal of a deceased Italian supercentenarian where sourcing had already been established on another page. It is very out of character for one editor to confront another editor in this manner in such a minor situation. The second instance occurred on the talk page for List of living supercentenarians on 3 November 2019 under heading “sourcing issues” where Newshunter12 proceeded to attack and threaten me as the main topic of the discussion which was just not justified. I was notified on my talk page by another editor that I was being threatened by Newshunter12. I also want to clarify that all this talk about me adding someone prior to their 110th birthday (and doing this knowingly). Yes, I read the date in reverse mm/dd/yyyy, instead of dd/mm/yyyy and I made a “good faith” error. Nothing deliberate. About a year ago, Newshunter12 added four individuals to this list with incorrect birth years. Instead of making a big deal about it, I just went in and corrected the mistake. Isn’t that how most adults would handle the situation?TFBCT1 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no attacks at the places you mentioned. That's where diffs can make a difference. You would be able to point us to specific posts; see Help:Diff. Tiderolls 22:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I’ve done my best and I’m not sure what more I could provide, at both those locations he threatens me with no just cause, in my book that’s attacking. And I’m not sure what you’re really seeing. I made a couple “good faith” errors when filling in for another editor’s absence, was unjustly ridiculed for it on a talk page, notified by another editor that I was being threatened via my talk page, defended myself there, and ended up at ANI.TFBCT1 (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: If you can't provide a diff (here is a how-to), could you at least provide a quote (and page location) of specific threats and attacks? — MarkH21 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The main threat is the entire section added “sourcing issues” to the talk page List of the Oldest Living People. This section was not added to discuss “sourcing issues,” but to bash me. It’s clearly identified in the opening comments where I’m identified directly. Then in Newshunter12’s second comment he veers the attention back to ridiculing me unsolicited. This is not the intended purpose of a talk page and was inflammatory enough for another editor to warn me I was being threatened on my talk page. I also don’t know what the collusion between Newshunter12 and The Blade of Northern Lights is, but if you notice every time Newshunter12 posts, The Blade posts 2-3 minutes later with some affirmative response. I don’t know this second editor, nor have I ever worked with him. I am confused why he would say he is “obviously involved.” His mention of adding random “I heard it somewhere names” has absolutely nothing to do with me or this case. And finally I never said Newshunter12 had OCD. I stated he demonstrated an OCD nature which is quite different. So this characterization is also false.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, the reason you can't provide any evidence of my "personal attacks" at your talk page and elsewhere is because there were no personal attacks save the difs I posted of your personal attacks on me. Secondly, the person who "warned" you about me on your talk page is just the IP troll who has been stalking me since last year and who has a long history of screwing with other people to cause strife between me and those people in an attempt to get ME blocked, so please stop acting like it was Paul Revere or Sybil Ludington riding into the night to warn you of how Newshunter12 is out to get you. No one is out to get you, only hold you accountable for your own actions. Thirdly, it's false that you didn't make a big deal out of a one character error I made five times in a hidden section as this shows you used the tiny error I had previously made in an attempt to discredit me in a separate discussion.

Fourthly, the difs in my opening statement demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt your misbehavior has been ongoing for years, not some one off mistake. Fifthly, how is an explicitly general statement that any editor may be taken to ANI a personal attack on you? Sixthly, you have a history of pretending fewer people have problems with your edits then really do as the thread in my sixth dif above shows and again in the most recent dispute over invalid entries. DerbyCountyinNZ, LuK3, Georgia guy, CommanderLinx and even the troll for a moment have all helped remove these invalid entries or expressed support for my side of the argument, while only the troll has been on your side there, yet you pretend it's just mean Newshunter12 picking on you.

Seventhly, TBOTNL and I are not engaged in some conspiracy against you. Eighthly, how is "Newshunter12 has a habit of making up his own rules as part of his OCD nature" a hypothetical condition I might have? It's clear as day you are saying I have OCD, just as you have called me childish, manic, infantile and a 12-year-old. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think the personal attacks against Newshunter12 are unacceptable. Calling him a child, obsessive-compulsive, manic, blaming him for the actions of an impostor, calling him reactionary when he tries to defend himself, then feigning technological incompetence when asked for diffs is just gamesmanship and I think most people can see that. Reyk _YO! 10:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine. I will just stop contributing to Wikipedia altogether. Let’s see if the longevity pages are better without any of my contributions or daily updating for the past 15 years. This is causing me too much stress and I clearly have no advocates.TFBCT1 (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, drama quitting is one way to go. Or you could just issue a mea culpa, work to address the problematic behavior being pointed out, and acknowledge the importance of WP:AGF. I'll never understand editors who would rather scream about their victimhood than just say "Eh, you're right that I probably should have handled that better, and I shouldn't be getting personal with people with whom I disagree." And then, you know, just go back to editing having learned a little bit about how to be more effective as a member of the community. Grandpallama (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

TFBCT1, WP:FLOUNCE Guy (help!) 10:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I will take the advice of the last editor. I apologize for the “OCD nature” comment. I have already apologized for other comments that surfaced which are quite old. I will be more careful when editing and try to avoid errors and not take on additional responsibilities because of other editors absences. I still may take a break from editing altogether because I am not “feigning” being old and this stress is not good for my hypertension.TFBCT1 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I support topic-banning any editor who has no mainspace contributions outside topic of claims of extreme age. This has been a festering sore on the project for years. Both of the OP and the respondent fall into this category. Virtually nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity, IMO. The entire area is a constant battleground, prone to dodgy claims and in some cases spam. Guy (help!) 10:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have over 23,000 edits on Wikipedia. Ranging from interests in population statistics, tennis, papal history, longevity, and climate, but thanks for the input.TFBCT1 (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have done extensive editing with interests ranging from portal cleanup, comics, animals, and general AfD. Longevity is only one small piece of my editing history, one which I hadn't touched in months before a few days ago. TFBCT1 is not a longevity SPA and neither am I. They have made many valuable contributions to this topic for over a decade and it's a shame their misbehavior is intractable as far as I can tell. The same stuff for years. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, there has been a lot of progress in the last year and change. And both editors you reference have done plenty outside this topic (Newshunter12 only just recently returned to it at all, he's been hard at work handling the fallout from the portal fiasco); though I've had my disagreements with TFBCT1, he's certainly not in the same category of the 110 Club fanboys. And there's no equivalent to JJB in this area anymore, mercifully. No comment on a topic ban would be appropriate for anyone, but I'd be remiss not to give an inside perspective. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think st this stage, we should accept TFBCT1’s statement to be a lot more careful when editing, and adhere to PAG (which several of his edits quoted in this thread squarely violate), on good faith. We should also accept The Blade of the Northern Lights’s observation that things have improved materially in this area from the past. If things escalate again, then more decisive action can be considered; all should note that the community seems to have a shorter fuse in this area given the history. I suggest we close this at this stage. Britishfinance (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Request some admins insight at Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#RFC: Add any foreign countries as "support" of the protesters at infobox

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

---

• Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests#RFC: Add any foreign countries as "support" of the protesters at infobox (edit | subject | history | links | "support"_of_the_protesters_at_infobox watch | logs)

I think that there is a rule and neutrality violation here due to majority of the users having a POV. I've explained this to the users but stopped getting replies and wonder what an admin will think of this. The issue is about the infobox of the article and the inclusion of US and China. I think there is a neutrality violation, both US and China provided the same amount of support to the each side per sources, yet the talk page users insist that only China should be included, I think this violates WP:DEM. US congress has passed a bill supporting the HK protesters per source and China has verbally supported the HK Gov. Currently China is included under supported per the verbal support but US has been removed due to users commenting "Symbolic Support". Could use some insight, thanks. KasimMejia (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

China has provided more than "verbal support", it's literally one of the sides in the conflict. 2604:6000:FFC0:54:5D97:40B6:3599:6C13 (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

You got a source for that? Also why did you start undoing my edits in other articles lol [226] watch out admins this IP is likely a sock puppet. KasimMejia (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear content dispute and not suitable for ANI. That RfC has reasonable participation and there is some disagreement with your view. You should continue to engage with editors on the Talk Page, or, conduct your own RfC on the Talk Page if needed. After that, there are other Notice Boards for raising content disagreements if needed. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance Which noticeboards can I use to address this issues in the future? Thanks. KasimMejia (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi KasimMejia, look at the template of Noticeboard-links at the top of this page, and particularly under "Articles and content" which links to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Britishfinance (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content and junk edits to WP:BLP articles

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

---

Raghuveer Aavula (talk · contribs) is responsible for adding unsourced content to WP:BLP articles, with nary an improvement among hundreds of edits. Final warnings haven't slowed the will to carry on. (Posted at AIV, with the recommendation to try here). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:RobloxCount999

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

---

• RobloxCount999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first noticed this user's behavior after they added unsourced material (possibly false information) to 2022 FIFA World Cup. Since then, I've noticed some other shady behavior of theirs, including promotion of their supposed business, overlinking, unnecessary changing of links, and more of the same unsourced changes on other articles. They have also created articles of what seem to be random trivia, some of which have already been deleted as test pages or duplicates of other articles. I do not believe a message that isn't templated is going to get them to change their ways either. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I would support this user being banned from wikipediado to creations of bad quality articles as well as a possiblility of being a child likely a teenager due to username and topics edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.9.244 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RobloxCount999 has been CU blocked as a sock of user:Blelalersitre by user: Bbb23. Meters (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Wumbolo

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

---

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

Wumbolo was topic banned first from Andy Ngo and related people and then, on 24 July 2019, from post-1932 US politics and related people (Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log). Wumbolo "retired" and made only two edits between then and 5 November, bot to his user talk page.

Since 5 November Wumbolo has made 50 edits. The articles concerned are Lana Lokteff (a white supremacist), Amy Robach (involved in the Epstein story), Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands (Epstein's island), Great Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands (the island next door to Epstein's), Quillette (the magazine most closely associated with Andy Ngo) and then edits at WP:RFAR and elsewhere around Drmies' WP:SALTing of an article squarelty within the ambit of US politics.

Based on this, the exemplary Future Perfect at Sunrise imposed a perfectly proper block of 1 week per arbitration enforcement. Given that close to 100% of the edits made by Wumbolo since returning from "retirement" after a topic ban are violations of that ban, I can't help feeling that we may want to consider extending that somewhat. Guy (help!) 21:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I've obviously been trying to keep the lowest of low profiles since coming back, but I do need chime in here since I would prefer not to lose Wumbolo as an editor. I also feel bad for the guy because I did recently encourage him privately he should consider ending his retirement. I genuinely think that Wumbolo was expecting to be told when a violation occurred by his editing rather than (in reality) the burden to comply being on him. Looking at his topic ban (which needs to be logged on an unrelated note btw), it wasn't a "broadly construed" matter but just like the US politics. The proper action might be to give him a final warning and say upfront that future edits to any topic related to the Jeffrey Epstein matter are strictly prohibited.
  Fut.Perf's block is still good, though. Wumbolo needs to cool down for a bit, and withdrawing the arbcom case request is a good first step to that. The week-long block probably finally got through to him. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Second that, I don't think the community needs to expand the block, AE actions should do the trick. One should hope that a weeks block might put the fear of god into Wumbolo. But if not...then their next topic ban vio should be a month, and then forever. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, some of the edits violated two sanctions. Some also not only violated one sanction, they gave a clear indication of intending to violate another plus WP:BLP. That's indicative of quite a serious problem. Guy (help!) 22:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• MJL, the sanction is logged.The log is linked above. Guy (help!) 22:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Guy: [Thank you for the ping] Oh I'm being stupid. I didn't see the note here. Stricken, thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  MJL, np, mostly I would not bother linking it so I don't blame you for not looking. Guy (help!) 22:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• It will need to be an indefinite block. My biggest concern is that Wumbolo is showing significant divergence from what we would consider sensible, decent and proportionate under our biographies of living persons policy, additionally they show a gap in their understanding of the page protection policy and a refusal to concede that they have erred in their interpretation of that policy, finally, we have their repeated violations of their topic bans which simply cannot be allowed to go unaddressed. I would be in favour of allowing an appeal after 6 to 12 months, allowing the indefinite block to be reduced to the length of finite block we would generally be looking at for the numerous topic ban breaches we're witnessing in any case. Nick (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• (ec x 3 or 4) I second Guy's motion. Not only has Wumbolo repeatedly violated his topic ban, but this latest incident involved repeated attempts to add something to the encyclopedia which would be a severe BLP violation. It appears he tried to create an article about the person, and finding that the name was salted, complained about the salting first at ANI and then at AE. To me that by itself was blockable, on top of his repeated and deliberate violations of the TBAN. TBANs only work if they are respected. And sorry, MJO, but a person under TBAN should not expect babysitters or stalkers to follow him around, evaluating whether his edits comply or not. You say you would be sorry to lose him as an editor, but virtually EVERYTHING he has done since coming back from retirement was editing he was not supposed to be doing. I'm thinking this may be a straightforward enough matter to resolve via admin consensus here at ANI, without needing ArbCom's elaborate deliberative process. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Actually, he first demanded at RFPP that the title be unsalted, then four minutes later on Drmies' talkpage, then did the same on my talkpage when I removed the post. After that, ANI, where he at least didn't repeat the person's name, then RFARB. I dealt with it as BLP violation, rather than a topic ban breach, as I don't maintain a list of editors under restrictions in my head. Now that I see the full extent of Wumbolo's topic ban violations, along with the scorched-earth accusations against anyone who dares to confront him, I think a longer block is called for. A BLP topic ban would be advisable as well. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Indef. Checking more stuff, seriously, who thinks this is good faith in any way at all? Guy (help!) 22:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• This really smells like a coded reference to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Also, he has now removed this other issue but he had posted a request to his talk page asking people to get multiple editors to let him know if he's violated his topic ban after he's edited an article -- which is really an overly polite WP:IDHT on his topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason I bring up the coded reference to Pizzagate is that there's a good deal of overlap between the folks who believe in Pizzagate and QAnon, and, well, the other stuff we've seen from Wumbolo in political articles -- and Pizzagate is the sort of conspiracy theory that's so obviously wrong that it's worth blocking anyone who argues that it's not debunked, like blocking anyone who wants to argue that InfoWars is a reliable source.

Aaaand he's playing dumb as to why anyone would revdel references to a website where some QAnon-fans and Pizzagaters are posting info about someone they think is the Ukraine Whistleblower.

If it wouldn't violate his topic ban, I would explicitly ask him if he views Pizzagate as debunked, unproven, plausible, or reality. If his response is anything but "debunked" (including trying to avoid the question) then indefinitely blocking is worthwhile. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Indef - Enough's enough, At this point Womble's becoming a net negative to the project. –Davey2010^Talk 23:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Indef - Enough is too much. Why would you purposely, repeatedly, admittedly vio a TBan – and try to desysop an admin who salted an attempt by them to out a person based upon an internet rumor in an area not only political but pressed by the POTUS, requiring multiple revdels? This isn’t close. Let them ask to return in one year. O3000 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure if indefinite block worthy Breaking a topic ban, and reposting oversighted material is bad, however--we need to look at the primary reason for doing so. There is a specific name that has over 20 thousand results in Google News search results, and is being covered more and more by reliable sources each passing day. Given the American political scandal that this name is attached to, I expect this trend to continue. Wumbalo mentioned this name in specific contexts with regards to page protection, and tried to bring it up further in arbitration. There is a significant encyclopedic interest in an article -eventually- being created for this individual. I have only taken a simple look at the situation, and am not sure if I'm missing something regarding this name, or not. Tutelary (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  Tutelary, definitely not a subject for an encyclopedic article. We have no idea if this person is the whistleblower or not. Reputable news organizations are not spreading the name,[227] because of the whole reason we have whistleblower protections at all! WP:BLPNAME says we don't publish it at al. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  Tutelary, the primary reason for what? Disobeying the topic ban or doing so in order to repost oversighted material? Given the timing of his "unretirement" it's pretty likely that this was in fact the main purpose. Guy (help!) 02:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The primary reason to continue referencing the name. If the name itself is oversighted, I believe that is a step too far, given the encyclopedic interest in the name, and the increasing coverage. It's hard to talk about whether or not it should even be an article if every single mention is oversighted or revdeleted. Which section was this name oversighted under? Tutelary (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP we need good sources for this, not simply a large number of crap ones. I had a quick look just now, and couldn't find any mention of the name in such sources. If someone believes they have found one, they could simply link the source without needing to mention the name. Further, if Wumbolo had simply once mentioned the name and the stopped when people took issue with it, maybe their actions would be acceptable, but not, as I understand they have done, trying to talk about it all over Wikipedia in a very short space of time, especially not since they are an experience editor who has been warned about issues with their editing related to living persons before. Nil Einne (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As for your question on the use of suppression, I assume it was done under number 1 "Removal of non-public personal information". Nil Einne (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Indef I had some not-so-good interactions with this user however long ago. This more recent behavior sounds worse. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Indef Recent activity shows the tone-deaf battle ground behavior continues—for example, see #Acroterion above where Wumbolo asks for an admin to be blocked or desysoped because the admin was removing Wumbolo's BLP-violating edits. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Indef under competency concerns, (although no cban). I think the recent forum shopping attempts at ani and Arbcom in an attempt to get os’ed material restored was already something a newbie would be indeffed for, but considering this absolutely bizarre comment he made over a year ago, it seems he has never understood how forums work on this website. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 04:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment editor has received an indef WP:OSBL by User:TonyBallioni Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Unusual Behaviour; Test editing, possible vandalism? Help!

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

---

Dear Admin, A recent user conveyed a rather weird pattern of test editing that I couldn't seem to unravel. On the talk page, it appeared as if he was having technical difficulties, so I approached it that way. But now it seems like obvious test editing to the point of sheer vandalism and libel. What should I do? Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 18:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a sock puppet of User:InklingGirl error. Blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Thanks for letting me know :) Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 18:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Promotional content on Tracy Byrd

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

---

Catitude98 (talk · contribs) is constantly adding unsourced and promotional content to Tracy Byrd, and seems unresponsive to requests to adhere to a more neutral tone. I even cited on their talk page a more neutral way to rephrase the content, but the user was unresponsive and restored the exact same content. I would like to believe the editor is editing in good faith, but the utter lack of responsiveness and persistent re-adding despite more than one warning is troubling. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I really think they're close to meriting a block. Also wonder if WP:COI is relevant. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I believe my last edit followed the rules. I did include a phrase that you (ten pound hammer) suggested, "several of Byrd's hit singles" which an anonymous user then edited out, and I think complained about. I am trying to go by the rules here, I'm definately not intending to do what's being suggested of me. My original edits were written after a style that I have seen on the page, which I now realize were cited published remarks, and mine were merely my opinion. I now understand the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catitude98 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Catitude98, your last edit on the Tracy Byrd article at 18:33 on 10 November [228], still had no sources to it? You posted here 40 mins after saying that your last edit followed the rules? Every piece of new content added to Wikipedia must have a source (per WP:RS). If you keep adding material without any references/sources, you may have editing privileges withdrawn. I will close this thread now are you are a "newbie", but please take all the advice given on your Talk Page by TenPoundHammer and others, on board. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Block-evading vandal

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

---

Bussy4life, now reappearing as IloveCLCstudent, is both a quite determined vandal, and seems keen to harass those trying to clean up their vandalism. This seems like a job for WP:AN/I. -- The Anome (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

There is now a third one, Candycreamqq. All three are currently blocked. I will file an SPI report - unless someone here wants to tackle the situation? The vandalism is severe, with rapid-fire posting of obscene pictures in the sandbox and on their own talk page, as well as attacking users who cross them. I suspect they will keep it up with additional socks. Checkusers, are you able to do a rangeblock on users as well as on IPs? -- MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

And now resurfaced at Candycreamqq. Their main interest seems to be vandalizing the sandbox with sexual images. -- The Anome (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe a CU has taken a look and possibly done a thing. No guarantees for this one.. for future reference, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yourname. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Their signature move seems to be continual reverts of attempts to remove their vandalism. Would it be possible to use the edit filter to prevent multiple rapid-fire reverts by non-autoconfirmed accounts using the rate limit options in that filter? -- The Anome (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The short answer is yes, a filter could reduce the disruption. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

"To the c*** ..."

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

---

All editors say things that are out of line from time to time as tempers become frayed and I largely come from the "take it on the chin" school of hard knocks, but I consider this unacceptable: [229] (see the section-heading). Betty Logan (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Not much that can be done since it's an IPv6. But a block will get their attention. Threatening to dismember (really?) another user is also uncalled for.--WaltCip (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and redacted. GiantSnowman 15:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The /64 range (Special:Contributions/2604:6000:130E:49B0::/64) appears to be all the same user. They are usually assigned like a single IPv4 address. I'd suggest a rangeblock here. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Boinelomatlapeng copyvio images

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

User:Boinelomatlapeng has uploaded four images that mask copyvio/licence laundering status by linking to non-existent webpages. One of them has stock photo watermarks. ミラP 15:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Miraclepine, please provide links to the images in question. I went through the user's file edit history, re-tagged the fair use criteria for three, and marked a fourth for deletion based on very questionable license claims, but you should always provide links. Also, note to admins: Boinelomatlapeng tried to remove this report, so I'm not feeling the good faith here. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Creffett: Here they are:

File:Kanaueda.jpg

File:Nozomu-sasaki.jpg

File:Koichi Yamadera.jpg

File:Mori Katsuji.jpg

ミラP 18:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Miraclepine, I don't think you have posted a notice of this ANI to Boinelomatlapeng's talk page, thanks. ?

Sorry, forgot. I'll do it. ミラP 23:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

User:대한민국 헌법 's Disruptive Editing

대한민국 헌법 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user persistently removes chunks of infomation from articles with no explantion at all in the respective edit summaries. Examples of this include: [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235],[236], [237], [238], [239], [240].

This user has been warned about disruptive editing on multiple occasions including:[241], [242], [243], [244], [245], [246], [247], [248], [249],[250], [251], [252], [253] or can be more simply seen by looking the user's talk page in full here:[254]. Yet the user still continues to remove infomation from pages with no reasoning given on their Edit summaries  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing of Hinduism articles (restore vandalized report)

Anonymous60987766 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anonymous60987766 (talk · contribs) has removed referenced content and made substantial unsourced changes to multiple articles. The only explanation so far has been this [255]. Suggesting a user block, with attention from editors knowledgeable in the subject, as to whether any edits are acceptable. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• This [256] confirms the problem. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• The removal of this report by the subject of the report was obviously a very dubious act. I'd be grateful if the IP editor could provide specific diffs to the removals that are a cause for concern, so that we can assess those without trawling through all their contribs. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, Girth Summit. [257]; [258]; [259]; [260]; [261]; [262]; [263]; [264]. These are, in terms of volume, the prominent deletions. Many of the smaller edits are to infoboxes, changing gods' 'affiliations', which has an effect similar to genre warring in music articles--all unsourced and all done with a sense of unquestioned authority. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Per my inclusion of this diff above [265], it's never a good sign when someone goes through numerous articles deleting and changing content on nothing more substantial than Actually, I removed it intentionally because of the distorted content which I felt shouldn't be there but if you choose to keep it the same way, then it's your wish. It's better to remove something than to let it be there even if it's distorted. There is a limit to adding distorted information but I've got fewer fucks to give. If you don't know about something then you shouldn't interrupt. Anyway, if not you, someone else would have done it. That doesn't mean I agree with the shit written here though but anyway, thanks for your concern Mr. I know wikipedia isn't my father's property and that's why anyone can come here and write BS. The attitude speaks for itself. At this point, my question is whether any of the edits ought to be preserved. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks you, IP editor. This is certainly concerning - the diffs presented show a pattern of removing sourced content, and their response quoted above indicates a pretty poor attitude with regard to collaboration. Perhaps Anonymous60987766 would be prepared to attempt to explain their conduct before we decide the best way forward. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Many of his edits seem sensible de-cluttering, but with a tendency to go too far. The "sourcing" on many articles on Hindu deities is to very-much-not-RS Hindu sites. This series (almost immediately reverted) starts off well, but imo seems to go too far by the lower bits. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Johnbod. It would be good to get a handle on the validity of their edits, since they're not inclined to account for them or leave edit summaries explaining the strength of a source....or what sources they're relying on. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• He never seems to add sources, and most of his edits are net removals, but that is often not a bad thing on these pages. I don't like this group on Krishna so much - again reverted immediately. But this is a sensible link correction (apart from missing a "). Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Tiger versus lion

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

---

Talk:Tiger versus lion might be one of the most tedious walls of text I've witnessed on Wikipedia. In recent days the article and talkpage have become a free-fire zone that has led me to fully protect the article for a day just to stop the rapid-fire reverts and arguing. I've blocked one two editors for attempted outing and aspersions - and the editor who is the target of the aspersions and outing used to be named "Eichman Heydrich" ... Little of this behavior is new to the article, it's been like this for its entire history, and it's probably the biggest original research offender in the encyclopedia. Short of blocking everybody who's edited the article for the last week for edit-warring, I'm at a loss about what to do with the article and the editing environment. Suggestions are welcome, up to and including nuking it all from orbit. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I just scanned the talk page and immediately ran headfirst into a wall. Plus, one of the accounts outed the other there, too, in several places. So more rev/deletion, and perhaps an indef block. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• It's a significant undertaking just tracking down all the outing amid the wordwall. I've warned a longtime editor on that page for that - at least I'm confident that they're sticking to one account. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Its the worst article and equally worst talk page on Wikipedia. It’s survived multiple AfDs by some miracle. The solution to this article and its problems is deletion. For those who don’t feel like reading it, it’s basically big cat fans arguing over which is better. Both the article and the talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks to be Deftred's contributions just this evening. A limited number, so it isn't too hard to find the outings. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I think I've gotten it - both Deftred and what I take to be his sock are blocked.When I'm feeling less exasperated, I might work on an AfD propsal. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Somehow, Acroterion, and not for lack of effort on your part, some of the outing is still encased in a rant there. These guys know a lot about lions and tigers, fighting. Now I'm off to draft a piece on scorpions and tarantulas. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
        • You're right, got it. Thanks for checking. Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Please AfD it again. BTW, a Google search on [ Ducks vs. Penguins ] turns up "About 42,600,000 results"... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Seconding AfD. This article serves no encyclopedic value. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
            • At least they're both in the same league. Tigers and Lions are in different sports. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
              • I propose we change the article to say

                Based on extensive scientific analysis, it has been proven beyond and shred of doubt that in any hypothetical or real fight between a tiger and a lion, the tiger will win. This applies even if it is a badly injured and starving tiger cub the size of a domestic cat and the biggest most dangerous lion that has ever existed. In fact, it has been demonstrated that even a single such tiger cub will be able to defeat the 100 most dangerous lions cooperating in a reasonable fashion. (Not in the "Mook Chivalry" style of fighting made famous as a TV trope where a group will generally engage with a single person one at a time.)

                We then ask the WMF to permanently superprotect the article and talk page and archives, and for good measure add an edit filter forbidding any edit mentioning tiger and lion in the same edit. Problem solved! Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
                • @Nil Einne: but what of lions and tigers and bears (oh my)? Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
                  • Just realised I typoed "any" as "and". Luckily my proposal wasn't already implemented and we're now stuck with the typo forever. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• The article's a complete joke, a mess of bulletlists of random stuff. Here's an excerpt:

  According to the Gettysburg Compiler and The Baltimore Sun (1899), towards the end of the 19th century in India, the Gaekwad of Baroda, that is Sayajirao III,[76][77] arranged a fight in an amphitheater, between a Barbary lion called 'Atlas', from the Atlas Mountains between Algeria and Morocco, and a man-eating Bengal tiger from the Indian region of Shimla, both large and hungry (with their diets reduced before the fight), before an audience of thousands, instead of between an Indian lion and the tiger, as Indian lions were believed to be no match for Bengal tigers.[b] The tiger was more than 10 feet (3.0 metres) long, over 4 feet (120 centimetres) feet at the shoulder, had strong shoulders and long teeth and claws, and was agile. The lion looked taller at the head than the tiger, and had a large mane, legs and paws. The tiger was seen as "the personification of graceful strength and supple energy," whereas the lion was seen as the "embodiment of massive power and adamantine muscle".[64] In the fight, both cats sustained injuries, and although the tiger sometimes retreated from Atlas, it would come back to fight it, and in the end, managed to scratch Atlas to death, though Atlas pushed it off in one final move before dying. The Gaekwad agreed to pay 37,000 rupees, accepted that the tiger was the "King of the Cat Family," decreed that Atlas' body be given a Royal burial, and that the tiger should have a "cage of honour" in the menagerie of Baroda, and decided to prepare the tiger for a battle with a Sierran grizzly bear weighing more than 1,500 lb (680 kilograms). The battle was to happen after the tiger recovered from its wounds.

  That the article's authors are able pass such nonsense on to our readers with a straight face implies a possible CIR problem. We even have an article Atlas_the_Barbary_lion_versus_the_Bengal_tiger_of_Simla reporting this idiocy as straight fact. EEng 11:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  It seems completely plausible to me. Do you have some proof that this was a newspaper hoax?--Auric talk 14:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  It's not beyond belief that something like this happened, but we almost always treat 19C newspapers as primary sources because their idea of what constituted fact was, um, somewhat loose -- sort of like Fox News today. If our only source is Mr. Smith telling the Gettysburg Compiler about some letters he got from Major Somebody relating an alleged eyewitness account, and there's no modern source commenting on the story's veracity, we don't repeat it, certainly not in the breathless detail seen in the article just linked (Round One ... Round Two ... Round Three ...), and we certainly don't base an entire article on it. EEng 01:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Acroterion The Tiger versus lion should be kept, and is of encyclopedic value. Its probably one of the biggest animal vs animal debate, and the animals are so evenly matched that it is in itself very controversial and opinionated (even the so called "experts" and "zoologists" have questionable opinions which may demean the whole article, though), so keeping neutrality is key just to show both sides. This wiki article is probably the most balanced out of most tiger versus lion sites, and is the first thing that comes up when you look up lion versus tiger, so its stupid to delete, everybody sees this, also at a minimum gets 30k views per month. Its just some fanboys want to push a one sided view point, and to prevent that you can just protect the article so no crazy fanboys can just edit without being experienced on wiki to be able to know the policies and how it works (unlike deftred), there is no new information regarding tiger versus lion anyways. Tijkil (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  The article's stupidity begins with its title; what does it even mean??? And please, after you tell us what it means, tell us which reliable sources inform us about it? Hint: 19th-century newspaper articles, and interviews with circus promoter Clyde Beatty, are not reliable sources about the natural history of lions and tigers. EEng 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  I agree the problem lies in the title. Perhaps what would help is a move request to move it to Lion versus tiger. – Levivich 02:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  The article needs TNT, but the topic is probably GNG notable, per popsci RSes like Smithsonian (magazine) [266], Live Science [267], umm HuffPost [268] and this totally legit science website. Along with other pressing scientific topics like, should you run or freeze when you see a mountain lion? (hint: run) and The eight animals most likely to attack you – and how to survive (hint: the animal most likely to attack you is Homo sapiens wikipedian), and of course the classic scholarly work Lions, tigers, and bears, oh sh!t. – Levivich 02:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  I'm fascinated by Scientific American's intelligence that hitting the animal with a walking stick or a gun butt often saved people from attack. Fair warning to any animals that attack me: if I happen to have a gun at the time it's not the butt end of it I will be using on you. EEng 06:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Mountain lions are very smart and will likely steal your bullets before attacking you. – Levivich 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  See User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_30#The_extent_of_a_lion's_knowledge_of_firearms. EEng 15:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Of course. A thread for everything, for every thing a thread. – Levivich 18:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Re Tijkil above: I think you've presented exhibit A for the mess the article is in. And no, I'm no going to protect it so a select cadre can maintain it in that state. Acroterion (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, since no-one has, I have started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger versus lion (2nd nomination). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Top talk pages

• While the top cat title is disputed, we have excellent statistics about the comparative sizes of talk pages and so we can be quite definite about the largest. Talk:tiger versus lion is only 370K and that's including its archives, which go back seven years. The latest section is just 13K and so that's just a scratch on this scale and this section in ANI is about the same size. These numbers are quite small compared to the record holders which measure in megabytes, not mere K. Here's a fresh list of the top 300. Notice that while Talk:tiger versus lion doesn't make the list, User talk:Acroterion does with a weighty 6.5 Mb. But even that is well short of the record in its class. Anyway, to put this matter in proportion, here's a list of the top 10 talk pages in mainspace. The talk pages in other name spaces are even larger and ANI isn't in the list because it's technically not a talk page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Top 10	Mb
Talk:Main Page	22
Talk:Intelligent design	19
Talk:Barack Obama	16
Talk:Donald Trump	15
Talk:Global warming	15
Talk:Jesus	14
Talk:Race and intelligence	13
Talk:Catholic Church	13
Talk:United States	13
Talk:Homeopathy	12

It's not the size of the talkpage, it's the excruciating content of both the talkpage and the article. I'm still working out what I think ought to be done about that, which is the real point. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

How is this article topic any more excruciating than Today’s Featured Article, which is about a war monument in Northampton, England? Wikipedia is filled with articles about topics that don’t matter...almost six million of them...99% of Wikipedia. Are you just now realizing? – Levivich 14:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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