Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

thewolfchild – abrasive interaction issues at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/DeltaQuad

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

---

I'm reaching out to understand how to proceed out here with respect to the thewolfchild. In my opinion, the editor seems to have an abrasive and overly aggressive attitude towards anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/DeltaQuad, to the point of having a chilling effect on opposing views from editors such as Athaenara, Mr rnddude, Kashmiri, Foxnpichu, Hhkohh and Crazynas. My discussions with the editor on my talk page also ended up on a route it should not have gone in (and I would probably take the blame for it as I should have ignored commenting back). I should confess; I might be the one completely wrong in assessing the issue, in such a case, would of course step back. Feedback from my fellow editors would allow me a dispassionate view of the issue.

Some relevant diffs:

• The editor has a background of being blocked 9 times in the past for reasons ranging from aggressive attitude, personal attacks, edit warring and similar.[1]
• A few diffs of Thewolfchild's recent interactions at the RfB can be seen here:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
• A few examples of recent interactions on various editors' talk pages can be seen here:[10][11][12]

Thanks, Lourdes 04:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

[13]the idea that all we are doing at RfXs is trying to appropriately deposit our feces is a rather amusing one to me Crazynas ^t 11:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll admit that I had thought about this same of course of action myself. I had thought about proposing a TBAN from commenting at RfX with an exception carved out for asking two questions of the candidate only and posting a !vote. I agree with Lourdes' assessment that TWC is abrasive at RfX, and will add that this has been a pattern for some time. I mean, just refer to Iridescent's pre-emptive comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sir_Sputnik. I mentioned a series of diffs at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_bureaucratship/DeltaQuad in my latest post which I think highlight their passive-aggressive demeanour at that RfB. It appears to me that TWC needs to be notified that they are not arbiter of appropriate !votes, comments or questions in any venue let alone at RfX. Either through their own volition, or by sanctioned remedy. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Lourdes - I think that many of his responses (while I definitely would have worded them better) are an attempt to make fair arguments in rebuttal to others, but responses like this one (and many others listed here) show a very battleground-like attitude and he's definitely bludgeoning the process there. When he goes as far as to accuse you of making certain edits and changes to spite him and because of the discussion at the RfB and with no real evidence to back this up, you know that there's a problem and he's taking things way too far. This edit he made here is unacceptable.

Regarding your discussion with thewolfchild on your user talk page: I don't think you did anything horribly and utterly wrong, but I think that many of your statements in response to thewolfchild caused him to become more frustrated and more angry instead of attempting to diffuse the situation properly and attempt to work with thewolfchild to take care of things. Editors who resort to using words and phrases in order to be passive-aggressive and disrespectful toward one another and in order to trade blows aren't demonstrating the civlity and respect that we expect of all editors, and the responsibility that we have as administrators to set the example for others regarding how to handle situations like this. As you of course already know, I have to respond to editors while they're spitting hate, insults, uncivil anger, and... other fun remarks towards me all the time. We have to put those comments completely aside and out of our mind and remain 100% calm, collected, civil, and respectful in our responses and regardless of the discussion or how heated others are.

I think we need to ask thewolfchild to stop with the passive-agressive battleground-like mentality and attitude, or to step away from the RfB discussion for awhile. He's definitely treading in the realm of being able to be blocked for uncivil disruption and bludgeoning the process. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As I see it, TWC is wasting a lot of precious time of other editors. We have a choice: either ignore it and move on – the likely result will be that their trolling and attacks will continue, albeit perhaps with regard to other editors than us – or try to rein it using the tools we have. I admit I favour the latter and like the TBAN proposal put forward by Mr rnddude. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to such a proposal being brought forward. I think it warrants a discussion at least. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

When I recently said I need good evidence to block an established "content creator", TWC said, "What kind of horseshit is that?" with no further explanation. Nice.... When I tried to discuss the issue with him, he didn't want to know. While I have disagreed with Lourdes' view of DeltaQuad here, I think she is perfectly entitled to express her opinion without abuse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what they are talking about this in my talk page, but it is obviously pointless:

OK. And... what do you expect to accomplish with that question? - wolf 22:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps they are unfamiliar with how RfB processes Hhkohh (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think TWC desperately needs an attitude change, and at this rate, it's going to take a block or some similar sanction to enforce that.--WaltCip (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• "I had thought about proposing a TBAN from commenting at RfX with an exception carved out for asking two questions of the candidate only and posting a !vote". I support this. Twc's Rfx comments have become just too much. Aside from the fact that they seem oblivious to the Streisand effect - wtf does one oppose out of 200 matter unless dragged out into a pointless to/fro - it's downright rude and uncivil. I sympathise to a degree - they've been carried away by this bizarre notion that an otherwise "pristine" Rfx must not be "spoiled" or "sullied" by any 0.5% oppose vote, and that anyone casting such a vote must be pilloried. The proponents of that ludicrous way of thinking ought to consider that this is where that leads... -- Begoon 13:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see the argument that if an RfX is on (10/1/0), someone might want to challenge the oppose and bring in new insights to stop it becoming (10/5/5), for example. However, by the time a RfX is over 95% support with 48 hours left, there really is no need to badger the opposition - it's a complete waste of time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for TWC

From making any edits to any RfX page, excepting one !vote and two questions for the candidate. Since there appears to be some appetite for this above, I'm formalising the proposal. ——SerialNumber54129 13:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Conditional support Iff twc undertakes to voluntarily cease pointless badgering and shows some understanding that it does more harm than good then my support is withdrawn. -- Begoon 14:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Confirming that my support still stands. "I apologise for one of the many comments I made but still think I should be allowed to do that, although I'll stop for a bit if you all insist" doesn't meet my requirement of "understanding that it does more harm than good" or demonstrate the introspection I was hoping for. -- Begoon 13:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support in view of the long history of personal attacks, including several blocks for the same (per Lourdes). In addition, given that the majority of TWC's disruptive editing took place outside RfA, and in disregard to earlier blocks, a short block (of a few days' duration) might also be helpful to serve as a final warning. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Per Begoon. I honestly thought he was being disruptive myself when I was having a discussion with him. The only reason I didn't do anything is because I thought you were simply allowed to act that way in RfX pages. I didn't realise this was not the first time either. Regardless, if Wolf learns to stop it, we could give him another chance. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Oof... we definitely have an issue if the incivility and negative conduct is causing other editors to believe that this kind of behavior is allowed and considered part of the norm when it comes to this process. :-( I appreciate you for providing your honest input and thoughts. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"I thought you were simply allowed to act that way in RfX pages." Absolutely not - despite perceptions, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are also policies at RfA / RfB. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well it looks like you learn something new everyday. Thank both of you. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support – I was actually considering raising the issue myself as I found the badgering of the opposers quite disruptive, both in the current RfB and in recent RfA's. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a wake-up call and because the negative atmosphere at RfX is a serious concern, and not only with respect to the candidates, and moving discussions to the talk page is demonstrably insufficient. I'm concerned by Thewolfchild's not having responded here as well as by mentions of previous blocks that a topic ban may not be enough to get them to stop. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: To be fair, TWC hasn't edited since 0142 hours this AM, and this discussion was opened at 0421, so I guess for the time being we should assume they haven't seen it. ——SerialNumber54129 20:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. As someone has pointed out above, I've previously described TWC's attitude as a "school bully routine", and I've seen nothing subsequently to suggest I was wrong; their contributions at RfX have consistently been a mix of self-importance, unwarranted aggressiveness, and needlessly personalising disputes, which needlessly makes a process stressful when (despite the beliefs of some) it doesn't need to be. I have very little doubt that TWC's reaction to being restricted from RfX will be to take the battleground mentality elsewhere, and that we'll be having this same discussion in a couple of months regarding their conduct in some other venue, but they deserve the chance to try to prove that they're willing to respect the views of people regardless of whether or not they agree with them. ‑ Iridescent 18:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. RfA and RfB are areas that can really do without aggressive bullying behavior, regardless of whether it's towards candidates, towards supporters, or towards opposers. Carrying it out so insistently, in the face of obvious concern from other editors, leads to only one sensible solution, which is this topic ban as proposed. There's also the obsession with "having the last word" that seems to have become a hallmark of this user's editing. Unfortunately I also have to echo Iridescent's comment above; a recent trip here to ANI for the wolfchild ending with Anna Frodesiak summarizing that Editors who behave in a hostile manner for too long, wear out their welcome. How many more blockable or ANIable (yes, it's an adjective too!) posts will bring an indef? but generously hoping that thewolfchild's editing displayed an improving trend. This latest disruption does not show much sign of such an improving trend. MPS1992 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  I would also support, as my first choice, Lourdes' proposed alternate wording below. wolfchild's "reply" is unconvincing; it starts with the vapid, continues with some meandering, and concludes with redefining any restriction as being on their own terms as a voluntary thing. That's not what's needed, given the behavior that has happened. MPS1992 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: The evidence supplied above shows a fairly persistent battleground mentality with regard to taking challenges to the !votes of others to a badgering and even disruptive extreme. Many of the responses are aggressive out of the gate and the responses in the back-and-forth discussions that follow are not particularly well calculated to help the parties arrive at a meeting of the minds, but rather are so combative as to virtually guarantee further entrenchment. It indeed makes me wonder if there is a more fundamental change needed to TWC's interactions on-project in general (especially seeing that block log and noting how many times they have been a disputant in ANI threads) but we can certainly start with a more targeted approach of a topic ban from this area that seems to get them particularly fired up. I do appreciate that TWC's efforts in this area are tied to their wish not to see someone volunteering for community service be put excessively through the ringer (we all know what RfX processes are like), but it's not justification for needlessly aggressive argumentation and honestly, I can't see how their approach really helps such candidates, who may actually face a backlash if there is a perception that "oppose" !votes are being shouted down. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support for reasons adjacent to what Foxnpichu and Oshwah discussed above. I had actually wanted to discuss some of the opposes but held back feeling it basically wasn't possible to join in without becoming part of an ugly pile-on. Upholding behavioral norms at RfX so that a constructive conversation there is possible would be really welcome, and a tban, when there's a recurrent problem with a particular editor's participation, seems one of the only effective ways to do that; other strategies I've seen, like responding directly or refactoring personal attacks, seem often necessary but not sufficient. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  Lourdes's modification seems to me to be in everyone's best interest. Especially given TWC's acknowledgement below, which I appreciate, I'm hopeful it'd be understood an RfX tban means, don't just find another venue to keep pursuing the same issue, but, fairest and most efficient (i.e. in hopes of not winding up back here debating parameters) to all to make it clear up front. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support I worry that as Twc did in my case, or in the case of Xeno, Hhkohh and probably others, Twc will follow editors from the RfX and continue arguments on the talk page or other forums. Or he may berate other editors through the questions allowed to Twc in the RfX. So if there is appetite for the same and if the community agrees, I would hope the TBAN is modified as "From making any edits about any RfX across the project, broadly construed, except for one !vote and two questions from the candidate during any RfX, without alluding to any other editor's !vote or comments within the RfX.". Thanks.​​​​​​​​​​​​ Lourdes 01:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Given that it takes a certain amount of courage to post against mounting consensus, we ought to be thanking editors instead of attacking them. And we ought to be addressing attacks when they happen. --valereee (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - hounding participants in project-side discussions is poor conduct, but so is calling an editor in otherwise good standing a troll, particularly so when the editor delivering the personal attacks is an administrator. Everyone's been fairly warned, in my opinion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ivanvector, you know it that I would never disregard anything you say. So I'll accept your comment completely. I'll be honest. For me and for others on Wikipedia, Twc is not an editor in good standing after multiple blocks. I called his posts trolling at the RfX after he had come to my page and left the statements that are mentioned below, where he used terms like "obnoxious revert", "for fuck's sake", "petty bullshit" etc. I struck the comment of trolling soon after. Do please go through my post below to understand the specific context. Warmly, Lourdes 01:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I suppose this can't hurt, although since TWC doesn't recognize he's done anything wrong, I don't understand why people think this will solve a problem; won't it just continue in some other venue? Also, want to record somewhere that User:Lourdes' smug condescension to TWC on her talk page is noted, and probably made things worse. Yet another person who apparently thinks "civility" consists of not using bad words. She should really calm down and have a cup of tea, and introspect why she enjoys baiting an intemperate editor; if she'd like my assistance in understanding how not to be so passive aggressive on Wikipedia and in her normal life, I'd be happy to assist her with that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Flo, sure, I'm open to suggestions. Let this stuff get over first. I really have less patience with "'em boyz" ready to land at my page attempting to give their loser spiel. Anyway, will connect when this gets over. Warmly, Lourdes 05:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• TWC has replied below, and more importantly offered what seems to be a real and sincere aplology. They appear to understand what went wrong, and have even offered to take a timeout from RfX. I don't think that a topic ban is needed in order to protect the project at this point. In my opinion, Lourdes raised a fair point in her oppose, and on the other end of the stick there were certainly !votes, and comments that were without merit, or possibly even a basis in reality. It's fair that sometimes these comments need further discussion. We should remember that the policies WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and maybe most importantly, the behavioral guideline WP:AGF apply project-wide. SQL^{Query me!} 17:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm going to Oppose a topic ban in the light of TWC's reflection, apology and voluntary proposal to disengage from RfX below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in light of the comments below and Lourdes' inability to handle this situation in a manner expected of an admin as demonstrated by their comments on their talk page. Nihlus 19:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support the revised proposal. I do not find the apology to be genuine, given the track record on various Talk page pages and at ANI. Random samples: This is not a revert, it's just you being obnoxious for some reason. Grow up and find something better to with your time, mmkay?; Actually, you can't seem to help yourself. It took less than an hour for you to post another obnoxious comment with your desperate must-have-last-word-itis. Good luck with that; btw - you can only pull that so many times before it bites you in the ass, so watch it and so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Some specific context would be helpful for the community:

• Thewolfchild landed on my talk page and the first post they posted consisted of: "I could say it was because I called you out on your ridiculously ill-conceived, and now utterly embarrassing, '!vote' at RfB, you decided to make this needlessly obnoxious 'revert' in return, but I won't say that. I will instead suggest you move on to more useful contributions and stop this petty bullshit. You're admin ffs, you're supposed to be above this type of behaviour"[14]
• This outburst by Twc was a result of this edit of mine, where I had added a source for a line that had been added earlier by a new editor and Thewolfchild had reverted earlier as the new editor had not added any source.
• This outburst by Twc was also a result of this edit of mine, where I went and warned the new editor with the following words: "While what Thewolfchild says is absolutely right, I've gone ahead and added a source for your addition. Next time, please remember to add a reliable source whenever you add any material to Wikipedia. Thanks"
• Thewolfchild believed that the one edit to the particular article proved that I was tracking their edits across Wikipedia.
• Thewolfchild landed on my page because of this edit and accused me as mentioned above. I responded to Thewolfchild saying that their post is "Incoherent", "Nonsensical" and that Thewolfchild needed to "calm down".[15][16]
• His past and current editing are replete with the same comments on other editors' talk pages using the same words, for example, as mentioned by K.e.coffman above:[17][18] Multiple editors in this section have said they were considering opening up a TBAN discussion on TWc (and not for twc’s discussions on my talk page.

Well, I take on board the comments of Ivan, Boing, Floquenbeam, and others. I probably have very less patience for editors who land on my page and believe that they can practise on my talk page what they probably do in their real lives and slam words like "obnoxious revert", "for fuck's sake", "petty bullshit" and more in their first post – I've already mentioned at the start of this post that I should probably have remained quiet; although I really don't remain quiet in my real life when such individuals land up in my space – and I would recommend the same to others. Having said that, it's imperative to know that Twc's behaviour is not just with me, an administrator, but with editors across Wikipedia. Saying that his behaviour is okay because an admin said Twc's first post on their page sounds nonsensical, incoherent, is absolutely not okay. Look at what editors like Foxnpichu are mentioning – that they now believe that attacks against them by editors like Twc are allowed on Wikipedia. We cannot allow such behaviour to be overlooked because multiple apologies and assurances over the past so many years by this editor (after 9 blocks) have not resulted in any change. Lourdes 01:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I read TWCs apology below and offer to take an enforced voluntary break from editing RfX pages for 6 months. My immediate concern with this proposal is that the last time that the community agreed to such, it backfired spectacularly. Any sanction needs to be a logged enforced community sanction. I do not want a repeat of the TGS fiasco. I have no issue with adopting their blanket TBAN proposal so long as it is logged as such, though I think a note could be added in such an entry that TWC had voluntarily proposed the sanction against themselves. My initial concern out of the way, I want to address the contents of TWCs apology.
  Of the six that have opposed, I asked four of them once to clarify or explain their oppose !vote <- this is not an honest reflection of what TWC did at the RfB. Their first comment was to lecture Lourdes about nitpicking the candidate over communication and heavy-handedness and to propose that Lourdes should just be neutral. There was no request for clarification. Their second and third comments were to attack Foxnpichu for being untrusting of a candidate who had, in the candidates own words, made a stupid block against them. It would be generous to describe TWCs interactions here as anything other than snide superiority. Their fourth comment was where a bureaucrat had had enough and had stepped in and removed it. This is the only comment that TWC has attempted to address. I have previously pointed all of these comments and two others on top of it and asked TWC if [they] consider these passive-aggressive comments "seeking clarification"? They responded about my "musings". I'll add here that their challenge of Athaenara's oppose was put together reasonably enough. Also, for the first time, I did ask one editor to clarify the reason for his question <- This is not an honest reflection of what TWC did either. Why did she "have 3 RfA to become an admin?"...? Why don't you just read them for yourself? What do you expect to accomplish with that question? Seriously. <- The demeanour in this statement is, as with the other comments I've cited above, passive-aggressive. Obviously so. It is insincere to suggest that you were "seeking clarification".
  In sum, I think TWC realizes that they've upset a number of editors. But it does not, from their apology, appear to me that they are any closer to understanding what it is that people are finding objectionable with their behaviour. I cannot in any faith, good or bad, not support a sanction. I'll add here that Ritchie333's and Floquenbeam's comment give me pause. I had been under the erroneous impression that the issues were localized to RfX, a generally hostile area of Wikipedia. This doesn't appear to be the case. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - and yet another example of why threaded discussion should be prohibited at RFx. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not think an enforced TBAN resolves conduct issues at its core, this seems punitive at best. However ingenuine an apology (ffs assume some good faith?) you might think it is, it takes a lot to apologize on the most viewed page of Wikipedia. I agree with Floq's view of the matter partially and I think we need to not enforce something that can easily be implemented voluntarily. Imo TWC should stay away from RfXs completely for a period of 1 year and go through a simple ANI process after its expiry to gauge if their civility issues have been put to bed. (Pinging @Thewolfchild: for thoughts on the matter)--QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 20:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should put that up as an alternative proposal. I don't know if anything is likely to reverse the established consensus above, but I would probably !vote for that more middle ground approach. Like you, I have no problem assuming TWC's apology was sincere: it seemed perfectly genuine and fullsome to me, even without the need for a generous application of AGF. I understand that a history of similar interactions has made many skeptical that TWC fully understands all concerns, but that is a separate question as to whether they made a good accounting of what went wrong in this particular case and how to remedy it, which I feel they did. The reason I couldn't adopt TWC's counterproposal is that I felt like it asked for too much. It's one thing to ask for the ban to be labelled "voluntary"; so long as TWC agreed to stay out of those areas here, they wouldn't be able to violate that promise willy-nilly and if an editor wants to avoid a formally logged TBAN, I can understand that. But on top of that, TWC also wanted the ban reduced from indefinite to six months. The combination would have been a significant dilution of the remedy the consensus has already more or less endorsed above and would allow no community assessment as to whether issues had been resolved before editing resumed in those areas. Your variation, representing a middle ground between the consensus above and TWC's counter-request, seems reasonable to me: a formal ban, appealable in 1 year, essentially. I could change my !vote to that, though I do kind of suspect we might be too far along at this point to change the mind of a sufficient number of community members. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Iridescent. This has to stop, and RfA is already stressful for candidates as it is. feminist (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

twc reply

Well, it seems I have arrived late to this. If enough people feel you are being disruptive, there is no point in saying "no I wasn't". I can, however, try to explain why I ask questions of opposers. First, I feel we should be able to, and clearly I'm not alone in this. This isn't about "safeguarding any pristine voting percentage" (who said that again?), I don't even know these candidates. I'd like to know if there is a legitimate reason to oppose, in which case I may reconsider my support, or is the oppose is just based on something benign or some personal grudge, in which case, should it even be there?

Of the six that have opposed, I asked four of them once to clarify or explain their oppose !vote. The remainder of my posts are replies to posts directed at me. I will admit that one of my comments was quite crude and needlessly so and I openly and unreservedly apologize for that. I was at the time, as I'm sure others were, taken aback by an oppose that had no context, or text period, just a diff, forcing everyone to read through an entire ArbCom case and decipher how a particular vote (part of the majority, btw) somehow provides reasoning for a candidate not being trustworthy. I posted a much simpler comment seeking more info to which more info was indeed provided and I left it at that. Also, for the first time, I did ask one editor to clarify the reason for his question. I asked on his talk page and didn't see it as being rude. It has since been described as "badgering", but that word gets thrown around a lot so perhaps we need a community definition for it.

Anyway, taking on board all the comments here, I'm offerring to take a self-imposed ban from all RfXs, knowing full well that violating will result in an immediate block. Following this, should I participate in any RfXs, I will keep all posts to community standards and refrain from making any comments that are rude or off-topic. I would suggest 3 months, but gauging the discussion, I'm thinking 6 months would be more acceptable to those that have chosen to join in here. Will that suffice? - wolf 21:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thewolfchild - I highly acknowledge and respect that you took the time to come here and try to explain, as well as apologize for your recent behavior. I don't want my response to you here to discount or brush that off in any way. It takes a lot for someone to apologize, and I give you my tip of the hat for doing so. Unfortunately, most of what's been discussed here (and ultimately what users are discussing regarding the proposed topic ban) isn't just a reflection nor is it an expression of concerns regarding your behavior at the RfB. The comments provided in this discussion, your extensive block log and history, and your contribution history - show that incivility, disrespectful remarks and passive-aggressive tone and demeanor, battleground mentality and conduct, bludgeoning of discussion and process, and unfounded accusations toward others is a long term and consistent issue with you, and the community is starting to take the necessary steps in order to formally disallow you from participating in discussions that are critical to the project due to your negative behaviors and your habit of causing hardship upon the discussions at-hand and the editors who participate in them. With this in mind, I think that any topic ban that's imposed should be on the terms of the community, and not yours. Your long-term pattern of behavior has shown that you have a very difficult time with exercising restraint, and keeping an eye on your emotions, your comments, and your words - and any fences that you put up yourself will be more easily taken down. I think that topic ban that's imposed by community consensus and formally applied (should any such topic ban be applied) will have a higher chance of success than one that you propose and then promise to comply with on your own. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I wasn't really looking at this as a "my terms" vs the "terms of the community". A ban is a ban, right? Whether I say here at ANI I will not post at any RfA/B for x-months as part of a voluntary-ban, or there is a consensus-registered restriction that says that I can't post there for x-months, what's the difference? (Other than, say... some good faith) Either way, if I post there during that period, I get blocked for violating the ban, right? I'm not looking to get blocked. As messed up as the RfA/B process is, it's not that important to me. - wolf 01:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: peanut gallery comment If twc voluntarily accepts a ban with consequences, which is endorsed by the community and gets logged at WP:RESTRICT then that is as good as a community sanction. --Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Regular edit-warring from user:Jim7049

Jim7049 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Has been warned since January against unconstructive edits, disruptive editing, edit warring and NPOV violations in their talk page. This user has also been blocked and unblocked multiple times by admins but again continued edit warring yesterday on 11 March 2019. Please look into the matter and determine whether this user should continue their Wikipedia editing. AmericanAgent (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've already warned Jim7049 earlier today for edit warring on Portal:Current events/2019 March 11, and the edit warring has stopped since then. I chose not to block Jim7049 in order to give him/her a chance to put the brakes on the back-and-forth reverts and to discuss the matter properly; Jim7049's contributions show that he's/she's added a discussion to the portal's talk page, which means that he's/she's attempting to do so. There's no block needed at this time, so long as the edit warring doesn't continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I've also left him an in-depth explanation of policy, expectations, and how I step in and manage issues and disputes - see my resposne here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: You may want to revisit. 1 / 2 / 3 reverts of the same user on Portal:Current events/2019 March 15 plus an admittedly noncontentious rv of a second user. This edit (a third user) shows willing to engage with disputes on talkpages at least some of the time; but, "Please stop this kind of false editing which is completely fake and disrupting," is not really the way to begin a content dispute in a civil fashion. Jim seems keen to improve the wiki, but is skirting boundaries a bit and could maybe do with mentoring. Madness ^Darkness 19:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Same situation, long-standing, on Commons; multiple explanations since January now. [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• I had recently declined an unblock for edit warring. Jim7049 was then unblocked after affirming understanding what to do instead. DlohCierekim 06:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding dozens of non notables to article lists

• Korean Americans in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• New Yorkers in journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chinese in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Indians in the New York City metropolitan region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Castncoot (talk · contribs)

Editor was alerted to this last year by DGG [20]. Has responded to my concern thusly: [21]. Many of the non notables are linked to family surnames, so as not to appear as redlinks. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I can say that I'm definitely not pleased to see Castncoot's reverts here and here to your edits and with the edit summaries he left, essentially calling your edit vandalism, implying that you're a product of sock puppetry, and that you have no policy knowledge. Have we tried going through each article and removing the people listed who don't need to be there? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, Hi Bob! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

1) WP:NOTABILITY constitutes the potential for a standalone article, not that there must already be one. 2) I do suspect sockpuppetry here but cannot prove it. 3) In an article entitled "Korean Americans in New York City", a Korean surname is most certainly pertinent and notable for wikilinking, as long as it is done just once per surname. Castncoot (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Castncoot: Please take any concerns regarding sockpuppeteering to SPI, and desist from casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Many thanks. ——SerialNumber54129 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Castncoot - I agree with your understanding of notability and the fact that it establishes whether an article should exist for the given subject. Having a requirement for a subject to already have its own article in order to be considered notable would be...... an infinite circle of logic and would make no sense, since that would mean that nobody would be notable due to the fact that having an article requires notability and then establishing notability would require an article.... lol.

I can assure you with the upmost confidence that this user is absolutely not a sock puppet, and he possesses a very high level of policy knowledge, experience, and dedication to the project. Can you please share the information and evidence you have that supports your accusation that this user is a sock puppet? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Initially I was going to say that I don't see how we can complain if Castncoot is including a reference for each one. But some of the references are broken and/or don't demonstrate that the person in question is a New Yorker or even that they have made more than one journalistic contribution ever. So although s/he is correct in saying that there may be potential for an article, there must be considerable doubt over whether that is actually the case. Deb (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Basically, lists of people that have a potently to be indefinitely long (such as a list of Koreans living in NYC, compare to a list of Nobel Prize Laurats), then in combination with BLP, the only people on those indefinitely long lists should be those with blue-links with very limited exemption. Otherwise these lists can attract anyone that can provide minimal sourcing to prove they exist (which is not the same sources that we require by notability). --Masem (t) 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please also check the sources that are intended to establish notability; there's a linkedin and links to personal websites. The notability of persons I removed from the Korean Americans article is far from established--merely being a journalist isn't enough. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going through the lists so far, and I do see some problems. Don't get me wrong: I think that Castncoot is a good editor and he's doing a great thing by creating these lists. Compared to the editors and issues that I'm normally am asked to handle and resolve, the problems that we're seeing here with these lists are definitely minor when comparing it to someone causing vandalism, abuse, harassment, or disruption... lol. I just wanted to make that clear. :-) We just need to fix these issues that we're seeing so that these lists demonstrate and show the upmost quality, accuracy, and comprehensiveness that we can write and provide for viewing and reading. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

And I have no problem with that. I only have a pet peeve when someone who's contributed nothing to an article before suddenly swoops in rudely and deletes thousand of bytes and potentially hours spent of hard work without significant discussion first. Castncoot (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Castncoot - That's completely understandable and I don't blame you for feeling that way at all. Can you and who I refer to as "Bob" (this IPv6 IP user) collaborate and go over things together so that you're both on the same page (no pun intended) and can work together to resolve some of the concerns mentioned? I'm willing to help too if required; just let me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• We should only include people who actually have articles in these lists because that's the only way we can be sure that we're not just including names willy nilly. And, no, it does not follow that we would end up in an infinite circle of logic and no articles at all. The fact of the matter is that articles on people are vetted by the community and survive only if the person is notable. Names in a list, on the other hand, are not reviewed by the community for notability and anyone can pop in a name and probably get away with it. I'm trying to assume good faith here but linking to surnames smells of trying to avoid having to deal with names getting removed because there are no linked articles. regentspark (comment) 16:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm taking one at random: "executive manager, five-star luxury Hotel Park Hyatt New York in Midtown Manhattan". Doesn't sound remotely notable to me and I, for one, would prefer to see a linked article to make sure that the person is actually notable enough for inclusion. --regentspark (comment) 16:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  My understanding, then, is that the problem is that I "rudely swooped in"--sorry for the quotations, but there we are. The hours spent adding all those non notables now translates into a time sink for anyone who subsequently goes down the lines of inadequately referenced and unlinked people. The path forward would be for the editor who wishes to introduce the names to first create the stand alone articles, rather than deflecting by arguing that I've ventured into vandalism or using multiple accounts for no good. My first question is why these were all added to begin with. My second question is whether we remove unlinked names in these two articles en masse, or do a line item veto. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the accepted criterion for these lists is that they have to be shown notable in the sense of having an article or being obviously qualified for one, and there has to be evidence for their connection with the place or whatever. I normally remove any where the information given shows lack of obvious qualifications, but if there's no indication other than the name, I search to see who it is. It might be someone notable as Politician, for example. In that case I add the qualification and the reference, tho ideally I should make a stub article. (and for names removed from the list, it is unfortunately necessary to check they have not been added somewhere else equally inappropriately). DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. First of all, requiring that there already be a standalone Wikipedia article about a notable person should be a non-starter. To begin with, this would require changing the definition of WP:NOTABILITY on Wikipedia. It would also be a great way of closing off expansion of Wikipedia when we should be putting our best efforts into growing the project, rather than stunting its growth. Now, let me also put another issue into perspective - the issue of what makes notability on this list. See, you have to remember that this is an article about notable Koreans or Korean Americans in the New York City metropolitan region. Therefore, people who are local journalists are notable because they cover the local NYC area news and will be familiar faces or names to the local population. That's what the whole purpose of these regional list articles is, to bring out people who are locally notable in their own communities throughout the world. So for example, a Jakartans in journalism article or a Koreans in Jakarta article would include people of local notability. I don't see the distinction between the notability of local politicians, who are explicitly spelled out in local Category:Municipalities in New Jersey articles, even without their own standalone articles, versus journalists. There should be no distinction between a politician and the journalist who covers those politicians (not to mention other matters as well). I hope I've explained my rationale clearly. This will encourage the growth of other similar local and regional articles as well. If you shut the process down with arbitrary rules, it's simply a disservice for our readers not to be able to refer to information about local communities by putting a chilling pall on expansion. Castncoot (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, no on all counts. We don't include people because they're known by some people in a local area. Wikipedia has notability guidelines, and those aren't moveable goalposts simply because you or I have seen someone on local tv or read their articles in the local paper. Then there's the contention that there's no distinction between a politician and the journalist who writes about them, which is amiss on a fundamental level, per WP:NOTINHERITED. We do expect that a standalone article precede a listing, as several administrators have concurred here. That's a fundamental and non-controversial premise. I'm glad I've brought this here; the misunderstanding of notability guidelines is profound, and suggests a more thorough look through the edit history, beyond the two articles I've noted. As arguments for expansion, they exist outside the realm of our guidelines. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The regional lists are not to show people that are notable in a region, but to show people in a region that also are notable beyond that. We are not a who's who database, which is the argument that you are using. We avoid having articles on people that are only known locally since we are a global encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 00:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Not every admin in this thread concurs that there needs to be a pre-existing standalone article to determine notability, as you see in the discussion above. I'm obviously not an admin, but I've expressed my opinion for whatever it's worth, in the event that a policy or guideline is in the works now to be communicated to all Wikipedia editors, many (if not a plurality) of whom likely have the same understanding I do. It seems to be a circular argument with a fundamentally flawed premise that there must be a precedent standalone article to determine notability. It's the presence of adequate sourcing which determines the potential for an article and its notability. That's precisely why we don't use other Wikipedia articles as reliable sources. Also, this is a global encyclopedia to learn about locally and globally significant topics. Castncoot (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No, that's just not correct. Notability is based on independent coverage from secondary sources. And because of the promotional issue, WP:AUD says that topics that can only be sourced to local sources are not considered notable. We're also a who's who - just because we might be able to make these lists of all documentable people in an area doesn't mean we should.

This doesn't mean we absolutely need a blue-linked article, but the evidence to include should show a high likelihood that we would create a bluelinked article in the future. Such as if the person met WP:NBIO or if you can show a couple secondary sources. Keep in mind we do not have inherient notability, so just being a local politician or journalist or the like is not sufficient at all. But most of the time, these lists will only contain blue-linked names. --Masem (t) 02:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a third article above. And I've only gone back to mid-February. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added a fourth article. Take, for example, the two Hofstra university professors in the list. If we added every Indian American professor (even just the tenured ones) we'll have a book length article in place. The "locally-known" argument is completely against policy not only because it goes against our definition of notability but also it implies that an editor could add anyone they happen to know as long as they can attach a profession to their name and, perhaps, a website somewhere that verifies the existence of the person, a bar that includes almost everyone today. --regentspark (comment) 02:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's standard to only include people/objects on a list that have an article written on them. I thought that was a given. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. I agree with you that that's a good rule of thumb but it is not currently, to the best of my knowledge, a requirement. The only requirement is "notability" in the sense that the person would qualify for an article on Wikipedia, even if one does not correctly exist. We probably need an RfC on this but, in the meantime, I think we can safely delete names that are not sourced to independent sites that demonstrate notability. I also think that we can use WP:BRD to push the onus for demonstrating notability on the editor adding an item to the list since we're only removing names from a list rather than deleting an article. --regentspark (comment) 05:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw this before but wasn't totally sure that ANI is the right place to discuss it. But since we are, I think we should try to separate the issues. From what I can tell, nearly everyone agrees that for a list of the sort outlined above, every entry should be notable. This means that an article could be created on the subject that would survive AFD. I think most of us also agree that at a minimum, every entry needs a ref that establishes this notability. If someone adds a bunch of names either without sourcing or without sufficient sourcing to establish notability then they should stop. Some random hotel manager is probably not notable without further evidence of notability.

There is disagreement on whether it's useful to add people who are notable before articles exist. From the little I've seen, the community has often rejected such lists when they get unwieldy i.e. there are too many people who lack articles. This is in part because with sourcing, it can be confusing to contest notability when it's not in the form of an AFD. AFAIK it isn't unheard of to impose a requirement that only blue links are allowed.

In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to hundreds or thousands of people, such as the List of American film actresses.

While it may seem WP:LISTPEOPLE technically only covers stand alone lists, it makes no sense that such a requirement may exist for a stand alone list but not a list within an article where it generally matters more it doesn't get unwieldy. Besides the next section seems to refer to articles. By the same token, a common solution is that all entries should be wikilinks, whether red or blue. (To articles on the subject.) This tends to make it clearer that there is a problem i.e. too many people have been added without articles.

This does create BLP risks, if we link to the red link Axe Murderer intended for the future article on the Korean American in NYC and then someone with the name Axe Murderer gets famous for something dodgy, like killing people with an axe, and one of our editors creates the article without checking existing incoming links. But still, I don't think we ever agreed red links on LPs are banned and it's not like people don't sometimes blue link a LP without checking the target is the right subject.

I definitely don't think the whole name of the person should be wikilinked to articles on their surname. These sort of WP:easter egg links are too confusing to the reader. If you click on a link for "Michelle Yeoh", you expect to end up on an article for Michelle Yeoh and not Yang (surname). If there is really cause to link the surnames, this should be only on the surname not the whole name. Frankly I'm not convinced there is sufficient reason since it's not like there will be a direct link once all the articles on these notable people are create.

I also question how well the information has been verified if we lack a stand alone article and we're just relying on one or two sources. As always, editor WP:OR should be discouraged. For example, someone with a Malaysian Chinese father and a South or North Korean mother living in New York may very well identify as a Korean Americans in New York City so may reasonably be included in such a list. They may also identify as a Chinese in New York City or something similar, but even if they do, there's no guarantee all sources are going to note that, nor the info on their parents. If their name is Jennifer Lee, linking to Lee (Korean surname) could be weird if their surname actually comes from their father's Li (surname 李).

Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Some good points raised by people above. But I would implore people not to turn Wikipedia into an elitist platform, but rather one that really is open and relevant to everyone. Unfortunately, the stark reality is that local journalists and businessmen of prominence within Kigali, Rwanda simply don't have the same platform to become prominent in the same way that people under the glaring lights of NYC the media capital do. If we don't encourage the acknowledgement of their local notability, IMO we are depriving the people of Rwanda and states within its vicinity the encouragement and motivation to join the Wikipedia community en masse. Wikipedia abounds with obscure local human-geographic as well as local non-human geographic topics; why can't this same notability leeway be extended to local human non-politician non-geographic topics?...something to think about. Castncoot (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To the last sentence: WP:Other stuff exists. We are certainly aware that there is bias towards the developed, English-speaking world on en-Wikipedia, but we simply can't afford to extend notability to "people who could potentially be notable under our current rules if they were located elsewhere" - that would be entirely unworkable. ansh666 03:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Before this gets archived, is there a consensus on these articles and edits? It doesn't appear that Castncoot accepts the policy yet. 2601:188:180:1481:DC58:C3F7:4619:B4D9 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Since we are a reliably sourced encyclopedia and not a crowd sourced one, we cannot add people to these lists with a "I happen to have heard of them" logic, whether they be from Kigali or New York. Reliable, independent sources must be made available. I don't think we need consensus to say that you can remove anyone who has an uncertain notability and leave it to the editor adding the names to demonstrate notability by providing reliable independent sources that support that assertion. That's totally in line with our policies on WP:V and the WP:BIO standard. Some "common sense" leeway is probably acceptable but a reliable, independent source is definitely a must (in other words, merely providing a link to an organization homepage is not enough). --regentspark (comment) 07:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I've done a lot of list maintenance since noticing several years ago their particular tendency towards being spammed without anyone removing the spam. To ensure we have encyclopedic lists and not something that falls into WP:NOT (directories, yellow pages, link farms, spam, guestbooks, etc.), we have things like WP:CSC and WP:LISTPEOPLE (and, well, WP:N). We don't want lists that are all inclusive with very few exceptions. Generally, it's ok to include some redlinks/blacktext in a list that can be exhaustive (discographies, lists of contributors to a work, lists of heads of state, list of letters in a given alphabet) but not for a list of examples. For those, we need to have a standard. On Wikipedia, we separate things in terms of what's notable. That doesn't, at least in an absolute sense, mean that lists of examples must all only contain blue links, but it does mean they should contain notable entries (established by our notability criteria, and supported by references that demonstrate that notability). As with anything else across Wikipedia, there's always a preference, but not a requirement, to search for sources before removing insufficiently sourced content. That goes doubly for lists of people as per LISTPEOPLE. Lists are articles where our policies and guidelines often go out the window -- many of them have few people watching, and they're very easy to say "hey, I'll add myself/my band/my company/my grandparents/someone I know who lives there". Wikipedia's policies do reproduce a lot of systemic bias from the rest of the world. To some extent this is unavoidable. The successful projects to address systemic bias work within Wikipedia's rules to ensure the representation of people from underrepresented peoples/subjects/areas who are notable according to our guidelines. It's an imperfect solution (hardly a solution at all), but while it's important to understand and keep systemic bias in mind for certain kinds of edge cases, it's hard to use it as an argument to simply put aside this or that guideline... All of this said, I don't know why we're talking about this on ANI. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

GA/FA nominations by user Векочел

Векочел (talk · contribs) has a history of nominating Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine articles for GA, MILHIST ACR, and FA that have mostly been written by other editors. While this is permissible, it is at least expected that the nominator will have a knowledge of the subject so as to assess its completeness prior to nomination, as well as the knowledge, will and ability to deal with any issues that may arise during the reviews. This is where the particular editor fails.

Instead of actually engaging with an article, the common editing pattern is that of a "takeover" of an existing article, with a slew of copyedits to get some work done (and give the appearance of having edited it), and then a nomination. Typical examples are, recently, at Basil I (some superficial edits on 10 March, followed by a GAN on 12 March, and this in an article where even a layperson can see that it is nowhere near GA content-wise), and, most egregiously, in the abandoned Sons of Antiochus VIII article, which is an indiscriminate mash-up of several other articles in an effort to create a main article for an eventual featured topic. I note here, as I did at the discussion there, before it got deleted that he failed to consult the author of these articles (Attar-Aram syria), he failed to attribute the copying over of the material, but felt competent to rearrange and rewrite large portions of their densely cited text without doing any research on the topic himself (he began work on 28 February and moved to mainspace on 8 March [22], a timeframe that renders utterly impossible that he consulted even a sample of the sources in the "new" article he "wrote").

Indeed, this highlights the user's very problematic relationship with sourcing his edits. Perfect examples of this can be found at the ACR on Marcus Aurelius here (by Gog the Mild) and by myself and various other editors in the second FA nomination of Basil II, where the user merely copyedited around after a previous failed nomination by a different user, but without a clear grasp of the topic ("I admit that my knowledge about Basil is rather basic.") and without the ability to make proper use of primary and modern sources, or even distinguish which sources are reliable and which note, despite repeated pointers (example). This also shows a typical problem when dealing with him: when confronted with a fundamental problem during a review via an example, he always takes a minimum-effort approach, by "fixing" (by adding/removing/moving around, often without much context or insight) the example in question, but without actually taking the time to consider the actual problem being pointed out, which is his editing pattern that consists mostly of excessive copyediting, adding random tidbits from various sources, and then nominating and hoping to pass under the radar. For example, he now has 788 edits (65%) on Basil II, but the article's structure, content, and even size, are still fundamentally the same as they were before he started systematically editing it in October!

Unfortunately, the editor in question appears to be WP:NOTHERE: he focuses on getting GA and FA stars, rather than actually writing quality articles for an encyclopedia. Regarding his choice of topics, it is clear that he lacks the necessary knowledge to write about them, as well as lacking the ability to discern the quality of his sources, or differentiate between primary and secondary ones and incorporate them accordingly in his articles. It is therefore very much also a WP:COMPETENCE, issue, and neither I nor the other editors involved with him can be expected to tutor him line-by-line into writing an FA. These problems have been repeatedly pointed out to him, but to no avail. I therefore ask that Векочел be banned from nominating articles himself for any level (GA, ACR, FAC) that he has not himself substantially written (not simply copyedited to death), in the hopes that he will learn how to actually write articles first. Constantine ✍ 15:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support by Attar: Sadly, the editor in question does not care about ruining the quality of an article as long as he can edit it. He created an article called Sons of Antiochus VIII by copying the featured articles of those sons and merging them together. He then went on to add wikilinks in those featured articles into his newly "created" article, but not into the article of Antiochus VIII himself! Thats because the article of Antiochus VIII is of low quality, and the editor is only interested in high quality articles written by others, which he try to take over, hoping to get a golden star eventually for them.

Several times, he added mere synth or wrong information to featured content (such as here, where the source does not state what the editor wrote) or inserted photos that dont fit, or have no context or dont actually represent whom they were said to represent (see Talk:Cleopatra Selene of Syria, the photos discussion). As long as he can edit, then its all fine, even if its just the deletion of an Oxford comma (which he likes to delete). But his most worrying behaviour is those nominations. The editor was also able to bring Ptolemy IX Lathyros to GA even though the article is missing practically most details about the reign of that king!. To mention a few: no word about the circumstances surrounding the marriage to Cleopatra IV which led Cleopatra III to force a divorce. No word about the campaign of Ptolemy IX in the Levant which culminated in a regional war that included two kings of Syria, the king of Judea, Cleopatra III and Ptolemy X in addition to Ptolemy IX himself!!! No word about Ptolemy IX's role in elevating Demetrius III of Syria to the throne...etc etc etc. It is not the duty of the reviewer to know that stuff are missing. The nominator should make sure that his article is ready before nominating. But when we have an editor who simply pick an article because it looks good and copy-edit it and inflate it with photos then nominate it, then its no wonder that articles that dont deserve a GA or an FA status end up acquiring it. The reviewer of Ptolemy IX, Gog the Mild, agrees with me. This behaviour really damages Wikipedia as the articles advertised to be the best, are in reality not!.

I therefore agree with Constantine. I ask that he is banned from nominating articles himself for any level (GA, ACR, FAC) that he has not himself substantially written. I also ask that he is notified that a featured article should not be mass-copy-edited with no good reason that can be explained in the talk page, and by good reason, I mean a new scholarly source that can change the knowledge already in the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: I'm afraid I would have to agree with Cplakidas. The Roman-Byzantine and Hellenistic era are topics of interest, so I'm aware of about every single GA/FA nomination. I can't help but to admit that "Векочел" efforts mainly look like point-scoring, rather than actually "building" this encyclopedia, a core WP policy. Veteran editors such as Cplakidas have spent time to write heaps of text to adress their concerns (hoping he'd improve his editorial pattern per WP:GF) but they get little more in return than short, unsatisfactory responses. Unfortunately, this charade has been extremely time consuming, and it needs to end. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I've just completed an extensive c/e of Basil II requested by Векочел (talk · contribs) at WP:GOCE/REQ here; the request shows s/he is certainly capable of communicating clearly when it suits her/him. I also noticed the user rarely uses edit summaries. It doesn't mean s/he's not here and there's nothing on the user's talk page trying to engage the user in discussion and telling her/him that communication is not optional. Another user informed Векочел about copying within WP on 9th March this year; there are no earlier warnings or discussions.

I also can't seen any discussions about the editor's GA and FA noms on his/her talk page; that would be a good place to start a centralised discussion about problem or disruptive nominations. If s/he still refuses to improve his/her style and/or discuss his/her edits, that's a cause for escalation. I think it's a little early to start dishing out topic bans though.

I normally stay off the dramah pages but my c/e makes me marginally involved, but I'm happy to strike my comments if required. I've informed Векочел of this discussion on her/his talk page. You're welcome. ;) Baffle☿gab 19:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the attempts to engage him/her were made on the articles' talk pages after he make un-helpful edits. I did not want to bite new comers, so I did not open a whole case in his talk page (to which he would have replied with a oneliner, if he reply at all). So, here you see me asking him to use the talk page and after asking I opened a dicussion. He totally ignored it and few days later made the same edits, so I begged again for a talk page discussion and finally got a oneliner. You can also read here and here to see attempts at telling him what he is doing wrong. Also, you can read here where both me and Constantine tried to give some advices, but did not get much replies (actually he simply blanked the page, but it was restored by an admin). Not to mention two clear requests on the editor's talk page asking him to use edit summaries, and a long text from Constantine explaining why he failed Basil I and what should be done, also on the editor's talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the diffs Attar-Aram syria; without trawling through his/her almost 9,000 edits, I can't see any disruptive GA, A-Class or FA noms that would warrant a topic ban from these areas of the project. Being a major contributor to the nominated articles is nice, but is not required. I *am* seeing a lack of communication on the user's talk page saying "hey, your edits and noms are disruptive; please stop". Pinging an editor to a discussion doesn't guarantee s/he will see it; I have pings turned off—a note on the user's talk page is more likely to be seen. Cplakidas didn't even inform her/him of this discussion, which is mandatory. WP:BITE doesn't say "never post a note or complaint on the user's talk page". Finally, if a topic ban is to be enacted, the requesting parties need to show a clear pattern of disruption at those venues; at the moment this to me smacks of "this is our little topic area, please go away". Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

because I had faith that he will evenualy understand the way to create good material, I did not spread those warnings on his talk page so he will not think that Im against him. Plus, he have those pages on his watchlist because he used to edit them everyday! Maybe that was a mistake. As for "little topic area go away", I cant see how this statement is warranted, but ofcourse everyone gets to think how he wish. No one have a problem with any editor trying to get the quality of articles higher. But when you see an editor nominating articles randomly whithout improving them even though the GA and FA processes have clear instructions how an article should be, and when other editors take the time to review those low quality articles and their time is wasted, and when an article about Ptolemy IX, a king in power for more than 20 years, include nothing about the most important events in his reign and still pass as GA, then this is desruption. You can see the editor in the talk page of the FA nominations asking why he needs to wait 14 days after his last failed nomination to nominate again.... I just wonder how many articles he will nominate without first making sure they are ready when it comes to comprehensiveness and sourcing.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose partially per Bafflegab above: GAC, FAC and PR are crying out for involvement and it is completely perverse that we are actively looking to topic ban a keen editor when some good may come from their involvement. Yes, they should ask the major contributors for permission, and failing that, at least give them a co-nom; but I'd rather assume that they are doing what they're doing because they want the project to have more quality material. One could of course assume the opposite. Combined with the fact that no-one's actually talked to them—and WP:ENGAGE goes both ways.
  If anyone's scared that they will get "free" FAs as a stepping stone to adminship, then they haven't been to RfA lately  :) In any case, if they willing to immerse themselves in moribundity and work at FAC for the long-term, then a little training and encouragement will be a greater help to WP than their exclusion.
  And if they're trolling as some believe, well—that's what WP:ROPE is for. ——SerialNumber54129 19:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: normally, I would totally agree; and I think myself, Attar-Aram, Gog, LouisAragon, and every other Wikipedian want to see people involved with bringing articles up to speed and getting GAs and FAs. But let's be frank: articles concerning a Byzantine emperor or an obscure Hellenistic ruler are not exactly the mainstream of Wikipedia. This is not a field where one is likely to get an FA by jumping in in media res, without prior knowledge, and without researching the topic, which is an experience that can only come from actually writing a few articles from scratch. Векочел doesn't have that knowledge, and hasn't demonstrated the patience to acquire it (witness the nomination of Basil I, it is entirely spurious; note also that the first thing he did after bringing Sons of Antiochus VIII to mainspace was a GA nomination); he goes for the quick-and-dirty approach, hoping to slip through because, let's face it, on these topics, there are very few people on Wikipedia who actually know or care enough what to look for in a review, in order to satisfy the two must tricky criteria (comprehensiveness and sourcing). If I hadn't weighed in on Basil II, it probably would long have passed FA now; if Gog the Mild had not done in-depth detective work on Marcus Aurelius' ACR, likewise. Now, I also have done FA reviews where I have (largely) AGF'd on sourcing and coverage, but this was always with nominators who had actually brought the article from Stub or Start to the brink of FA, in other words, who had researched it, obviously knew the topic, and could be assumed to also care to do a proper job of it (else why invest the time?). I don't see this passion and ability here, not yet at least. And with the whole Sons of Antiochus VIII story, and the comments of Attar-Aram, speaking for myself, I no longer trust this editor to behave ethically. And as long as Векочел is going to meddle in these obscure topics, it will mainly fall on me and a handful of other editors here to actually be vigilant about whether his nominations are actually up to scratch. But this is not our job, it is the nominator's. Until he learns the ropes, and proves he is able to write an article from the bottom up (and experience what that entails), we all have better things to do than cleaning up after him. Constantine ✍ 21:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. Try teaching them instead. ——SerialNumber54129 22:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I have some experience teaching at a university, and there are, broadly, two kinds of students. Those who will understand, when you explain a problem, using a couple of examples, what they did wrong, and, out of a desire to improve themselves, learn and correct the rest of their mistakes accordingly; their skills may vary, but there is sincerity to do a good job. And then there's those who care only about getting a passing grade, no matter how, and will keep returning to you with infinitesimal tweaks to the same old stuff, hoping to either wear you down or elicit precisely what they need to change to get a passing grade, essentially having you do their work for them, only much less efficiently than if you had done it yourself in the first place and simply given it to them, or if they had devoted the same amount of time and effort to do a proper job of it. That is not teaching; it is frustration, and that is how I have come to feel after several months of interaction with Векочел. I don't like the fact that I am making this proposal, but I see no willingness to learn, not when the same mistakes are being repeated again and again, not when I and others have to repeatedly clean up after him. If it were just me, I'd think that I am weird and perhaps too demanding; but I see the same frustration with everyone who gets a closer look into his work. What I want to achieve is to remove the temptation of the "passing grade" in articles that he has not substantially written himself (it bears repeating, I don't propose to ban him from all nominations), and get him to work on an article for the article's sake. That is IMO the only way for him to learn how to do this properly. And if he does, I'll be the first to support lifting the ban. Constantine ✍ 00:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129. I agree with you, generally. But in this case, we are not talking about an editor who is improving articles. Just copy editing (and not always resulting in a better version) and spread images in an article is not an improvement. It only mean getting a bad or an unready article to the nomination page, only for other editors to waste their time reviewing then declining it, or passing it when it does not deserve to pass, rendering the whole FA and GA's processes useless. So this isnt because someone is afraid that the editor will get stars, its because we dont want an article that it not featured material to become featured. Allowing the behaviour of the editor is damaging to the FA and GA, even if they are crying out for involvement, because some involvements are damaging. I agree he/she needs to be guided and taught, but this means that they need to start an article from scratch, learn how to collect sources and use them, rendering them unfit to involve themselves in GA and FA articles anyway, until they can produce a good quality article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Extremely reluctantly. I enjoy training up new GA and FA editors and usually have a few on the go. Other editors cut me a tremendous amount of slack when I was learning the ropes. However, I am currently into the 14th hour of work on what I had thought would be a simple ACR source edit. This is not a typo. Anyone making a decision on this proposal may care to read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marcus Aurelius#Source review - fail and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marcus Aurelius#Further comments on source review. They will see Векочел repeatedly failing to address points, tinkering with peripheral points instead of addressing very clear issues, ignoring very clearly phrased requests until the forth time of asking, after the review has been failed, when suddenly, "I'm sorry, Gog, if I had some trouble understanding your comments". My AGF has been stretched to the point of incredulity. Since this thread opened I have reviewed Marcus Aureleus as it was before Векочел's involvement. I suspect that his overall input has been to make the article worse.

The proposed remedy may be over the top, and/or premature. In an ideal world Векочел would voluntarily desist and enter into one or more mentoring and training arrangements. It is what seems indistinguishable from a deliberate and sustained attempt to game the system which is riling me, and probably other editors. That, together with what seems a disinclination to learn, leaves me as a reluctant backer of this proposal. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate instructions from more experienced editors. I do not wish to ruin Wikipedia. Векочел (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Векочел: Thank you for that. We appreciate it and realise that it is not an easy thing to say. I am about to go to bed, but I will try to get back to you tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Векочел: Indeed, we do not doubt that you mean well. But writing articles is not easy, and the only way of learning how to do it is by doing it yourself, not relying on others' work. Our problem is with your methods, not your intentions: specifically, when you edit an article and want to bring it for review, you simply must have done some research and know the subject. That is something that takes years, and you obviously, and by your own admission, lack that knowledge. If you lack that background, you cannot judge whether it is complete, or whether the sources you use are trustworthy. Also, and ultimately, it is a matter of experience; particularly in the area of assessing the quality, reliability, and suitability of sources, where your work is unfortunately sorely lacking. Taking an almost-ready article and simply copyediting around or adding a few tidbits here and there, without at the same time researching it yourself, is bound to lead to trouble of the kind you are now facing. Instead of launching GA/FA nominations, take time to research, go to some WP:PEERREVIEWs, and only if you are absolutely certain, based on your own work, that the article meets the criteria, submit it for nomination. Constantine ✍ 16:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A GA topic ban at least. Don't know what ACR (something to do with A class I presume) is and FA people are probably best to deal with FA competence. We have a newish editor, but not a complete newbie (9 months and 9000 edits) interested in our quality processes. That is not a bad time to get into editing good articles. The Basil I article is a long way from some of the worst articles that get nominated there. Talk:Faisal of Saudi Arabia/GA1 is pretty standard as far as reviews go. As the OP says there is nothing stoping someone nominating articles they are not the main editor of. It seems like a keen editor and given the above exchange one that is now willing to listen. I am not seeing the level disruption or previous discussion to justify a topic ban. AIRcorn (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose a formal ban at this time, Векочел appears to appreciate there is an issue and has expressed a willingness to listen to others, this more gentle and collegiate approach can/should/could have been tried without a formal ban being mooted first. If those attempts fail then by all means come back here, but to start the dispute resolution at ANI, suggesting the concerning behaviour is chronic and intractable, is going at things the wrong way round. Fish+Karate 10:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Third report about RBL2000 and Venezuelan articles

Summary: RBL2000 has disruptive discussion on Venezuela-related talk pages for the third time

Diffs:

• Use of the term "censor" against the admonishment to not to "use 'you', 'censor,' or 'revise history'" 1
• Unreliable sources: 1, 2
• Assuming bad faith on other editors: 1

Information about previous warnings:

• Special:Diff/884265375#2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis - Level Four Warning by SandyGeorgia
• First incident report by MattLongCT
• Second incident report by ZiaLater

Background: Yesterday I filed a checkuser request of RBL2000 because their behavior led me to believe there was enough evidence of an edit pattern of a sockpuppet account. Now that the checkuser demonstrated that the accounts are unrelated and that investigation was closed, I think the best course of action may be to open again a discussion regarding if an administrative action is needed. RBL2000 was given advice on how to improve editing, but they didn't seem interested; on the contrary, when notified that the discussion was closed because "the posting editor agreed to a 'last chance.'", they replied by saying "Wish it was also last chance for him, lying SOB." RBL2000 started editing on Venezuelan-related articles with a similar pattern as before only five days after the discussion was closed. If I count correctly they have already been given two "last chances", so a community ban may be in order. I'd recommend to examine if any of this behaviour is repeated in articles about North Korea. Pinging involved editors: @Dlohcierekim, Fenetrejones, MattLongCT, SandyGeorgia, Simonm223, The Four Deuces, and ZiaLater: --Jamez42 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You couldn't get 'em with a SPI, so you're trying again here? How does the clean SPI report improve your position? DlohCierekim 08:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: This isn't about "getting" an user, I'm notifying the admins and the users involved that the behavior has not improved despite several warnings. Quoting the last closing user, "RBL2000 should be aware that if the other editors do not see improvement, they will probably bring them back to ANI and the result will probably be different." Sockpuppet investigations only discuss evidence related to other accounts, regardless of policy violations; for example, as it can be seen in the investigation request, I provided diffs on bare URLs referencing as evidence, even though it hasn't been discussed in the noticeboard. I think that other users that have followed better the case should give their opinion, but I thought it was important to bring the issue to the noticeboard. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@RBL2000: SandyGeorgia is right. The NYTimes is more clearly reliable than the grayzone. You should try a more neutral voice using the Times. DlohCierekim 08:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@RBL2000: I can see how other editors have problems with your sources. Why are we here? Again? A dispute over sources? It shouldn't need ANI to sort this. DlohCierekim 08:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@RBL2000: This is a collaborative project. People offering feedback about collaboration and problem areas is not stalking. People are trying to work with you. DlohCierekim 08:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

RBL2000 has not edited since Monday. Hard to have a conversation. This is our third thread. DlohCierekim 13:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

On the bright side, RBL2000 has been better at discussing than before and has branched out into less controversy ridden areas. Be nice to here from MJL and @SandyGeorgia:. DlohCierekim 13:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, I will be honest edits like this concern me. If we are going to say that the CIA had any involvement in a break-in on a North Korean embassy, then we certainly can find better sources than El País to cite for it. I will defer to SandyGeorgia's judgement in the matter, though. I rather would want to hear from TFD since I haven't a clue about anything concerning this. Hope that helps some! :) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with using one of Spain's best newspapers as a source for something that happened in Spain. The story has since been picked up by BBC,[23] Tbe Guardian,[24] Fox News[25] and other outlets. TFD (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using El Pais here; there are, though, in the diff given above real indications of the WP:CIR issues that have been a factor in this situation all along. For starters, there is copyvio in the text sourced to El Pais.

Since there have already been FOUR (not three) reports of the ongoing problems here, with exactly ONE admin paying attention while non-admins close and archive discussions, and many people promising to watch over and help this editor, yet doing nothing when the problems continue (as they have), I find little point in using my editing time to work up all the diffs. Just before Jamez42 filed this report, RBL continued personalizing on talk, as they have since Dlohcierekim's first warning. If someone deals with the copyvio, and deals with the fact that the very first warning given in the first thread has not been heeded and continues to be breached, and if any one of the people who claim to want to mentor this user actually do that, follow their edits, and remind them to stop personalizing discussions, then maybe it would be worthwhile for me to weigh in with all the diffs.

I also find it curious that we do not hear from RBL2000. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well said –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note: Jamez42, I am MattLongCT (global rename). The best way to ping me is to now {{u|MJL}}, {{u|MJL|MattLongCT}}, or {{ping|MJL}}. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  You might have put that on Jamez42's page, rather than here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Jamez42 saw it, so I think I was good. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, I get what you mean now. That's certainly noted for the future. Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Some eyeballs on 2016 Oakland warehouse fire

Looks like politicin’ and legalizin’ and conflictin’ of interestin’ Qwirkle (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. An edit topic that has moved to the talk page for discussion keeps getting reverted after sourcing, even trying to resolve a objection revert, then the reverter reverting, without the reverter discussing. P37307 (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you pointed out the problematic edits with diffs and the name of the editor which brought you to this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Another user edit was made that included that the fire department Battalion Chief in charge of the fire scene intentionally decided not to send firefighters in even after learning as many as 25 people were inside and intentionally didn't tell responding crews. Qwirkle reverted saying it was actionable. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire&diff=887652863&oldid=887652382 I edited to include the quote, his actual quote, which included his rationale, from the Chief in the citation. At the same time a discussion was started by the orginal editor on the talk page. Qwirkle reverted again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire&diff=887663569&oldid=887661874 giving the reason "No, no attempt was made to rescue them because they were obviously already dead, donchaknow" without discussing and I assume came here at some point. The discussion is ongoing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_Oakland_warehouse_fire#I_added_information_about_the_prevention_of_a_rescue_attempt_and_it_was_removed to avoid an edit war and come to a consenus with the main objector Qwirkle, who started this notice, not participating. Qwirkle is disrupting editing without participating and then coming here for your attention/resolution? in the matter P37307 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Qwirkle has been exhibiting the same sort of behavior on Lynching of Shedrick Thompson - objections for the sake of objecting, personal attacks, and ignoring requests for support for his positions. Of course he sees it differently, and will probably tell you what a biased, irresponsible asshole I am. Currently being discussed on POV noticeboard. deisenbe (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Jutting your dispute with him elsewhere into a completely unrelated discussion (especially one where he happens to be right) just so you can try to score points against him doesn't really help you not look like a biased, irresponsible asshole 38.68.203.42 (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The source does not support, and in fact, refutes, a significant portion of the objectionable edit — the claim that "no attempt was made to rescue people inside." The source instead states that firefighters did push inside the building in an attempt to make interior attack, but because of smoke and debris, the fire commander made the determination that it was unsafe to proceed further. I agree that some form of the material belongs in the article, but the original version did not present facts in a balanced way, and instead attempted to fix unwarranted blame on the fire commander. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a complex editing situation that requires diffs. Simply look at the sequence of about half a dozen edits that took place on March 14. The background is that a fire in a building that all reliable sources describe as a firetrap killed 36 young people attending an unpermitted dance party. The immediate controversy has to do with the conduct of a fire commander, James Bowron, who led the response to this inferno. This is a serious BLP issue because recent edits include innuendo implying that Bowron's inaction prevented a rescue of the victims. All based on Bowen's frank assessment to a conference of professional firefighters about the catastrophic debacle that he faced that night, and his attempts to prevent the deaths of firefighters he commanded. Any content added to this article about Bowen's role must be the product of careful consideration leading to consensus. A man's career is on the line, and we must be very, very careful about this content. Full disclosure: I visited the site of this fire a few weeks later and two of my photos of the wreckage are in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

BLP issues and OR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree that this is a very serious issue. Friends and families of the 36 victims want to know who is responsible for their deaths. In addition to Bowron's career being on the line, so are the lives of the 2 defendants, Derek Almena and Max Harris who are about to go on trial for 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter and could spend the rest of their lives in prison. The official Origin and Cause report http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak064503.pdf states on Page 5 that when firefighters arrived at the scene approximately 7 minutes after the fire started "Some people were outside the warehouse, stating there were still people inside." Everyone who was attending the concert knew that it was taking place on the second floor. That is where the majority of the victims were. The Firehouse article states "Bowron's main focus given the difficulties with gaining entry was to keep the fire contained to the warehouse and avoid losing the whole block to the blaze, and he quickly struck a second and then a third alarm." Why wasn't his main focus rescuing the people trapped in the building, isn't that an important job of the fire department? Buildings can be replaced, people cannot. Bowron states in the article ""As I'm making my way toward the alpha side and toward the bravo side, I'm getting people coming up to me and they're telling me, 'Hey, there's people in there,' and I'm just trying to take it in and make sure I can stay task focused and get my lines placed and my people placed."" So he admitted ignoring the people who said there were victims trapped in the building. Bowron further states ""Had I made that announcement that there might have been 50, 60, 70 people in there, my crews—which had already pushed and pushed and pushed as hard as they could— would have probably made decisions or pushed themselves to a further limit which may have caused potential loss of life for the fire department on our end."" There are some very important issues here. The first is why Bowron didn't tell the crews before they "pushed and pushed" that people were trapped in the building. Another is why didn't he tell the crews the victims were on the second floor, so the crews could focus their search there. Bowron also stated ""As I was doing my 360, what I could see was that the only access into this building was a man-made door that was cut out of a commercial roll-up. And it's not like it was a clean door that was welded up all nice and neat."" He was very wrong, there was another door on the west side of the building. The Origin Report on Page 25 states "A victim was located within 10 feet of the west wall door opening". So one of they victims died 10 feet inside the side door. All of this raises serious questions about whether Bowron's behavior was negligent. And my statement that he intentionally prevented firefighters from knowing there were a large number of people trapped in the building is backed up by Bowron's statement that he didn't tell them, to prevent them from attempting a rescue. Firefighters train for mass casualty events, and unless I am mistaken, the number one goal is saving people's lives. This is not the first time a building caught on fire, there are established procedures for finding if there are people in a building. From what I read in the Firehouse article, Bowron seems to have completely ignored procedures and in addition somehow missed a very obvious side door where at least one victim died. He seems to have completely discounted the pleading of the witnesses that he save the people trapped in the building. I think these are important issues that should be discussed. There is no evidence whatsoever than any of the victims were already dead when firefighters arrived. To the contrary, an MD has stated that it "seems likely" based on the autopsy results that some of all of the victims were still alive and could have been rescued if the fire department had attempted to save them. If you friends or family were trapped in a burning building and the fire department ignored your pleas to save them, what would you think?Russ Tilleman (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

All of the above falls under WP:Original research, and can't be included. You are giving analysis and ascribing motivations which are nowhere to be found in the source (which is a primary source, anyways), and thus it doesn't belong anywhere close to Wikipedia, being more suited to maybe a blog post or something like that. ansh666 22:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf

JohnTopShelf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I originally filed a AN3 report on the editor (here) for multiple 1RR violation in 48 hours, but upon reviewing their User talk comments, their incivility is glaring.

This user seems to have a history of inserting personal attacks, trolling, and snide comments under the guise of WikiLove messages. Just to name a few:[26][27][28][29]. User account is 6 years old, was shown BLP and AP Ds notices back in August and February, but shows a complete disregard for consensus. The very rich history of warnings on their talk page isn't convincing that this isn't a WP:NOTHERE account. Actions may be required for this such rigorous violations. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have blocked the user for 72 hours to stop their blatant, repeated edit warring. That should not prevent a discussion here about whether there should be additional or longer sanctions for their disruptive behavior. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In the latest edit-warring spat they have also violated WP:COPYVIO. Please see the details in my comment at the article talk. Dr. K. 03:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I see this is JohnTopShelf's second block. Black Kite blocked them for 48 hours in February. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have noticed this editor's behavior over the past few weeks. To me, he seems incapable of working collaboratively with other Wikipedia editors. His edit-warring and POV-pushing on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and ludicrous edit requests like this one - "of course, I understand that Wikipedia editors and administrators are overwhelming liberals who no doubt share the opinion that President Trump is a liar" - are really indications of little to no willingness to work with other editors . In addition, his WikiLove taunts fall way outside the boundaries of basic civility and respect that editors should be exuding here. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I reverted this editor at a BLP about a month ago, and it resulted in a lengthy discussion split between my talk page and their talk page, which was a very pleasant disagreement in which I was left with two barnstars, two beers, a goat and a cookie. Unfortunately, the editor was blocked just a few hours later. Since coming off the block, there are more warnings on the talk page and now another block for edit warring. I haven't see any personal attacks from them myself–in fact they seem rather polite to me–and they clearly can communicate, write prose, and cite sources. While the account is old, they have very few edits, and mostly in the last two years. Their source selection is lopsided but other than a few Daily Mail links its mostly Fox News which is allowed. The POV is definitely there in their edits, but not to an unusual degree. The problem IMO is the editor's steadfast refusal to use or respect the consensus system that is used here in Wikipedia. If they went to the article talk pages, presented their sources, and shopped their copy like everyone else, they'd probably get a lot further. But they just keep edit warring and wikilove-arguing. I feel like they could be a useful contributor if they wanted to. Leviv ich 04:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: That discussion on your user talk looked like an intimidating wall of text with an astounding degree of WikiLove abuse and trolling. I'd remove it on sight per WP:DENY. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I've had such less pleasant conversations though, even with proper formatting and whatnot. I mean, haven't we all? He didn't call me any names or make any accusations. Calling another editor's statement "nonsense" and saying that Wikipedia has a left-wing bias are not outside the range of reasonable opinions to express. If it's trolling, it's very calm and polite trolling. I can live with bizarre wikilove messages if they're polite, but I can't live with habitual edit warring, and SPA POV pushing is also tiring. To me those are bigger concerns than civility or personal attacks. Leviv ich 04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The message left on my talk page was definitely sarcastic, but I sort of get the sense that this editor is under the impression that wikilove messages are the preferred way to communicate with other editors about article content -they've hardly ever used an article talk page. They also seem confused about the meaning of consensus. Maybe this is a WP:CIR problem, but I don't think they're purely trolling. Nblund ^talk 17:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Copyvio update I have since found more extensive copyvios for the edit of the now blocked user. Please see this updated copyvio report for these paragraphs. Dr. K. 05:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Justlettersandnumbers revdeled 5 revisions containing the copyvios. Dr. K. 21:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• More copyvios by the same user I am copying from my message at Justlettersandnumbers's talkpage. It seems many of the large-scale edits to articles by this user are copyvios. Copyvio from Kansascity.com, copyvio from Washington examiner.com, copyvio from politifact.com, the usual copyvio about Greenpeace but pasted to a different article. In addition, Justlettersandnumbers has revdeled two additional copyvios from the Alexandria Cortez article: copyvio 1 and copyvio 2. Dr. K. 23:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on National Hockey League articles (revisited)

Revisiting a case that was closed as I believe that there was no long term solution to resolve this case. An explanation of this situation is provided on the previous report that I have linked. The user that I have concerns with is NicholasHui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as they have been making persistent disruptive edits on certain NHL articles. Yowashi (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Do you have any specific examples? SportingFlyer T·C 07:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Don't expect people to wade through the wall of text from the previous ANI.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note on other account: NicholasHui had another account with which they edited with before. I had asked them to mark it as retired, or they could have stated a legitimate reason to keep it around, but they did not respond. I have since blocked the other account.[30].—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are some more recent examples of NicholasHui's contributions that were incorrect. ([31], [32], [33]). I made corrections to these at a later time. The thing that I can't understand is why they can't just wait for the information provided by this source (which they don't use) to be updated.

Some information I add in to the GAA average for Goaltender Statistics comes from the NHL Teams 2018-19 regular season stats. An example is I changed Anthony Stolaz's GAA average to 3.43 because I saw it from the Edmonton Oilers regular season stats. But even though I put it to 3.43 GAA average, Sabbatino informed me that the information Yowashi gets is from http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?report=goaliesummary&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20182019&seasonTo=20182019&gameType=2&playerPlayedFor=team.22&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=wins. I even said that on my edit summary from the Edmonton Oilers 2018-19 season page history. NicholasHui (talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasHui (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the issues raised by OP, I am concerned by edits like this (possible sock?) and this (CIR). GiantSnowman 16:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I think a large part of the problem is that NicholasHui (evidenced by their own statement above and by the last ANi report) is not using reliable sources. As far as I could tell, NicholasHui was coming up with numbers on their own (failing WP:OR), taking them from live TV broadcasts of the games, or using unreliable sources (a fact which they warned about by Sabbatino here). I'll note that the last ANI was closed with this warning about about WP:V and WP:OR (as well as not socking). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with Captain Eek. Nicholas Hui calculates the information on their own, and then publishes their information on an article. This is the reason why the numbers for the goaltenders don't always match with the information provided from official sources. I honestly don't know why someone like Nicholas Hui would even waste time calculating all these numbers when you can just simply refer to a reliable source. On the plus side of using a reliable source, there is a 100% chance of being correct rather than calculating all these numbers and end up being incorrect. That's what makes me have so many questions about this individual. Also, here is another example of Nicholas Hui's contributions on the 2018–19 Ottawa Senators season article [34]. I'll give them props for fixing it, but again, they are still calculating these numbers. Yowashi (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just to know that I admit to calculating the playing time for Ottawa Senators goaltender statistics incorrectly was because the game was not totally finalized yet. That was why. Also, stop complaining how my updates are like when they are correct. Note that when you updated the Calgary Flames 2018-19 season player statistics when they lost to Arizona Coyotes 2-0, you forgot to add in the Games played for Garnet Hathaway and it was on your behalf. So that was partially on you. You look at the Ottawa Senators 2018-19 season stats and you find that another IP User editing the Ottawa Senators page does it similar to how my edit strategy is because I was following that user's example on the Ottawa Senators season page since. NicholasHui (talk)

I didn't forget. In my defense, for whatever reason, NHL.com had Hathaway's GP listed at 61. Every other player on the Flames roster had been updated so I assumed that Hathaway's was updated as well. My mistakes are different from yours, as mine are not intentional, yours are, because you intentionally provide incorrect information. If you want me to stop complaining about your edits, then listen to what myself and other people have been trying to tell you this entire time. Other than that, I'm gonna keep complaining until you learn how to edit the proper way. Yowashi (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Now I'm being accused on my talk page for not updating the stats correctly even though I explained the situation in my comment above. Honestly, in my opinion, this individual is not here to build an encyclopedia. Yowashi (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment @NicholasHui: I'm unclear what you were trying to achieve by making accusations on Yowashi's talk page as well as here at this ANI discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Most recent update @NicholasHui: For your most recent edit to update Toronto's stats (looks like an hour or two at most) after the end of their game, can you explain the specific sources you use to edit those stats? Thank you.—Bagumba (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I believe NicholasHui uses this as their reference. However, there is a waiting period until it gets updated. The only other possible source I can think of is this one, but this one doesn't display the player's stats for the entire season. So, my guess is that they calculate the new stats by adding on or subtracting any of the numbers from a player's previous game. For goaltenders, they definitely calculate the stats, considering a goaltender's stats for the entire season are not displayed anywhere on the game recaps. The recaps only show their statistics for that specific game only. Yowashi (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yowashi: NicholasHui might be using this (or any other teams' website) as his source, which does not get updated immediately. I must also note that teams' websites tend to list different information than the main NHL stats website. Seeing that stats differ, I assume that some teams calculate the stats differently than the NHL. In addition, teams' stats websites tend to list only current players and omit any player who was sent to another league (two-way players), traded, bought out, etc., which just shows that you cannot get a full list and correct stats from the teams' websites. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Perhaps NicholasHui does use the team's website as their source. For example, when they changed Anthony Stolarz's GAA to 3.43, the only source that I found that had that information was from the Oilers' official website. I initially thought that 3.43 could have been his GAA with the Flyers and Oilers, but I realized that the stats only reflect time on a player's current team. I still believe that NicholasHui calculates the stats, as there is no source that has all this information updated immediately after a game has concluded. They also update the stats section very quickly after every game, so that would eliminate the usage of sources besides the ones that I mentioned previously. I do believe that they had mentioned getting their information from the recaps sometime in the past. Yowashi (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't depend too much on official NHL team sources. Many of them haven't even updated their captains & alternate captains, for the current season. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent contributions by NicholasHui. (2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season [35], 2018–19 Calgary Flames season [36], 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season [37]) My contributions from March 16 that are corrections to NicholasHui's edits. (2018–19 Toronto Maple Leafs season [38], 2018–19 Calgary Flames season [39], 2018–19 Winnipeg Jets season [40]). I used this website as my source. NicholasHui needs to be stopped from editing these articles, as it is clear that they don't use official sources to obtain their information from, and for refusing to rearrange the position of players based on total points. Yowashi (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk about confusing and Template:TheFinalBall

Can someone take a look at this and make sure that I'm correct with what's going on?

Last month the TfD discussion involving Template:TheFinalBall as closed with the outcome being determined as delete. Today, following a request on WP:BOTREQ by GiantSnowman, I filed a Bot Request for Approval to remove all of its transclusions and successfully completed a trial run of 50 edits. Around 6 or 7 hours later I received this message on my talk page bordering nonsensical, to which I requested clarification. Following this, Talk about confusing reverted the bot edit (this time placing the full URL). I subsequently warned Talk about confusing that its re-addition was contrary to consensus and requested that they do not restore. However, they have continued to revert the bot edits. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC); updated 06:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping was broken by typo @GiantSnowman: ^ --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

There was clear consensus at the TFD discussion that that template should be removed and the source should not be used (in any form) because the website is non-RS. @Talk about confusing: is disruptive. GiantSnowman 08:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

1. The bot was so bad, it had fails all over the place. I think I found about 10 errors.
2. I called the owner, but wasn't given any sensible reply. 12:35
3. I knew that the templates {{Final Ball}}, {{ogol}}, {{zerozero profile}} were being deleted. I didn't see that the underlying site was in danger. Nor did the message on bot said nothing.
4. I got nothing from anybody after the "clarification" from user:TheSandDoctor. Nothing from anybody.
5. I've got better things to do than this. Talk about confusing (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if the point they are trying to make is that the bot is removing the template but leaving a set of <ref></ref> tags in the edits they have reverted? This was never explained by them though, and the attempt above is similarly opaque. Spike 'em (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the interim version of the page (just after the bot edit and before the revert), it had a big red cite error where the template was removed: As of 15 December 2017 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Spike 'em (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The bot code being not quite right is not reason to blindly mass-revert and add back a source deemed to be non-RS. GiantSnowman 09:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it would have been far easier for everyone to remove the tags and raise it with a clear explanation of what had gone wrong. Spike 'em (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Talk about confusing: I was requesting clarification from you as it was unclear what you wanted with that message, not giving you clarification. @GiantSnowman and Spike 'em: The issue with the empty ref tags is being investigated and I believe I am fairly close to a fix. The issue overall affected 19/50 (39%) of the edits made and was acknowledged at the BRFA once I discovered it through the similarities between reverts. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC); updated 13:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman and Spike 'em: It appears that I have been able to correct the programatic problem in a couple sandbox tests and have now requested an extended trial to trial these fixes. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I endorsed zerozero (and the same site that under other web domain) is not reliable as user-generated content. @Talk about confusing:, if you like, after cleaning the template, we can start a thread which may be snow close for adding those sites to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. It had consensus to remove it in the past and if you like , in the future in the black list. If you don't know the consensus , here is the chance to know it. Matthew hk (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Range block needed again for Malaysian nationality vandal (the third ANI filing for the same range within a year)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive994#User:2405:3800::/32
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive997#Range_block_needed_again_for_Malaysian_nationality_vandal
• 2405:3800:502:1047:ccaa:3003:bae7:df77 (talk · contribs) (vandalize full name and change lede nationality )
• ‎2405:3800:400:7bf6:4c0c:5ef4:ce08:5df5 (talk · contribs) (vandalize nationality to hoax value)
• 2405:3800:483:97E0:ECB3:A26B:74EA:9F19 (talk · contribs) (full name vandal)
• Fernando Muslera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the ip change Uruguayan to hoax value: Malaysian, just like last two ANI filings)
• Wan Kuzain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sporting Kansas City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fuad Ramli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the ip change Singaporean to hoax value: Malaysian )
• Faris Ramli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the ip change Singaporean to hoax value: Malaysian )
• Ariff Farhan Isa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Khairil Anuar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ki Sung-yueng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (hoax given name, change medal to hoax value to gold)

5df5 had a short block (36h) recently within this week, but it seem it need longer. Matthew hk (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Update. After 5df5 was blocked for 2 weeks, immediately ip hopping as usual to 2405:3800:483:62C7:8C9F:D50D:7AD5:84A2 (talk · contribs) and vandalise Sporting Kansas City again. Matthew hk (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest is 2405:3800:402:7B3E:2425:BDA3:322E:5A8A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Nzd (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And now 2405:3800:401:2D2B:E967:2598:3310:7D03 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Nzd (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, pass WP:DUCK test on yet again vandalize Mulan (Disney character). Matthew hk (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• It became a ritual to list out how wide spread this vandal before getting someone else notice.

*Amirul Azhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (full name vandal)

*Ikhsan Fandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (unsourced full name)

*Irfan Fandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (unsourced full name)

*Fadzrul Danel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (unsourced change in name)

*Adib Zainudin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (unsourced change in name)

Matthew hk (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Again with the promotion of Brent Alden

Referring to the the Dec 2017 case Promotion of Brent Alden, False Alarm band, rangeblock needed and the Jan 2018 followup case Rangeblock for Meg Maheu?...

Promotion has resumed[41][42] at various pages including the NOFX and False Alarm (band) pages, with a similar range of IPs sand also a named account User:BrentAlden. The name "Norman Alden" is being added here and there, without any reference.[43][44][45][46] List of involved IPs below. Binksternet (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• 2600:1:B18D:1E69:EC3A:A4AB:3AC2:A8D6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B128:5475:AA62:7EC4:A0F1:86A5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B172:68B7:2BB1:ADAC:C2E2:20FD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B1AD:85AD:FA9D:DF53:95C9:50DB (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B121:4DB6:3445:EBE1:AE49:5B13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B139:ED10:BF4F:D0EB:E151:4643 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1:B114:5AFA:9CCF:5D35:1EC3:9B96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• A range block here is problematic - you're looking at 2600:1:b100:::/40, which is a big chunk of Sprint mobile Internet. There is a lot of Mr Alden from this range, and quite a lot of vandalism, but there are also good contributions as well. I've ECP'd the False Alarm page, and watchlisted NOFX, but in the end probably the only way of hitting this problem properly will be with an edit filter. Black Kite (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, huge range. A filter would also be difficult because the disruption takes various forms. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's see what Special:AbuseFilter/975 gets. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

175.143.166.187+175.143.166.162 (same user)

Ip user on 175.143.166.187 was given several warnings to not add unsourced content to GeForce 16 series and Nvidia PureVideo. User has refused to stop removing the unsourced content (1650) despite leaving a message on their talk page. User also decided to make an attacking comment in one of their edits on the GeForce 16 series insulting the editors that reverted the ip's edits. Ip's edits also caused several users to request page protection for Geforce 16 series page. After issuing the warning, user decided to change to 175.143.166.162 to readd the unsourced info. Due to persistent addition of unsourced or improperly cited material and after being recommended by one of the admins on the requests for protection page to report the user here if it were to continue, i decided to post this message here since the user appears to refuse to remove the unsourced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesmartbird (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

After some time, 175.143.166.162 decided to remove the notice and the warning by blanking the page. User proceeded to re-add the unsourced/leaked info that ip admitted to doing, on Geforce 16 series, Nvidia PureVideo, High Efficiency Video Coding, and High Efficiency Video Coding implementations and products. The user did not blank the page on its other ip, but has shown that it has disregarded the the avi notice and warning that was posted on one of the talk pages the user has access to. Thesmartbird (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

GeForce 16 series semi-protected for a week per WP:RFPP, but I'd like to see some discussion on the article talk pages. Miniapolis 23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how effective that would be seeing that the user has jumped to another ip 175.143.190.121. On that ip, the user readded the unreliable info that was previously removed. Also on the Turing_(microarchitecture) page, 175.143.184.172 appears to be the same user as the other 3 ip's, having been previously warned by a different editor for vandalising that particular page. I placed the avi notices on the other ips. I'm not sure what action you would take, but it looks like that the user appears to not want to communicate at all (aside from the attacking comment it made on one of its edits on one of the ip's it used). Thesmartbird (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this Copyvio?

User:Michaelmarilyn appears to be adding copyvio text to the article Tara Chambler and possibly other articles as well. Can someone please look?: [47] 8.37.179.254 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It's clearly WP:COPYVIO, but seems to be confined to this one article. The pattern of inaccurate edit summaries is universal however. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Page semi-protected by BOZ [48]. However that might not do the trick, as User:Michaelmarilyn is already auto confirmed. Temp full protection may be needed. Note that User:Michaelmarilyn using misleading edit sums to add clear copy-vios [49] [50] [51]. In fact a look at their contribs shows that the only edit sum they've ever used is "Fixed typos". I've warned user [52]. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 21:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@BOZ: Courtesy ping per your recent page protection, page may need temp full protection instead of semi. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 21:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I already have the page on my watchlist, so if the user ignores the warnings I think it is fair to block them instead of resorting to further protection. That said, do you think I should remove the protection from the article? BOZ (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If there is only one problem editor, then per WP:PP In addition, administrators may apply temporary semi-protection ... when blocking individual users is not a feasible option I think the page could be unprotected. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 21:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I have revdel'd the copyvio's. DlohCierekim 06:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP sock of blocked user

The IP 97.71.138.2, almost certainly the sock of the recently blocked vandal Fiji123, has taken to adding bad-faith PRODs to articles created by editors who have reverted him. Examples: [53], [54], [55]. See also the IP's latest comments/edit summaries at User talk:97.71.138.2: [56], [57]. Pinging Drmies who blocked the named account on March 7. Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I was on my way to block them for the "assburger" comment but Drmies beat me to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked, indeed, but I see no evidence of socking. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, Fiji123's last edit was vandalism to Maurice Ravel [58]. Three minutes after it was reverted, the IP PRODs it [59] and then PRODs another article created by the editor who reverted the vandalism at Maurice Ravel [60]. Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Voceditenore, Interesting. I have a magic tool, but it's possible that there's other users who know better how to wield it. In other words, a real CU. I found no connection. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

My personal opinions on this are (1) Drmies is perfectly capable of shaking the Magic Checkuser 8-Ball; and (2) when you have an indeffed editor and an IP doing things that would get them blocked regardless of what logged-out editor they might be, there's no purpose in running CU. It also tends to be against the checkuser policy to compare accounts with IPs. I didn't do much evaluating for sockpuppetry here because it was not a good use of time that could be better spent pushing block buttons. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuit talk by Cold Fusion 2019

• Cold Fusion 2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user contacted ජපස (aka jzg) about an ongoing lawsuit against Wikipedia ([61] [62]). WP:NLT seems to apply to this, but I'm honestly not 100% sure. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean jps? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I did... I don't even have a good excuse for that. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you have a decent excuse for that; CF19 left an identical message for JzG. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh! That's where I saw that... somehow mixed up ජපස's signature with JzG EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I've indef'd Cold Fusion 2019 for NOTHERE. Their ONLY two edits are to post about a lawsuit filed against Wikipedia? Chances are it's very likely a sock as well. Either way, block applied. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, my guess is SF-banned User:Abd. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw this elsewhere. CF2019 is not the one doing the suing. I am not sure NLT applies in this case. spryde | talk 19:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Just because CF19 says they aren't the ones doing the suing, doesn't mean they aren't the ones doing the suing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI if you're interested in the plaintiff's perspective - I couldn't access the actual lawsuit. [[63]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really. I just remember him from long ago in the WP community and other groups. spryde | talk 19:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Even if this is not the person pursuing the legal case, they are making demands based on the legal case, and I'd say NLT very much applies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the WP:NLT policy says that "while you may sue in a court of law, Wikipedia is not the place for legal disputes" and that users "are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding". A block is removed if the threat is "genuinely and credibly withdrawn". Should a user make good on their threat, and the lawsuit is unresolved, I think a block would still be appropriate is the same spirit as this policy. And the parallel for a "genuinely and credibly withdrawn" would be the legal resolution of any lawsuits. (Maybe this could be proposed as an amendment to NLT through a discussion at VPP?) EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

How to put this. "I ain't da guy, sees? But what you did to dis guy was bad, sees? So, if you know what's good for ya, sees." Clearly a legal threat and clearly a ham-handed attempt to disown it. DlohCierekim 05:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

IPs removing references to MH17 and MH370

I'm not sure if this goes at SPI, AIV or somewhere else, so I'm reporting it here. Someone seems determined to remove references to the downing of MH17 and loss of MH370. Pops up every couple of days from a (slightly) different IP, removes the same content, and uses similar summaries (eg Remove unrelated content). Is a rangeblock possible? IPs involved: Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:6054:B009:6F7C:436A:9395 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:6AC8:4126:7AF9:45CF:F435 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:6AC8:49A:F255:7D39:77CE Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:440C:C941:D626:E9DD:E915 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:7306:934:60E3:D02E:16F9 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:56A9:60F3:A227:2241:6010 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:654E:18CA:7125:18C8:A2B0 Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9:5F70:3F:E9FF:E7A3:3044 Probably not related: Special:Contributions/219.92.42.162 Special:Contributions/219.92.43.151 Question: Is there an exception to the requirement to notify editors when reporting them at ANI if it's a bunch of ips? I'll go ahead and template them now, wondering for the future Hydromania (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Procedural note, it's probably impossible to notify an editor whose IP changes that frequently. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Every edit from the associated /48 since December 3 seems to be this same vandal (see Special:Contributions/2001:D08:D9::/48). I put a one month block on the range. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! Hydromania (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's effectively impossible to notify an IPv6 editor (the long hexadecimal ones) because their discrete IP can change with each edit, and you can't notify a range. Our guidelines don't consider that technical detail. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked socks need talk page access revoked - Evlekis

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. Blocked sock Thumb boy 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to have TPA revoked per this, because Evlekis will just keep on adding crap on the talk page until TPA is revoked (just like all of his socks do...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• The same goes for Heavy Loader Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per this. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: Character from Slokmar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is yet another blocked sock of Evlekis needing TPA revoked for posting the same crap as the ones above (see their contribs...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Got it. For vandals like this I suggest not bothering reverting until after TPA has been revoked - they just enjoy the recognition and the edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: ... and now it's Perkerose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for the same reason as the others... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep lining them up... ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Lawrence Duvail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's obviously keeping a record of all of his old socks, this one was blocked almost three years ago... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and Yunshui: Might as well remove TPA from these too, before he decides to use them again. They were all CU-blocked as Evlekis socks on the same day as the one above (21 April 2016), but still have TPA enabled:

I just like to edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Intromocku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Taxi Thomas M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Trucker Marco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Berry Travelway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Starcharter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gary McKelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sweet Sound of Rain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Was just going through and checking them - I've got all of those now (and a bunch more). As an aside, he doesn't need to keep a record of his old socks, as we helpfully do that for him at the SPI (and if he always uses the same password...) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reblocked about 20 accounts from around that period which still had TPA enabled. Obvious lesson - always block Evlekis socks with TPA and email disabled. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Grotch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a brand new sock, see contribs. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, and 27-stevenson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: ... and he's now using Kebabvan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked about three weeks ago with TPA enabled (see contribs...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. I have to go out for a bit now, so just list any new ones and someone else will get them if I don't. There's no rush really - his puerile ramblings are harmless (and are amusing nobody but himself). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Boing! said Zebedee: Jim Corby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is yet another Evlekis sock that needs to have TPA revoked (check their user talk). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Persistent Non-Free Content violations

• عبدالله ديري (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I went to leave a message on this user's Talk Page... It is flooded with WP:NFC notifications (which they have obviously chosen to ignore). There was even another notification added last night. DarkKnight2149 14:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Another one of these. Zero edits to talk pages, scores of image warnings. I have indefinitely blocked the editor until they decide to communicate. WP:CIR. Fish+Karate 16:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Salavat who seems to spend a lot of his time adding all the fair use licensing information to the various images this editor uploads and may have a view on whether this user is contributing any actually useful content. Fish+Karate 16:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of this users uploads were being used in an appropriate way when I came across them and I believe the majority were kept. Whether the articles were lacking images before the User uploaded them or whether they were replacing existing images that I am not sure of. I can say though that the uploader put no effort in the upload, not even a description or source. Salavat (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Review of block I imposed on My Lord

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

---

I have just blocked My Lord (talk · contribs) for 31 hours because I believe he may still be abusing multiple accounts.

I was reached out to by email from an anonymous user who has presented evidence of continued socking. After reviewing it, I have come to believe that there is reason to believe that the claim is true.

On January 30th, 2019, Abecedare filed an appeal on behalf of the user and unblocked them to allow participation in the appeal. The appeal was closed as successful by Oshwah on February 11, 2019. The thread can be found here.

On February 13, 2019, 112.134.66.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) started editing making the claim that they are a long term IP editor with no registered account. They also left an edit warring warning to Gazoth.

On March 13, 2019, My Lord left this warning on PakEditor's talk page linking to the warning the IP left Gazoth's talk page with the claim of having already warned them before.

Not sure if this was intentional or not, but I'm left with the impression that something is still amiss here. It also seems behavioral evidence is really similar between the IP and My Lord. Even if this is stale, it would suggest the issues were still ongoing while the appeal was open.

I submit to the community to review my block. I made this block with the best of intentions for the project, so if this is a bad block, I, or any admin, will happily reverse it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• I find ML's explanation that their warning to PakEditor was a cut and paste of the IP's warning to Gazoth, and not an indirect admission of being the IP, to be credible. Also, afaik, the IP geolocates to a different country than ML's. As a side note, I am wary of evidence concerning Indo-Pak editors being emailed around since in the past I have seen photoshopped documents being presented, and while that may not be relevant in this instance we should note that there were apparent attempts to set up ML as a continuing sockpuppeteer as recently as Feb 12. Pinging @Berean Hunter and Ivanvector: for further input. Abecedare (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Abecedare, That is definitely good to know. So it's possible I may have simply fallen for the setup. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

•  No comment with respect to IP address(es) but the accounts that were possible technical matches on the ranges I checked while reviewing the current block did not look to be My Lord when I looked at the behaviour, to the point where I'm not even going to bother to list them here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, and on that note, it's safe to say I fell for a bad report trying to get him blocked. I have unblocked him. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  (responding to ping) The block issue seems to have been resolved while I was edit-conflicting with everyone, and I have nothing new to add anyway so I'll just leave it at that. On the subject of South Asian editors anonymously emailing allegations of sockpuppetry to apparently random administrators, I advise any administrator who receives such a message to forward it to the Arbitration Committee. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, Noted. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And regarding the IP, I personally find it doubtful that the same person wrote "interminable obfuscation and stonewalling" as wrote "What you meant from Do not add text that is still under discussion? Neither I have to entertain your WP:IDHT nor you WP:OWN this article." But those were both the same edit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What I mean to say is the "long term IP editor with no account" is being fed false accusations by some third party meaning to cause trouble, a very clear violation of WP:MEAT. This is not the first time we've seen this on this board. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

@TonyBallioni and Ivanvector: Unless I'm missing something they should be sending to the functionaries' email list and not Arbcom. The checkusers should not miss the information by diverting to Arb. The Arb members can see it there. We need to see what is being said.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked by His Noodly Appendage
Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

If it involves off-wiki accusations involving privacy, arb is likely better, which is what I think Ivanvector was getting at (and if he wasn't, my apologies for reading it that way). Yes, the functionaries list would also be a good place to send this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, functs is fine, but as far as I know there isn't a convenient way to email that list on-wiki. I guess that's not a good point since you'd be forwarding from your own email anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• The title of this thread leads me to ponder the theological question, "Can God impose a block that He can't overturn?" EEng 21:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, because he's not an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  Nor would he pass RfA. In the Old Testament he had tons of meatpuppets and in the New his sockpuppet gets community banned. EEng 19:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  Might be overlooked given the strong history of content creation. Leviv ich 02:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  Exhibits ownership and Battleground behavior. Also Original Sinthesis. EEng 06:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

my talk page is being vandalized

review my edit history. look at the articles i've written for context. make a decision. I dont want to participate in the wiki project anymore if it's like this. I dont see any substantive reason for the warning and the warning message is written to make me look bad. I'm not getting any reasonable replies. all or nothing, just delete this account if you think it's inappropriate.

Verify references (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Verify references: Howdy hello! I understand that warnings don't feel good. But the warnings are just that: only cautionary notes about behavior. Even folks who've been on this project for years and made tens of thousands of edits still get warned about things. The warnings on your talk page asked that you be civil and not use pejorative language. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we prefer to keep curses and pejoratives out of interactions. We invite you to continue editing Wikipedia, but remind you that there are standards for editing and interacting. TLDR: you are free to keep editing, but please don't use slurs. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki//b/tard

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2Fb%2Ftard

https://gawker.com/5609419/4chan-founder-tries-to-explain-b-tard-to-federal-prosecutors

it's not hateful language by any means. it's a term used with ownership among his community. the content i posted was specifically about that. if you want to debate that stupid people make bad choices, i'm happy to dig up old books i havnt read in 10 years for references to debate it but i stand by what i said. The shooter is just a retard from the internet not some ex-mil serbian nationalist like news sources were suggesting earlier in the day.

Verify references (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh oh. EEng 22:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't see how using the word "retard" as a pejorative is offensive, then we have a problem. Competency is required at Wikipedia, and that term is highly offensive for people with intellectual disabilities, and those who care for people with intellectual disabilities. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Verify references: Whether or not you think its offensive, consensus on Wikipedia holds that its pejorative use is very offensive. My recommendation to you is that if you'd like to continue editing Wikipedia, you should pledge to not use offensive language and to be civil, retract your above statement, and not attempt to argue whether or not it was offensive. You were warned already by DrMies to never use the term ever again [64], and yet you immediately and brazenly disregarded that [65] You are on very thin ice here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

imagine you made an edit to say...Arab–Israeli conflict and all people could see was a warning description saying, "NEVER CALL PEOPLE THAT NAME EVER AGAIN" you may as well be banned because people will only twinkle the **** out of anything you post anyway. the notice should reflect the offence. Verify references (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that the notice did reflect the problem. The warning template was a template warning about disruptive editing. While you may not have intended to be disruptive, its outcome was disruptive. An action that impedes the building of the encyclopedia, such as using a conversation stopping slur, is considered disruptive. Thus you were given a standard disruptive editing warning, with an addendum dealing with your specific action. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the incivility of calling someone a tard if the person in question is the mosque shooter. But yeah, Verify References, we supposedly aim for a more decorous writing style when we can manage it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If Verify Thinks that that Word is Ok then I think we Have a Boomerang Situation Jena (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Intriguingly, this user reminds me of VerifiedFixes (talk · contribs), whom some of you may remember, and who retired at about the time Verify references got started. Also similarly, Verify references has now retired. DlohCierekim 05:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• IMHO, if we so lack in an ability to collaborate collaboratively on a collaborative project, and if we hand out words that require oversight in our edit summaries, it is perhaps for the best if we retire from the field so to speak. DlohCierekim 05:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• As the user has "retired", I'd like to indef block them until they affirm they will not use offensive pejoratives in the future. DlohCierekim 06:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Innocent Conflict of Edits Issue Needs Ace Editor

I'm working on my draft article for the NIH Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office which was finally submitted it for first review earlier today. This afternoon I improved there article with NASEM source material from last month and much of that work was lost to the ether. I don't see what I attempted to publish in the page history but I do see the +53 character reference citation correction made by some unknown party (to me at least). I have not hit any save button since only made attempts to recover my edits which where side by side with another version when I made a switch to vista editing and it all went kaboom. Please don't make me reinvent the wheel. I got a notification that my work was saved somewhere but I can't find it.Mrphilip (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mrphilip: So what probably happened there was that someone made an edit while you were making an edit, and they published it before you did. When that happens, a page will open where at the top is the revision by the other user, and if you scroll all the way to the bottom is your version. That then lets you reconcile your version with the new version. If you have already left that page however, your content is likely gone, and there's not much an admin can do to save it, as your revision was saved on your computer's cache and not Wikipedia servers. It sucks to lose edits like that, I've been there. My advice is to save often, or work on the edit in your sandbox and then copy it over once its ready. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If the edits aren't in the Edit History or are deleted edits, there is no way I know of to recover this content. Like the Captain says, this is the result of an edit conflict, when two editors are trying to edit the same page at the same time, and it happens frequently on noticeboards like ANI. You can cut & paste your edit if you are taken to an error page but after you've moved on from the page, the content is gone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

More at Help:Edit conflict. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

is there a way we can ask for these conflict pages to be more visual edit friendly for future contributors? I like the left right portions but they can be disorienting when looked at with upper and lower text. Might it be possible for an algorithm to intercede and asses significance of conflict edits, which both could be meaty, but as in this case, fixing a reference date was given preference over 1,000+ characters. Shouldn't a draft article writer (specifically) be granted first veto power over the lessor edit, as opposed to the BOX WARNING SUGGESTING NOT TO HASTILY COPY AND PASTE all your work (which I should have done before hitting the visual button.) Or can we minimally improve the system to offer better advance notice of multiple users working on one project not as of yet approved for public viewing before either editor hits publish? Simple thoughts for preventing replication of efforts.23:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrphilip (talk • contribs)

|answer=yes Mrphilip (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Competence issues

His draft was deleted Copyvio so he is User_talk:RHaworth#DELETION_SAME_DAY_AS_ARTICLE_FIRST_REVIEWED_BY_WIKI? yelling at User:RHaworth, complaining at the AfC Helpdesk [66] and at Teahouse [67] all lecturing experienced editors on how the site works. I reverted his post at Jytdog's talk. [68] as that is a randomly inappropriate place to discuss his issues. WP:CIR Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Legacypac I posted on Jytdog's talk page unaware of his block. He left me this message suggesting I do just that thing when an article refers to something involving Health, which my article does. National Institute of Health Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office. I was asking for advice on quoting legislation verbiage from the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016. I did not discuss any other "issue" It might have been more helpful if you addressed the question raised instead of just deleting a credible query. I don't believe tasing for help suggests incompetence nor making others aware of unnecessary overly swift G12 deletion of a draft article when older versions of an article history might have lived on? Mrphilip (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

References: edit source

====== Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sourcesas references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.  Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC) ====== Mrphilip (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Jytdog is no longer an editor here. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch mosque shootings

There is currently an RFC ongoing about whether the suspects names can be included in the article (Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC about keeping suspect's/suspects' name in lead). One of the suspects names has been widely published and it is becoming difficult to keep it off the page. Considering this is a BLP concern is it possible to create a tempory edit filter to prevent the name bring added until we reach consensus at the talk page. More eyes would be useful in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If this is not possible could we at least get an edit notice? AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I posted five good references. so long as it is worded appropriately there should be no problem. it's unlikely to cause problems because major international news outlets have already published the name. furthermore, it will become difficult to edit the page because they've started using the name in the headlines and the name is likely to appear in any new references anyway. the arguments against it were that by using the name will only grant power to the forces of evil. Verify references (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say the main argument against was WP:BLPCRIME (policy wise at least). AIRcorn (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been interesting. The consensus is clear at the rfc. In fact if anything it is even clearer since posting this. And I say that as someone on the other side of it. This page is probably the most watched page in the encyclopaedia and BLP and consensus are supposed to be our most sacred tenants. Yet nothing. Maybe its a weekend thing. No one gives a shit about a mass murderer and its not like we are in danger of upsetting him anyway (he livestreamed it for fucks sake so is obviously up for attention). I know RFC is a bit of a hit and run process and I would not blame anyone given the massive shitfest the talkpage has become (someone running through with oneclickarchiver would be doing a huge favour - I feel too involved myself). Anyway the name has been prominent in the article for a while now and I haven't noticed any objections (its a pretty hard page to follow so apologies if I missed some) outside the RFC so it may as well just stay there unless someone feels in an enforcing mood. Not sure if this is an issue to be concerned about with other less obvious cases, but that may be something for another day. Anyway I will try to keep out the names of the other less prominent suspects for now. This can probably be closed. AIRcorn (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Does the RfC apply to the current events portal?

While the main thing here seems resolved... What about Portal:Current events/2019 March 15? Does the RfC apply there? If not, should there be one? Madness ^Darkness 13:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't. ansh666 19:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Offensive and disruptive comments by User:Calton

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

---

User:Calton made offensive and disruptive comments on my talk page User talk:AndreyVorobyov[69]. He wrote this: "Your inability to understand Wikipedia policy regarding edit-warring, reliable sources, and due weight -- not to mention your inability to count, write English prose, or understand the templates you copy-and-paste -- is not my concern". I did a mistake with making reverts while editing an article. I apologize for this, and I've already been blocked for this situation for 24 ours. Admin explained on my talk page that I was wrong trying to find a consensus on User:Calton page, and that in English Wikipedia I should discuss on an article page if 2 opponents involved. I didn't know this rule, because in Russian Wikipedia, where I mostly edit, you can choose: to discuss on a opponent user's talk page or on an article's page. I wrote suggestion to discuss an article in a wrong place, on User:Calton talk page, he ignored it. Yes, I did a mistake, but it doesn't give the right to any user to leave such rude comments. I feel that comments User:Calton left on my talk page are offensive or disruptive.

What does it mean - "your inability to count, write English prose or understand the templates"?

I think, it is not polite and very rude to talk about person's "inability". Yes, my editing and is not perfect, but I'm trying to do my best. User could simply explain me in polite manner, that in English Wikipedia this rule - all consensus discussions should be on article page, and not on opponent users' page. I want to edit in Wikipedia further, and I honestly believe that this project should be aware of editors who use such rude offensive phrases. I feel it is absolutely uncivil.

It is not the 1st time User:Calton did it. There was repeated use of derogatory racial epithets in edit summaries by User:Calton[70].

When I asked user Calton on my talk page to stop it and discuss an article: "Dear Calton, you write abusive phrases, but you don't reply to the main question", he wrote this: "Free clue: I don’t work for you" [71].

I therefore call on any administrator to indefinitely block User:Calton until he acknowledges the gross misconduct involved and publicly commits to the community that he will not commit such misbehavior again. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Another custom on the English Wikipedia is to put new messages to an editor on the bottom of the talk page, not the top. I have moved your messages to where Calton might see them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Talk!, my suggestion to discuss an article was added to user's page before notice, at 12:32, 14 March 2019. Notice was added at 23:13, 15 March 2019 [72], [73]. Why did you put older message at the bottom of the page? I will correct how it should be in English Wikipedia - I will put new messages on the bottom. OK?

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AndreyVorobyov reported by User:Calton (Result: Blocked). Having gotten EVERYTHING wrong, Andrey -- and let me add sockpuppetry to the list -- wants revenge. Note that he STILL hasn't gone to Talk:PayPal. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Calton, you are mistaken about revenge. Many users argue, and discuss, and revert... it's not the reason. 1st time in my editing history I report user, and it's you. And I want clear explanation on why you say about my "inability". PayPal page protected from editing, and I don't have a wish to edit that page anymore. --AndreyVorobyov (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• you are mistaken about revenge

• Nope, I'm going to stick with that.

• PayPal page protected from editing...

• Essentially, you're complaining that you're now unable to continue your sterile edit-warring.
• Yes, the page is protected against new and IP editors SO YOU CAN USE THE TALK PAGE. In fact, the article was semi-protected BECAUSE you REFUSED TO USE THE TALK PAGE. In fact, in your entire time on Wikipedia you have NEVER used an article talk page. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Calton, I'm not going to fight with you. My sourse added to PayPal page was not reliable, I agree that I was wrong with a source. Here is another topic, and you changes it to fight, again. I apologized for my behavior on PayPal page in the begging of this topic. And I don't understand, why you are changing the topic. I still need your clear explanation about why you talked about my "inability".

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Calton You reverted my edits on your talk page, which I did as Liz suggested - I added my messages in order as newest should be in a buttom. Why did you revert it? [74] My suggestion to discuss PayPal page was previous this notice. And why did you archive all messages where other editors talk about your personal attarks to another users?

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• @AndreyVorobyov: I came here because you left a message on my talk page[75]. And I have reviewed the info above.

My conclusion is that that AndreyVorobyov was way out of line: edit-warring to add a clearly non-reliable-source. In substance, Calton was entirely right.

Calton's comment, which forms the substance of this complaint, was all accurate. However, AndreyVorobyov is a "new" editor (only 96 edits in 5 years), and WP:BITE applies. Calton should have been much less bitey, and sadly Caltons' block log shows a long history of uncivil communication. I really wish Calton would remeber that this is a collaborative project, and policies/guidelines like WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL and there to keep it working.

But even considering Calton's poor track record, this incident doesn't need a sanction.

I say WP:TROUTs to both parties, a quick close.

AndreyVorobyov: don't ever edit war, and do read policies and guidelines. And Calton, don't use a stick when a civil explanation would suffice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: Thank you for the review! Do you also think that my English is so bad, that I can't edit in English project? I've translated some Russian articles to English, and added them. Do you think, that I have "inability to write English prose" or "to count"? Even if my English is not perfect, I still feel, it's offensive to say about "inability". I want user Calton apologize for these words.

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Andrey, you can't force an apology, and there are not going to be any sanctions against anyone here. I think User:BrownHairedGirl has got it just about right, and I think you should just learn from the experience and move on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee I ask apology from this user not only for me, but for the Wikipedia community.

Look at this blog log for Calton: [76].

We can see that Calton was blocked many times for the same reason: systematic regular personal attacks and harassment.

But in spite of this, user Calton didn't learn. He continues attacking users and giving editors offensive epithets.

His talk page is still full of people who claim harassment and personal attacks, only for years 2018-2019 there are plenty [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85].

In my opinion, it's not good for the project when editor attacking people regularly, especially after many blocks for this reason.

Calton mentioned my "inability to understand Wikipedia policy". He should read Wikipedia policy once again, especially WP:AVOIDYOU. Because it's undermines the image of Wikipedia, when editors use rude, offensive and disruptive comments.

He makes grammatical errors by himself. Why do you think he can blame people about their "inability to write English prose"? What does it mean that he wrote to me about "inability to count?"

I want him learn from the experience, and to explain community why he is continuing doing personal attacks to different editors, continue harassing uses, and continue leaving offensive and disruptive comments. If I can't ask apology, OK, but I need clear explanation from him.

Wikipedia is a project, where rude phrases shouldn't exist.

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Andrey, I really think you need to drop this now and move on. That's my advice and it's the last I'll say here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC) (Well, almost the last. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC))

• @Boing! said Zebedee:Thank you for the advice! I'm moving on. I already don't have a wish to continue edit after User Calton's rude comments. And I don't think that Wikipedia should be with such rude phrases. Just imaging if he will continue doing it under articles, and not at users talk pages? It will go directly to search engines, to google. And reputation of Wikipedia will go down. This is not good for the project. I will move on from English Wikipedia, if you insist.

--AndreyVorobyov (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Andrey, you misunderstand what I mean - I have replied on your talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Osanna M. Kazezian-Rosa' auto bio

Since the last week or so, the user User:Osanna M. Kazezian-Rosa has been trying to create an autobiography of herself. The page was deleted more than 4 times, and yet is being created. People have explained her about notability policy but she doesn't seem to have read it or understood it.

Based on her talkpage, She seems to be a children's book author. Her nearby library decided to have a site with all their authors having links to a wiki page of their own(just the link). This user too has her page on that site and created a corresponding wiki page since she believes wikipedia to be a catalog, I genuinely believe its not vandalism, but a case of a misinformed user. But she does not seem to be responding or caring about the warnings at all.Daiyusha (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

She practices yoga and enjoys hiking in nature. EEng 11:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I used to practice yoga and still enjoy hiking in nature. I left her some more educational material. She still has a sandbox up that needs sourcing. DlohCierekim 04:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Transgender-related POV

Involved parties

• A145GI15I95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement

This user cannot separate constructive criticism and suggestions for changes to their pet project page from personal attacks. They take personal offense to editors who make suggestions that counter their agenda and argue constantly in talk pages that people who detransition, or "detrans people" as they call them, are oppressed by LGBT people as a whole, transgender people, and rogue political actors. The vast majority of their edits are dedicated to righting the wrong of detrans oppression or "spreading awareness" to their cause.

In addition, they seem to have developed a vendetta against me personally, and have accused me of interfering with discussions about Detransition for prejudiced, peosonal, or politically motivated reasons and attempted to get me banned from the topic. I find it suspect that this user keeps fixating on the fact that she believes me to be transgender in their ban claims, although I have told them multiple times that I am not.

1. [86] There's a lot here, so I'm linking an archived version of the entire discussion. The user seems to claim ownership over the article Detransition. They have deliberately misinterpreted multiple users' notices as personal attacks throughout the talk page, stealth canvassed other editors from Twitter to back up their point (including one who appears to be a sock), attempted to close a WP:MEDRS discussion because they believed that the article was being attacked for political motivations, and attempted to topic ban users who they believed were opposing their view of how the article should be:
   1. 14 March 2019 ...via WP:COI because they assumed I was transgender.
   2. 14 March 2019 ...via WP:NPOV because I was "gender essentialist on my talk page" and put a NPOV tag on the article.
   3. 14 March 2019 ...and User:Equivamp via dispute resolution for "doxxing" (posting a canvassing warning) and "destroying the article."
2. 14 March 2019 Because I have been discussing the article in its talk page, this user has accused me of bullying, doxxing, false claims, and "anti-detrans" prejudice.
3. 14 March 2019 As part of their grudge against me editing the article, they linked directly to me removing slurs from my talk page in their change summary for blanking warnings from other editors and an admin on their own talk page.

I believe that I have been behaving appropriately regarding this article and this user has become increasingly hostile towards me for continuing to hold this article to Wikipedia's standards. This user has proven that they cannot edit pages related to this topic responsibly and neutrally.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooeena (talk • contribs)

Response

This complaint was filed moments ago here, under the same seemingly inappropriate title. I asked there why it was described as a transgender issue, when the topic is detransition (separate phenoms, separate communities). I'll ask again here, please, why frame their concern for a detrans topic as trans?

Mooeena's criticisms haven't been "constructive", they've been hyperbolic and smear-based. Nearly every comment on Talk:Detransition takes a stab either at editors or at the subject matter. From merely their statement above:

• Titling this entire section "transgender-related POV", when this is about detransition (a separate topic and separate community from trans).
• Calling the article "[my] pet project", "[my] agenda", and "[my] cause".
• Using scare quotes in naming detrans people, and adding "as [I] call them" (this is as detrans folk call themselves, and it's documented in news articles and around the web).
• Claiming that I argue detrans folk are oppressed by LGBT folk "as a whole".
• Denying the documented political suppression of detransition exists.
• Wiki-lawyering.
• Claiming that I've requested anyone's ban.
• Claiming that I continued ("fixated…multiple times") to believe they're trans after they said they weren't. And my concern is for their possible trans activism, not their gender identity.
• Claiming that I "claim ownership" over the article.
• Claiming that I "deliberately misinterpreted" anyone.
• Claiming that I "stealth canvassed other editors" (an admin found this untrue).
• Accusing me of sock-puppetry.
• Shaming me for filing a COI (as they suggested), and then an NPOV (as I was instructed by an admin from there).
• Shaming me for calling out an attempt to dox (confirmed by an admin).

Mooeena enterred the Talk page with slurs against the detrans community and smears against editors:

• Using scare quotes in naming detransitioners (implying they don't exist or their lives don't matter).
• Claiming the detrans community isn't marginalized.
• Describing presence of more than one citation as "sin".
• Claiming that anyone has argued detransition to be "a common occurrence".
• Claiming authors for The Atlantic and The Seattle Stranger to be unreliable.
• Confusing detransition to be a "transgender issue" (they're separate communities, that's like conflating gay with trans).
• Claiming Tumblr and "individual accounts" (unsure what that means) are cited.
• Claiming the article "conflates" transphobia with trans regret (this is among the least cited concerns of detransitioners).
• Using scare quotes for trans regret (implying it never happens).

And that's just our first interaction. And Mooeena has continually claimed to wish to re-focus on content, while returning to smears.

Mooeena's stance seems to be of the all-too-common political motivation that acknowledgment of the plight of detrans folk could somehow be a threat to the plight of trans folk.

Other editors and I have communicated civilly and reached compromises. I've repeatedly stated aim to avoid pitting trans against detrans, but rather to present the topic of detransition fairly. I'd like to continue work in improving this article, without the stress of attacks, please. A145GI15I95 (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• I looked at that archived talk page and the points of serious disagreement aren't obvious. Could we have more calmness and AGF in the discussion? This doesn't look like a battle of entrenched viewpoints so I'd like to hope the issues can be worked out. I could try to mediate a little bit tomorrow if that helps. I made an edit to the article (added mention of an old science fiction story to the "fiction" section) so maybe that makes me "involved", but I hadn't really heard of the detransition concept before, and my edit was quite far from any of the controversy. So I think I can be impartial. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm unsure of what is the actual problem here, there seems to be a lot of terms I'm not very familiar with. There seems to be disagrement between users but is it a ANI concern? I feel like this should be able to be solved some other way.★Trekker (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Having looked at the diffs linked, Mooeena's complaints seem valid. I didn't try to determine how true all of A145GI15I95's complaints were because the first few I looked for evidence of were either wrong or misleading.

Claiming that I continued ("fixated…multiple times") to believe they're trans after they said they weren't. And my concern is for their possible trans activism, not their gender identity. You did in fact start a COI noticeboard post claiming that she is trans and another claiming that she is a gender essentialist.

Claiming authors for The Atlantic and The Seattle Stranger to be unreliable. I don't see where this happened. There is discussion on the talk page about the Atlantic/the Stranger, but it's someone else mentioning this, and no one says that the authors are unreliable. Is this discussion elsewhere?

Titling this entire section "transgender-related POV", when this is about detransition (a separate topic and separate community from trans). How is the article on detransition not a transgender-related topic?

Shaming me for calling out an attempt to dox (confirmed by an admin). This is valid. Doxing is bad. Canvassing for supporters via Twitter is also bad.

So, A145GI15I95, unless you have diffs to support your list of complaints, you really oughta stop harassing Mooeena. Natureium (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The arbitration looks like it will be declined. I've read everything and I think the points of disagreement aren't obvious because of the nature of the topic, but setting those aside I believe the diffs provided by both users do show a problem with A145GI15I95's behaviour. One of the diffs they link was posted by a sock to Mooeena's talk page, the other they link it's actually A145GI15I95 who takes it personally after Mooeena pointed out possible twitter canvassing. I would support a topic ban, possibly short-term in order to encourage them to be productive in other areas of the project, or at least a short-term interaction ban, for A145GI15I95 based on the provided diffs, if they don't accept to change their behaviour voluntarily. SportingFlyer T·C 04:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Natureium, to answer you:

I didn't try to determine how true all of A145GI15I95's complaints were because the first few I looked for evidence of were either wrong or misleading. Please let me clarify, and let me know if I can clarify further.

You did in fact start a COI noticeboard post claiming that she is trans and another claiming that she is a gender essentialist. My concern is that Mooeena may be letting her personal stance on gender politics interfere with the editing of this delicate topic. I presumed Mooeena to be trans due to the five user-boxes employing gender-essentialist language on her user-page (most of which she's now removed). I've already said there's nothing wrong with being trans or gender essentialist. But detransition is not a gender essentialist topic. Furthermore, detrans folk are politically where trans folk were a decade ago: struggling for recognition to receive neglected legal and medical services. There are many activists online who wrongly see detransitioners as a political threat to trans rights. Mooeena has repeatedly denied the existence of detransitioners and the detrans community on talk pages and edit logs. That is troubling. I attempted to reason with her, but she told me to file a complaint. So I filed the COI (where I wrongly guessed she was trans, I was corrected, I apologized, and I explained my concern is for politics not identity). I was instructed by an admin on COI that my concern is more appropriately NPOVN, so I moved my concern there.

Claiming authors for The Atlantic and The Seattle Stranger to be unreliable—I don't see where this happened. There is discussion on the talk page about the Atlantic/the Stranger, but it's someone else mentioning this, and no one says that the authors are unreliable. Is this discussion elsewhere? The link again is here. The Atlantic author is Jesse Singal; the Stranger author is Katie Herzog. The claim that they are unreliable is indeed written by Mooeena.

How is the article on detransition not a transgender-related topic? To say or imply that detrans folk are a kind of trans folk is like saying trans folk are a kind of gay folk. They're all related categories, but they're separate groups with different challenges and strengths. And there is a documented history of trans activists harassing detrans folk, hence my concern that no such thing should happen here (as it already has from other editors on the detrans talk page).

Doxing is bad. Canvassing for supporters via Twitter is also bad. Thank you for acknowledging the attempt to dox (by a third party, not Mooeena) was bad. Please hear me, though, when I say again that I didn't canvas, as another admin confirmed, and I'd like please not to need to defend myself against this charge every day.

…unless you have diffs to support your list of complaints, you really oughta stop harassing Mooeena. I can answer more questions if you like. But respectfully, I'm not harassing her. And the amount of time I've had to put into writing these defenses, it feels like the reverse.

SportingFlyer, to answer you:

…the points of disagreement aren't obvious because of the nature of the topic… I can answer further questions, if you've any.

One of the diffs they link was posted by a sock to Mooeena's talk page Which diff do you mean? I've employed no sock. If someone else is socking, it's not I. Please, I've had to re-explain this repeatedly. Another user attempted to dox me and accused me of canvassing. Someone else reported it to an admin, who immediately redacted the dox. I thanked them privately and asked advice. They instructed I change my name, and assured this would reduce my problems. However, Mooeena has not let this go, she continues to accuse me of canvassing, and since the name-change she's accusing me of sockery. And now you seem to say also that I appear to be a sock, unless I've misread you. I've only followed my name-change instructions.

…it's actually A145GI15I95 who takes it personally… My impression has been that Mooeena has taken something personally against me. I linked the new Detransition article to a handful of LGBT info-boxes and articles, and Mooeena seemed to follow me and unlink nearly all of them.

Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by Tnypr

Persistent vandalism and edit warring. Last time, this user continually added unsourced year and mislead the chronology to the James Blunt singles "High", "Goodbye My Lover" and "Wisemen". He is still changing the release year and chronology. I've also request a protection but is denied it. The user has been warned multiple times in this case in his talk page. He is acting on these page now. See the link for his recent disruption:

"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/887271432". 51.75.95.140 (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User Nelatti

User Nelatti (talk · contribs)has been first informed, then warned and finally blocked — three times — for insisting on adding unsourced and interpretive content. The user is just as difficult to work with in the Commons — I know it is separate project, but it bears witness on the editor's attitude of not playing by the rules. My gratitude to the admin who has patiently monitored this case so far. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• To add some meat on the bones of this ANI report, Nelatti has added tons of original research at List of South African slang words, for instance. [87][88][89][90] Though we don't censor, I think the latter example is tonally questionable: "...a polite way to say you need to shit as soon as possible." The bulk of this user's contributions seem to be editorial in nature, pulled from his own experience or knowledge[91][92][93] rather than sourced material. Efforts to convince him to add references have not been successful. See this discussion from 2017. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with adding information to article

I wanted to add information concerning book written by Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski called "Dalej jest noc. Losy Żydów w wybranych powiatach okupowanej Polski". Recently Piotr Gontarczyk (professional historian) gave interviews with Polish Press Agency and weekly magazine "Sieci" in which he pointed out some mistakes that the authors made and addressed exact evidence to backup his arguments. One of the major pointed mistake is blaming Blue Police (which was not allowed to ghetto) for the crimes done by Jewish police inside Jewish ghetto in Bochnia (this case is well documented in files from Samuel Frish's criminal case).

Opinion of Gontarczyk was highly publicized in Polish media including the biggest TV channels, newspapers, radio, Internet.

The first time I added that information (to the articles about Barbara Engelking and Jan Grabowski) it was removed and I was told that the source was not good enough in some quite unusual manner of two tables with exclamation mark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluffer8

Then I changed the source to the following ones:

https://afaae.com/poland/yes-ladies-and-gentlemen-this-is-a-new-school-but-not-the-research-but-the-deception-of-the-holocaust/

https://www.polskieradio.pl/321/1222/Artykul/2275685,Piotr-Gontarczyk-zarzuca-publikacji-Centrum-Badan-nad-Zaglada-Zydow-naukowa-mistyfikacje

and my update was removed again. I asked the editor Icewhiz (talk) about what was wrong and got the answer: "Poor source, badly written, and a from a source with a rather extreme POV".

Link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icewhiz#Controversies

In the same discussion I gave him many alternative sources from Polish TV, radio, Internet, newspapers and German media (newspaper Dziennik Polska-Europa-Świat owned by Axel Springer SE), and asked for opinion. At this point to the discussion joined the editor Volunteer Marek (talk), they had some vivid conversation and here are the arguments that Icewhiz gave:

- Polish government was considering implementing law which would that supposed to end up "Polish death camp" controversy,

- The law was only a project and was no implemented, but for Icewhiz that case it is good enough to say that Poland tries to impose, what he calls, "Holocaust law",

- Because of this nonexistent "Holocaust law" Polish sources "are unreliable on the topic of Holocaust history".

- The situation in Poland is similar to the situation in Russia - "state control or repression" and no free speech basically.

And in the last section Icewhiz said:

- Source of German owned newspaper Dziennik are also not allowed because: "All these sources, even those critical of PiS, fall under reach of the >>Holocaust law<<"

Link to the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icewhiz#Controversies

Maybe these arguments would make sence if Poland was totalitarian regime without freedom of speach and trying to impose their own false propaganda, and I was trying to add this lying propaganda into Wikipedia's article. But all I want to add is just well documented and backup criticism of a book done by a professional historian documented by dozen of sources.

It feels like Icewhiz's opinion is a pure form of antipolonism and censorship based on offensive, false and biased arguments that are hard to understand (vide fantasies about made up "Holocaust law" and ban on Polish sources based on subjective and offensive opinions). Apart from that there are plenty of sources based on Polish newspaper in the Wikipedia and they are also allowed in the article I wanted to update - here are examples from the article about Jan Grabowski:

https://www.rp.pl/Konflikt-Polska-Izrael/180229915-Polski-historyk-Jan-Grabowski-ostrzega-Izrael-przed-dialogiem-z-Polska.html

https://www.biznesistyl.pl/kultura/oblicza-kultury/5829_.html

"Ale Historia: Prof. Jan Grabowski: Pomagaliśmy Niemcom zabijać Żydów", Gazeta Wyborcza, 17 March 2018

This whole case is example of censorship based on biases and wrong information - some updates of Wikipedia's articles are banned because of made up reasons. Please help me to add to Wikipedia the information about the arguments Piotr Gontarczyk (professional historian) used to point out mistakes from the book.

Bluffer8 (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The place to have this discussion is at the article talk page or RSN. Poland's "Holocaust Law" curtailed free speech in Polish media on the Holocaust (see article in Index on Censorship and very wide coverage on this). Adding Gontarczyk's opinions from a radio appearance to a BLP is more than questionable given that:

"Gontarczyk's work represents a highly rationalized version of the ethno-nationalist approach, legitimizing anti-Jewish violence as national self defense, based on the perception of Jews not as a group included in the Polish nation but as an "alien and harmful nation""

per academic source Finally I will note that most of Bluffer8's 52 edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk raising some serious questions.Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz words that "Finally I will note that most of Bluffer8's 52 edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk raising some serious questions" are clearly a manipulation. I have not done even one successful edit concerning Gontarczyk - all my Gontarczyk related edits have been deleted and one cannot count discussion about that deletions as "edits to Wikipedia revolve around Gontarczyk".

What I would like to add to Wikipedia are concrete arguments of professional historian, based on well documented files from Samuel Frish's criminal case. Contrary to what Icewhiz says Poland is not a regime and there is freedom of speech in Poland - the best proof of that is that the book (we are talking about) has been published in Poland (and as far as I know - in Poland only).

One can find in Internet any source that fits into its thesis that slams any person or any country (in example Gontarczyk, Poland, etc.). But this cannot undermine that Piotr Gontarczyk is well known, respected, professional historian employed in history research institute and his arguments are backed up by solid evidence.

Bluffer8 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits to 3 articles adding Gontarczyk, reverted by a number of users, and discussions of said edits (for some odd reason on my talk page, and not on BLP/n or the article's talk). This prior edit to Jedwabne pogrom is instructive - adding a paragraph denying (the mainstream academic view in all countries) Polish responsibility for the massacre and burning of Jews in a barn - sourced to a Polish-Canadian YouTube channel.Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not know what is wrong with adding testimony of living witness of Jedwabne pogrom (prior edit) unless one has problem with information that do not fit into his particular point of view - but this is not how Wikipedia should work.

In the link to Jedwabne pogrom that Icewhiz gave (prior edit) there is not a single word about Piotr Gontarczyk. Please note that Icewhiz manipulates again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluffer8 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If one submits the following sentence in Google or Duckduckgo search engine:

"piotr gontarczyk" "piotra gontarczyka" site:wikipedia.org

then it is clear that there are plenty of references to Piotr Gontarczyk and his work within Wikipedia and much, much more in other sites. If Piotr Gontarczyk is so evil, as Icewhiz says, then why is he referred so many times.

Bluffer8 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Users:user:Semarmesem123, user:Midnight-Blue766, User:Jingiby

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

---

For the article on Tartary, these users have been engaging in Vandalism. Midnight-Blue-766 first deleted all the information added recently which provided sourcing as to Tartary possibly being a country. When I warned him against Vandalism on his talk page he claimed that his "edits were in good faith" and were "not vandalism" when in reality the opposite is true due to his edit summary being "These recent edits seem to be based off early modern rumours that claimed "Tartary" was a country rather than a region"[[94]]. This is clearly not neutral. The second user Semarmesem123, then vandalized Wikipedia in this edit [[95]]. As soon as I undid the vandalism by that account another user by the Jingiby went and also vandalized the article removing maps,book and dictionary sources about Tartary[[96]]. Mountain157 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If I am allowed to defend myself here, I would like to say that my edit summaries show I was not simply vandalising the wiki, but was a genuine attempt to correct what I percieved as factual errors. To quote WP:VANDAL, the formal definition of Vandalism is "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge". Even if my edits were found to be counter-productive, I only wished to improve the factual quality of the site. I also do not believe my statements violated WP:NPOV, as it only applies to actual article content, not commentary and discussion on the article, nor do I believe that disputing a critical point in the article content via commentary like edit summaries count as violating NPOV. I, in turn, believe Mountain157 to be violating WP:AGF by consistently assuming the worst in my intentions, and believing anyone who disagreed with their interpretation of the article to be acting in bad faith. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes you did modify the content of the article by deleting alot of sources of information. That counts as a violation of WP:NPOV. You clearly were not acting in good faith since not only did you just remove sourced information related to Tartary but also removed extra regions/areas that Tartary spanned such as the Tibetan Plateau, Manchuria and East Turkestan in this edit[[97]]. When I discussed the topic on his talk page he again blatantly showed he was not neutral by comparing the existence of Tartary to the existence of "Prester John" and a "kingdom full of dog-headed people".[[98]].Mountain157 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears the only user here that actually was vandalizing was in fact Semarmesem123. Midnight-Blue's edit seemed just part of a content dispute, and Jingiby's edit appears to be actually quite constructive. This appears to be a content dispute over whether or not Tartary was a country or a region, and at what points that was. This was Semarmesem123's first edit, which seemed to be a joke edit based on a popular video game. I have warned them on their talk page. They have made no further edits. If they continue to vandalize, the right venue to report run-of-the-mill vandals is WP:AIV, not here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek:Thank you for your response. However I believe that Jingiby's edits were not constructive. Entire maps were removed by that user as well as among other sources such as Antique books including this one [[99]] that show Tartary as country along with others such as China,Japan, Siam and Persia. Well at least he still left information that up until the 18th century Tartary was considered a vast country compared to Midnight-Blue766, who blatantly showed a lack of neutrality and simply deleted everything back to the plain original version, for which there was absolutely NO citations. Nevertheless both users edits appear to be Vandalism, at least from what I can see. Mountain157 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe that Jingiby removed the sources because they were poorly formatted, their reliability was unclear, and no page numbers were provided. While perhaps they shouldn't have straight up removed them, I see why they did. Additionally, the article had an excessive number of pictures to the amount of content. Again, not sure if all of them needed to be removed, but I see why Jingiby did. Mountain157 I ask that you assume good faith from editors if their intentions seem unclear. Just because someone did something "wrong" or undid your work or made a mistake doesn't mean that they are a vandal. Instead, talk to them and try to understand their reasoning, and work together to improve the article. I don't believe that Jingiby's actions were vandalism. This still boils down to a content dispute, which you should discuss at the talk page of Tartary, or seek dispute resoloution for. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, CaptainEek. We are already discussing the issue on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Tartary Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not too sure about Jingiby's intentions but for sure I know that Midnight Blue was not at all neutral in his edits even going so far(as I have said before) to remove the regions that Tartary encompassed. We have been discussing it for quite some time now but in his responses he will keep basing his edit off of other Wikipedia articles,for which I let him know was a violation of WP:WINARS.Mountain157 (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

To offer my point of view as a counterpoint, my understanding of WP:WINRS are that they are only go so far as to citing in-article sources, not in private discussion that I brought them up in (and I have found non-Wikipedia sources to support my POV). That I disagree with your interpretation is not necessarily a violation of WP:NPOV. Maybe I was wrong in removing the list of areas Tartary allegedly encompassed, but I am not sure what policy was specifically broken in that error. Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Proposal:Indef block on Semarmesem123

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

---

• Support This is appears to be a Vandalism only account.Mountain157 (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Mountain157 Suggest you strike the second half of your above support lest you violate your topic ban on casting aspersions of sockpuppetry. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Semarmesem123 has made exactly one edit as of this posting. I have warned them on their talk page to be constructive in the future. This is hardly indeff territory. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Canadian IP socks

50.115.180.226 is another Canadian IP sock that is doing disruptive editing. There has been quite a few of these. Last night, I needed my talk page protected. It might be time to put Mark Bourrie under page protection. These socks have targeted my talk page and that entry in an outing campaign. I suspect it's one obsessed person. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE for User:Stevenhksar

• PCCW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hong Kong Telecom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stevenhksar (talk · contribs)

There was an ongoing RfC for the disputed edit in Talk:PCCW, but he just not able to understand English and policy. Admin please have a look on his blanking of the section of the article. Matthew hk (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:PAID relationship with the subject of the article:[100]. That diff is not really good communication either: bad english and shouting when not absolutely necessary.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a longer communications in User talk:Stevenhksar, which he blanked it all, after receiving ANI notice. I can use Cantonese/Chinese to communicate with him, but it is no point since this is English wikipedia. He also preformed bold merge of PCCW Mobile and CSL Mobile, but since he blanked that section of his user talk, i assumed he read that section and "understand" it should follow WP:merge. But for how hard i communicate, he still did not provide valid reason of cut a section of the article to another, or just blank it. It is not the matter which direct parent company that business division Cascade (did it ever equal to PCCW Engineering) was, it was the matter of keeping a brief section for the second-tier subsidiary of a company PCCW or not. He want to c&p to intermediate holding company Hong Kong Telecom, i disagree, i started WP:RfC for him, telling him internal email cannot be used in wikipedia as a reference, and he still not able to understand it and do his stuff again and again. Matthew hk (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Shakil9600

• Shakil9600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bajpara High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Bajpara High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The concern I have regarding this user is that they are consistently removing the R2 speedy deletion tag on the mainspace version of the page (1st page link) after I had moved the page to draftspace (2nd page link). I have sent them messages asking them to be patient with the deletion of the mainspace article and edit the draftspace version instead, however they have ignored my pleas and continued working on the page in mainspace without even acknowledging the version in draftspace (with the exception of the single submission without further improvement). I was originally going to send the page to AfD, but decided against it favoring a redirect per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Obviously, this attempt failed. I just want to see to it that this user acknowledges that their work is still present in the draftspace and edit that version instead. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User is clearly unsure how Wikipedia works. They want the page deleted yet they continue to remove the deletion templates. I left a message on their talk page telling them what was going on, because they left messages on the talk page on the redirect's talk page. I don't think they are acting maliciously.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 20:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) not sure it is log out edit or not, 101.206.168.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just restart the article from the redirect, and blanking Draft:Bajpara High School, effectively cut and paste move to revert the drafting (see Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review, it is legit to do so). Matthew hk (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

BTW it looks like logout edit or meat sock, since the ip also edited in Uthali Union, an article created by Shakil9600. As a separate issue, Afd had started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bajpara High School. Just there is no problem of blanking again. Matthew hk (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Thank you for making the AfD. Should have done that myself. I'm surprised I haven't heard back from them about them about the whole speedy deletion thing. Wasn't trying to imply what the IP was doing was wrong was just trying to ask the user if that was them. Probably shouldn't have used that template.Breawycker (talk to me!) 21:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

8chan link - revdel needed

Jürgen Eissink (talk · contribs) included a link to 8chan post by the Christchurch shooter in an edit summary here: [101]. Should it be revision deleted? Otherwise, it seems that the article page history is used to promote the manifesto. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I was not promoting the manifesto (I haven't even seen it myself), but I was just providing source to my edit, an edit that had been undone before, concerning the fact that the manifesto was not published on 8chan (which is not possible, one cannot post documents there). I have no problem with deleting the edit summary, although I don't really see a reason to do so. My point was the difference between the manifesto being posted on 8chan (which it wasn't) or linked to on 8chan, and that difference should be acknowledged. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC).

• I'm not sure what the policy is, but I'd invoke WP:IAR regardless and remove it. Many - most? - news organisations have intentionally not published it. SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Revdel needed. In addition, user should be blocked or admonished the same way as the users who tried to insert links to that massacre video earlier. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• If an admin is looking at this, this edit should also be probably be rev-deleted: [102]. Someone inserted the link to the manifesto into the body of the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the edits. I'm not going to block or admonish Jürgen Eissink, because I'm sure they won't add the link again. Also, more admin eyes on this stuff please. There's some nasty stuff lurking in the background. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I am truly shocked by the call – even after I gave my intention – for a block of my account. I thank zzuuzz for his or her moderation. Jürgen Eissink (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC).

Uncivil interactions

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

Hello all, I have grown tired of this editor acting constantly uncivil and throwing out personal attacks to editors that disagree with their innapropriate edits. This user's main problem is adding speculation and WP: OR of sources into List of Impact Wrestling personnel. Everytime someone tries to revert him and point him to Wikipedia policy on unsourced content or OR, he just yells at others for being "Wikipedia police", "beaucrauts" or "bullying him with jargon" I would like to point to these discussions as examples of this behavior: 1 2 3 4 5, 67 8 and examples of uncivil edit summaries 1 and 2 The user also logged out to edit war not that long ago [103] and [104], and he has been blocked in the past for abusing multiple accounts. They were also notified of general sanctions in the past, so I am hoping this will be more than just a slap on the wrist. StaticVapor message me! 22:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

If you'll excuse me, dear administrators, while my interaction with this user and his 2 cohorts has not necessarily been the most professional, you will find that on the page he has linked to, himself and two specific other users seem to be working under the idea that myself and 2 others must answer specifically to them. For example, recent edits by the user he is attempting to character assassinate me on behalf of have removed important links from the List Of Impact Wrestling Personnel page. Rather than agree that these edits are unhelpful as he would were they done by another user, StaticVapor simply chastised the user Chaosithe for trying to fix these edits instead. Multiple times, I have made correct edits to this page complete with sources, yet StaticVapor and his cohort HHHPedrigree have continuously interfered with my edits in an unhelpful fashion citing that simply because in their opinion, they disagree with the source, only for me to turn out to be correct. Rather than apologize, they continue with this unhelpful behaviour. As you will see from my interactions with the user StaticVapor is trying to tattle on behalf of, this user was intentionally being obstinate and passive-aggressive. I would not be as annoyed as I am and interact with these users as I do were it not for the reasons listed. If they were more fair and reasonable rather than bureaucratic and arrogant, these problems would not occur to start with.

Damolisher (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wrestling again. EEng 22:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  Incivility again. Natureium (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  That too. EEng 02:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  Gonna need an electron microscope here soon Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• User:EEng I understand that while I was on Wikibreak that you guys dealt with a lot of drama, but I had no part in that. Sorry I am not going to sit by and have to deal with disruptive editors in wrestling articles. More complicated reports at WP:AIV always go stale. StaticVapor message me! 03:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  I understand. I'm just trying to reinforce that something more has to be done about the constant, relentless craziness in this topic area. A reconsideration of what constitutes a reliable source in this area, with an eye toward radically reducing the number and scope of articles, has been talked about now and then. Now back to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress... EEng 03:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah I kinda realized if AIV doesn't work once, I have to start bringing issues here if it's not direct vandalism. So don't be surprised to hear from me again lol. Especially with general sanctions in force, this stuff should not be happening. Our Wikiproject has recently been focusing on what is and what are not, so I feel like the majority of the constructive editors have a grasp on reliable sources. Whenever someone doesn't, I'm always quick to attempt to get through to them, but it doesn't always work with everyone. StaticVapor message me! 03:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Now please, explain to me which part of being unable to take blame is not provoking me, exactly? Damolisher (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And as I stated above, "disruptive" is harassment of other users in addition to removing justified edits. Damolisher (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• The idea that Wikipedia editors are "cohorts" instead of working independently is absurd; I always try to practice good faith, but I will also call out and dispute accusations such as this. My involvement in this incident was that I merely utilized named references to make multiple uses of the same inline citations per WP:CS and WP:REFNAME, which Damolisher repeatedly referred to as unhelpful. When I suggested that they read up on those Wiki policies, they responded by snarking back at me. Some productivity, like familiarizing themselves with said policies, would have been more helpful. KyleJoan^talk 05:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I read all the diffs and more. The main problem here is not Damolisher's incivility although that is a severe complicating factor. Instead, the really big problem is that this editor aggressively disregards Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and has nothing but contempt for them.

This editor repeatedly dismisses Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as "technical jargon" and "pointless rigmarole". Evidence of Damolisher's contempt for policies and guidelines is "Ask anyone who edits these articles and they don't have the foggiest as to what the hell "WP BLEH BLEH" is." Another example is "Y'know, just a word of wisdom, citing "WP" articles doesn't *actually* have any effect on me." A third example is "Don't give me that "DA ROOLS THO" BS either." I see no evidence that this editor has ever read or tried to understand the policies and guidelines that they reject out of hand. Those are the very policies and guidelines that have made Wikipedia the #5 website in the world, so this editor's refusal to engage with them is both mystifying and unacceptable.

When Damolisher encounters other editors who try to explain the importance of our policies and guidelines, this editor calls them "bureaucrats", "bullies", "obnoxious" and "passive-aggressive". This editor accuses them of "hairsplitting", "harassment", "arrogance", "wasting my time", "one-upsmanship", "bloody gall", and "being obstinate". Evidence of Damolisher's contempt for editors who attempt to convince them to comply with policies and guidelines is "So, ya gonna send that memo to your pompous little friend who won't stop trying to bully people into her stupid hairsplitting and then telling tales when they're wrong?"

An editor who engages in mild incivility in defense of our policies and guidelines can be excused with a request to continue their work in a more civil fashion. An editor who is consistently uncivil in the process of battling against and undermining our policies and guidelines is an entirely different matter. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Damolisher, while noting that "indefinite" does not mean "forever". In order to be unblocked, Damolisher must read and understand our policies and guidelines, and make a firm commitment to comply with them 100% of the time in the future, and to take the path of collaboration rather than contempt toward their fellow editors.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• My name is DlohCierekim 06:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC) and I support this block. DlohCierekim 06:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Tvurta - again.

Straight out of a 31hour block[105] by Ymblanter on 11th March, Tvurta is again adding unsourced interpretations to Harry Potter articles, with no indication of changing their behaviour

• Addition of "Professor" to Snape's name[106] - after being reverted on this before
• Addition of OR for occupation[107] on Harry Potter article

Tvurta is still not responding to any request to discuss their edits, nor are they using edit summaries - in fact a look at edit history shows that they've never used an edit summary, but they have been asked to do so here.[108]

Edits were made to HP after an L4 warning was placed on their talk page[109]

Given the number of attempts to reach out on the editors talk page - and talk pages of the various articles - nothing seems to be getting through. Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Since this editor is fresh off a block and immediately returned to various types of disruptive editing, I have blocked them for one week, with a firm admonition against resuming these behaviors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Ted hamiltun

Ted hamiltun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ted hamiltun made some very sporadic edits since the account got created in 2017, but his activities suddenly intensified in March 2019.

• Using the ethnicity/race card when dealing with other users ("removed by an Iranian user" : [110] "source being reverted by whose appear to be from Persian Editors community" [111]).

• Constantly WP:FORUM text on talk pages (often along with WP:PA comments), deliberately misintepreting sources and Persistently edit-warring ( blocked few days ago : [112]), here are some examples : [113], [114], [115], [116]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it seems this user is only here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by being WP:TENDENTIOUS on every level. Thus, we can conclude that he/she is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. I report him here since this has been suggested by an admin on AN3 : [117].---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Mountain157

Mountain157 (talk · contribs) is pushing their POV onto the article on Tartary, attempting to pass a fringe theory that claims Tartary to have been a historical country whose existence was suppressed after its demise as undisputed fact wrong section, please see here instead. In Talk:Tartary they have constantly levelled personal attacks against me, accusing me of violating various Wikipedia policies when I attempted to revert the article to a Neutral POV in an attempt to discredit me even after an administrator ruled that "many of Mountain157's accusations are unsupported and constitute personal attacks" above. (Though I have previously opened a content dispute, I believe it to no longer applies and have requested it be closed) Midnight-Blue766 (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This user did not try to revert to a Neutral POV. He removed various sources, and maps that had to do with Tartary possibly being a country[[118]] back to a version that had no sources at all. I am not pushing any "fringe theory" despite this user claiming that I do. That itself actually constitutes a personal attack because WP:FRINGENOT says that accusing others of Fringe theories is often cited in discussions and edit summaries to demonized viewpoints which contradict their own, for which this user has exhibited on multiple occasions such as comparing the existence of Tartary to "Glester John"[[119]] and claiming the sources I added were "outdated by centuries".I cited a CIA document [[120]] that talks about the re-writing of Tatar history by the Soviet Union, so I am pretty sure this is a reliable source. [[121]]. Mountain157 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks like this user has opened up another another notice against me so I am moving this here[[122]]. Mountain157 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mountain157: The main source I see you used was this book, published before 1832. Its no wonder that Midnight-Blue766 reverted the edits based on it. I think part of the problem here is that the source is using outdated terminology. It refers to Tamerlane as emperor of the Tartars, when he was in fact emperor of the Timurid Empire. Newer, more reliable sources are needed. Even if the CIA source claims that the Soviets rewrote history, the Soviet empire has been dead for decades. Should Tartary be a real place, then modern scholarship should be able to confirm that fact. This boils down to a content dispute, one which should be handled in a civil manner, using reliable sources. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Midnight-Blue766: Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks by Mountain157, aside from the content of the previous ANI involving yourself and M157? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Our article Tartary is in terrible shape and is a perfect opportunity for a competent editor who understands Central Asian history to do some good work. A poorly refererenced article on an obscure topic is fertile ground for fringe editing. There is a serious underlying problem because this topic is a subset of a fringe disinformation theory called New Chronology (Fomenko) which is one of the most sweeping and disruptive and bizarre conspiracy theories of the last 50 years. Wikipedia editors simply cannot allow this delusion to infect our articles, although we must describe the theory itself in neutral terms. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)