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

Incivility help

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

You were warned about bludgeoning because, even as the discussion was winding down and we were waiting for others to comment, you kept replying over and over to every single comment (often with two comments at a time) restating your position. As the discussion died down, you were told by both me and TheJoebro64 that there's no reason to keep going in circles and we need to allow others to comment, and you still kept trying to burying the thread with your replies because the discussion wasn't going your way. As soon as Joebro mentioned something about an RfC and I stated that I was about to open a fourth Arbitrary Break to wrap up the discussion and gather final comments/votes, you immediately rushed to open an Abitrary Break yourself [1], [2], [3] [4] just to restate your position (for the umpteenth time) and rant about how "But consensus is not based off of votes!!!"

• Popfox3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Then, almost immediately after you opened the Arbritary Break, Popfox3 shows up to the discussion and becomes the only user to strongly support you in that entire thread. This user only has six edits to their account. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and they're all recent. Every single one of the accounts edits are at Talk:DC Extended Universe, taking the same position as DisneyMetalhead in discussions. The only two exceptions were from yesterday, when the account came to defend DMH and then added a space [11], [12] to their username and talk page, to create those pages and get rid of the redlink (in order to look less suspicious).

@DisneyMetalhead: Not only were you guilty of WP:BLUDGEON and opened an ANI report as soon as you were warned to stop, but give us one good reason why we shouldn't open a WP:SPI. Your only defense so far for bludgeoning has been "just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm bludgeoning", which immediately falls apart under scrutiny. DarkKnight2149 18:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As if that wasn't evidence enough of WP:SOCKing, DisneyMetalhead's account was registered in September 2016 [13]. Popfox3 was registered only a month later in October 2016 [14]. So far, Popfox's only defense has been "actually I'm not a sock because my account was registered in 2016 and I simply didn't use it until recently." [15] In other words, "I didn't use my account until I needed to support DisneyMetalhead at Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions." DarkKnight2149 19:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

While that does appear suspicious, you need to be clear, DK - are you stating, without equivocation, that DMh and Popfox3 are the same user? If so, you need to come out and call for a SPI investigation and file the report. I get how, if it is true, it is infuriating (I've had the same accusation made about me as well, and it is a stain that - if not specifically debunked - remains forever), but you cannot even make the accusation as part of an argument without having created an SPI report. As upset as you might be at DMh, tainting their reputation is completely unwarranted without a truckload of proof. Submit the report, await the results and frame your argument accordingly. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: It is not just DisneyMetalhead's reputation that is being tainted. I finally have time to attempt to contribute, and I immediately have accusations hurled at me and a potential investigation into my account, all because I agreed with a user in a discussion. I am NOT a sock puppet, and it is infuriating and humiliating that I have to go through this and have my reputation tainted before I even really do anything. I actually welcome an investigation if that's what it'll take to get Darknight2149 to stop. This is ridiculous. Popfox3 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I understand that, throughout the discussion, you have tried to be the middle man of the discussion who has tried to find a middle ground between everyone involved. However, there is no middle ground here. DisneyMetalhead's behaviour fits the exact parameters of WP:BLUDGEON. My point is that there is overwhelming evidence that Popfox3 is a sock puppet of DisneyMetalhead. I'm waiting for administrator feedback first, but I probably am going to have to open a WP:SPI at some point today. I'm not clairvoyant, but from what I can see, this more than warrants a checkuser. DarkKnight2149 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that DisneyMetalhead stop reply-spamming at Talk:DC Extended Universe, and give others a chance to comment. For the moment, unless someone addresses me or something I said, I will be doing the same. DarkKnight2149 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Popfox3 - I am not going to reply directly to your comments as, at best, you are an SPA, and not really worthy of comment. At worst you are a sock, and I literally will not waste any further time (apart from this single comment) to interact with you until you either build a more diverse set of edits and an SPI comes back as unrelated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 I myself have been accused of BLUDGEON (even before the term came into fashion); it comes from being young and unwilling to consider other viewpoints; a person doing so is absolutely convinced that the other editors suffer from anterograde amnesia and won't remember the previous comments make. Its rather disrespectful and I cringe at the fact that I used to be that way.

Understand that DMh is likely young and needs a bit more marinating in the Stew of Life before being taken seriously. If they are socking, they deserve every single awful thing that Wikipedia can do to them (please forgive my draconian view on this, but it will not be softening or changing - socks deserve the Swift Sword of Icky Death, imo). I would have suggested on their talk page that they give other the chance to respond before addressing the comments en toto and not piecemeal. If that failed to work, get an RfC; don't wait for it, just start one. Lots of eyes will come to the page and if DMh keeps doing that, their comments will likely boomerang back onto themselves.

I think an ANI is bit much (as you skipped a step), unless you are seeking help on how to correct the problem. If you came here seeking punishment for DMh and Popfox3, you've done this incorrectly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I didn't skip a step. I actually did leave DisneyMetalHead a message asking for them to cool it down, and they retaliated by filing this report. I didn't file it. This is a WP:BOOMERANG scenario.

To be honest, I don't buy Popfox3's story at all. When I was a newbie, I didn't even understand what a talk page was or the discussion process until a few weeks or so in. Yet his/her supposed first (and only) order of business is to only reply to Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions? And they happen to take all of the same positions as DisneyMetalHead? And they happened to show up to the thread just as DMH was growing more and more desperate and overzealous, and the thread was seemingly leading to a close or a RFC? And as soon as they supported DMH, they created a blank userpage and talk page to get rid of the redlink and make their lack of activity less obvious? And their account was created just a month after DisneyMetalHead's? Yeah, everything about this smells fishy. I already have a WP:SPI tab open. I will alert this thread when the report is filed. DarkKnight2149 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you you following the necessary steps, Darkknight2149 dotting your 'i's' and crossing your 't's'. Maybe hold off on talking any more about your suspicions regarding the connections between DMh ad Popfox3 until after the SPI. The ANI is to deal with tendentious editing behavior or personal attacks, which DMh correctly did; accusing them of being part of a socking is a PA unless proven, as the lack of AGF is apparent. Others will offer far more wise advice than I. I am suggesting you don't make any further comments regarding the SPI until it is complete. Focus on what you feel is DMh's disruptive editing behaviors as you see them, because I can guarantee that the user is doing the same here.

The hardest lesson I had to learn in Wikipedia is that trying to verbally annihilate another user in an edit summary or in talk is counterproductive; how can you even wrap your head around working with someone like that ever again, hating them that much? The short answer is that you cannot. You have to just walk away for a while and let them dig a big enough hole for themselves, jump in and start throwing dirt on themselves. You can sit by the side an eat popcorn or whatever. Just stay above their personal implosion. The point is that you point out a problem, and allow the larger contingent of very smart people here figure out how to resolve that problem. Anyone is prone to mistakes, but not a larger group of thinkers, like you see in Wikipedia. Give the system a chance to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I have used and browsed Wikipedia for a very long time. Long before I made my account and after I forgot about it for several years. I always viewed the talk pages for articles that I was interested in to see the kinds of discussions that were taking place and how decisions were made for edits. When I noticed that New Gods had been removed from the In-Development section on the DCEU page and that there was an active discussion on the talk page that I desired to contribute to, I attempted to create a new account and in so doing discovered my old one. It wasn't too hard to Google how to edit on the Talk pages. I have been very busy recently and only had time to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the page status yesterday. Everything that you are pointing out is purely coincidental, and I'm glad that you are filing an SPI report because I look forward to being vindicated! Popfox3 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Darkknight2149 your vehement beliefs that User:Popfox3 is me through WP:SockPuppetry is humorous. File your WP:SPI and you'll just come to find that you were wrong. I'll wait patiently for your apology. User:Jack Sebastian, I awarded you on your page for being a mediator throughout the discussion and for trying to stay neutral. I've appreciated those things. I would point out that your response to Popfox3 is not the most welcoming comment to a recently registered editor, but your opinions are your own. It's unfortunate that Darkknight2149's behavior requires admin input. I will continue to provide input (with their reliable sources) in any discussion that I'm a part of. Regardless of whether DK2149 likes it or not.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "It's unfortunate that Darkknight2149's behavior requires admin input." You mean asking you to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, or alerting the discussion to the indisputable suspiciousness of the Popfox3 situation? (I have around 10 notifications from you just from the last few days alone...) I'd say at least of those certainly requires administrator input. It just might not be the administrator input you want. The SPI will sort that out regardless, so there's no reason for me to keep harping on it here.

I hope you and Popfox3 aren't bluffing, because if this turns out to be a coincidence and Popfox3 really is just a single-purpose account, that's one heck of a coincidence (or rather, multiple coincidences at once). So far, two other users have backed up the suspiciousness of the situation, so I'm not sure what result you're expecting by filing this report. DarkKnight2149 23:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, by their own admission, Popfox has been here for several years; they aren't a "recently registered user". I have little respect for SPAs and far less respect if they are indeed a sock account. As per BEANS, I'm not going to point out why Popfox3 is a red flag. I am giving them the consideration of not bothering to talk to them until the conclusion of the SPI.

As well, you should hold off on commenting after every. single. comment. in a discussion. People are not stupid. Given folk a chance to compare your clearly stated view with others. No one is going to assume that you have magically dropped your objections if you don't say anything for a day or two. Let others weigh in. That is the advice I would give you on preventing friction in the discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: As stated before, I will continue to wait for the apology. Funny thing is, there's one editor here who is jumping to conclusions and "pointing fingers" - and it's not me. Meanwhile I remain calm, and simply would like some assistance from an admin with the entire discussion. I have continued to respond to comments/placed input/and added new sources to the discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe. Though accused of WP:BLUDGEONing, that has not been my intention. I have simply attempted to respond to statements, and contribute to the article with reliable sources. As a sidenote: any and all users - whether non-ANNON/new/old/etc, can constructively contribute to articles. No one should discourage them anyhow. @Jack Sebastian: I'll be hot-tubbing in your Stew of Life with the Swift Sword of Icky Death, waiting for the WP:ANI to prove that User:Popfox3 is not associate with me at all **emphasis on humor intended**. I wonder however, what you think of the recent sources in the discussion - since you contributed to the discussion earlier. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn elsewhere, DisneyMetalhead. I think that others can get involved in the discussion. I made my opinion known and that should be enough. I am sorry of you took offense at the 'Stew of Life' comment; I see a lot of how I used to act in your behavior, and I am not trying to shame you into being better, but I think its fair to say that the vibe you are putting out there is not having a positive effect on other editors. You don't need to respond to every comment. You just don't. Sit back and let the collaborative discussion happen without you having to reiterate your points (unless directly challenged or asked). There is no hurry. And I've said about Popfox3 all I am going to until the result of the SPI.

Darkknight2149, please include a link to the SPI request, for the purposes of discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Sorry for the slight wait. It will be up soon. DarkKnight2149 03:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian The Stew of Life comment I just made, was meant to be funny. To clarify I did not take offense, and I believe that some of my comments are being read/taken in a sinister/argumentative nature when they are not intended to be. I appreciate your candor and your peace-keeping angle throughout the discussion. I have no ill-will towards anyone on WP, and simply am trying to preserve the integrity of an article. I know that I don't have to response to every comment, but when I am the sole input out of 3 editors, stating why I disagree with the notion (up until @Popfox3: that is) - I was merely attempting to provide all the resources that support my argument. I will wait for that SPI 'investigation' to be over with, and I hope at that point there are some apologies that go around. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Continued bludgeoning from DisneyMetalhead

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

User:DK2149; your anger is evident on each thread. However, an ongoing discussion that has not reached remotely any consensus, can/should/will be continued with new and updated sources. There was no WP:BLUDGEONing in a message that was my attempts to ping various/additional users who have contributed to the article. I have not replied to "every single comment" nor has there been any "agress[ion]". If you choose to read my comments as such, that's entirely in your error. My attempts here are to preserve and article. I've already stated why I submitted this request to admins. It has nothing to do with the reasoning you just said. In the meantime, @Popfox3: and I are still waiting for you to file your SPI...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No one here is "angry" and WP:BLUDGEON is defined as "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for Deletion, Request for Comment, WP:ANI, an article talk page or even another user's talk page. Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view." You have absolutely been doing this in spades. There also has been a consensus so far, which you are trying to change by replying constantly with the same arguments over and over, while also trying to argue why the standing consensus isn't valid because you don't like it. Every time you have provided "sources", they have either failed to justify your point or failed to contradict the majority viewpoint in the discussion (for the same reasons explained repeatedly). Your more recent sources are no exception.

The discussion is going in a literal merry-go-round. And as the thread died down and as soon as opening a RFC or wrapping the thread up by taking final comments/votes was mentioned, you immediately jumped in with a new section just to espouse all of the same points all over again and create excuses for why the consensus isn't a consensus. Everyone there understands your position perfectly well. Trying to burying the thread in comments (often at least two comments at once) to try and get your point across is highly disruptive. We get it. Until other users have had a chance to comment, you need to drop the stick and lay off the discussion. As previously mentioned, I have well over 20 notifications from you just from the last few days alone, all from the same discussion. Do I need to post a screenshot? DarkKnight2149 19:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

Main page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisneyMetalhead

The sock puppet investigation has been filed.

• @DisneyMetalhead: You are currently under investigation for suspected sock puppetry.
• @Popfox3: You are currently under investigation for suspected sock puppetry.

DarkKnight2149 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

To note, the users have been found unrelated by a check user. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted (and I myself pointed it out at the SPI even before the CU was requested) that this could be a likely outcome of any CU as it seems that different IP addresses would be in use for each account in purpose to avoid detection, as per DisneyMetalhead's own acknowledgement that they knew Popfox3's IP address was "nowhere near mine" (sic) despite WP:WIA barring any user sort of a Checkuser from knowing such details, and their repeated taunts for a SPI to be filled – they simply knew any CU wouldn't work. Impru20^talk 00:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have also left an inquiry for Bbb23 on this topic. The evidence tells me that there is too much here for this to be a coincidence. The fact that others were able to dig up even more damning evidence of a connection (such as DisneyMetalhead being telepathically aware of Popfox's IP address) means that this has to be a WP:MEAT situation at the very least. DarkKnight2149 00:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Prefall just noted they've gotten away with socking while logged out in the past, so I have a hard time believing that there's genuinely no connection between DMH and Popfox. JOEBRO64 00:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

All that I can say is that I do not know DisneyMetalhead and was actually taken aback by their IP Address comment because I wouldn't even know how to go about checking that (and from what I am gathering, is in fact impossible without Check User privileges). I took the same position as them in a discussion, it is as simple as that. All the "evidence" used to attempt to prove otherwise is completely coincidental, and nothing more. Popfox3 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like even more evidence is unravelling about DisneyMetalhead having possibly behaved similarly in the past, this time while logged out ([17]). This would correlate to them having acknowledged themselves in a past discussion on 24 January that "I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames" (sic). Aside of the presented evidence, any claim of editing with alternative accounts would forcefully require them identifying as such on their user page—or not trying to actively deceive other editors in the case of editing while logged out—which does not seem to be the case here. Impru20^talk 01:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Popfox3: You were "taken aback" by DisneyMetalhead's IP address comment at 17:33, 8 February 2020, yet still said nothing about it until now, came to this ANI thread in their defense at 19:52, 8 February 2020 without making any mention at such circumstance and even replied by thanking them for their "kindness", "courtesy" and "warm welcome" at 05:22, 9 February 2020? I would surely not be "looking forward to work" nor would be so excited with someone with whom I am "taken aback" because they somehow know about my IP address. Seems odd to say the least. Impru20^talk 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course I would defend and be excited to work with Disneymetalhead, because they are the one user who have attempted to make me feel welcome at Wikipedia. Try looking at it from my point of view. I contribute to a discussion and am immediately attacked and accused of being a sock puppet account. Multiple times in this ANI thread I have endured personal attacks against the credibility of my account and explanation for the coincidences and was told by one user that I was not even worth talking to, and this was well before an SPI was even officially filed. So forgive me for being willing to defend the ONE user who has been willing to defend me and attempt to make me feel welcome as an editor at Wikipedia. Popfox3 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Then how do you explain this? Moreover, why did you claim that Popfox's IP address is "nowhere near" yours? I'm not alone when I say this - None of this adds up. DarkKnight2149 01:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

How do I explain what exactly? I just stated that I don't know the user known as Popfox3. Assume WP:GOODFAITH, and understand that I misspoke - stating how I thought it would be proved...through IPs. I stated that they are nowhere near me - because they aren't me. Cheers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If they're not you, then how would you know where their IP address is? That's a very specific way of putting it. But back to my first question, how do you explain the strong evidence of socking between you and 206.81.136.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) presented by Prefall at the SPI? This wasn't a simple case of logged out editing, because you directly interacted with the IP as if it were a separate user. Also worth mentioning, Popfox3 made their first non-DC Extended Universe edits today by making some edits at Harry Potter articles and joining the Harry Potter Task Force, and even that is a topic area that you have been known to edit in the past [18], [19], [20]. As others have pointed out, checkusers can detect proxies and VPNs, but they can't necessarily detect if you are using a long distance IP from another computer or instances of WP:MEAT. DarkKnight2149 04:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, would you care linking to your previous account(s)? The account isn't deleted, as it's impossible to delete an account. JOEBRO64 12:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I was going to comment about this. DisneyMetalhead claims he had "a different profile" (singular) years ago and that "the username" (singular again) was then "deleted"; however, Wikipedia profiles can't be deleted as per WP:FAQ and WP:UNC. Further, they relate to just one previous account here despite having previously referred to "various usernames" on 24 January and claiming in their own userpage that they "have been for years as an unregistered editor, and previously other editing profiles that were since abandoned/unregistered". On this, it is remarkable that their userpage initially claimed, in March 2017, that they "have been for years under an unregistered editor name" only. It was not until June 2019 that they made mention to "other editing profiles". And they edited it again to add the "that were since abandoned/unregistered" bit at 01:51, 10 February 2020, this is, in response to my comment earlier at 01:02 where I pointed out that they had previously claimed having had several usernames.

If DisneyMetalhead did use other accounts in the past, which do obviously still exist because they can't be unregistered or deleted, their identity must be disclosed. We can't have an user apparently having undisclosed sleeper accounts around here, as that's a potential hotbed for socking and even block evasion.

On the IP issue, the concern is not that DisneyMetalhead claimed having a different IP than Popfox3 (that would be obvious if they are different people). The issue is that they claimed that Popfox3's IP was "nowhere near mine". You can't know where a IP range originates from without knowing such an IP address beforehand, thus being impossible to determine whether it is near or far from your own.

It's also becoming very obvious that Popfox3 is only commenting in places where DisneyMetalhead is present. Indeed, their user talkpage discussions are becoming a near-insult at pretending they are different people. The way the two accounts are engaging to each other is not natural at all (Further, it wasn't DisneyMetalhead who opened this ANI thread? One would think they know nothing about it from this comment.... This has gone beyond WP:BOOMERANG already). Impru20^talk 14:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

We definitely need to get some admin involvement. I think it's safe to say there's definitely something fishy going on here. JOEBRO64 21:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Question: Honest question (this may perhaps show my lack of tech-savviness)... how do I look at when an article was created? There was one article created with my previous editor log-in.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, previously when I stated that I had used other 'log-ins' I was being ambiguous as to how many... and when I added that I did not know that it was not allowed to have multiple. That is why I have adjusted it to state what I had originally meant.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, you should just go into the article history and keep going back until you get to the earliest revision. JOEBRO64 23:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: If you inform us on what the article is, we can find it for you. DarkKnight2149 07:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Upon searching my old user-name, the page no longer exists... with some further digging, reviewing articles I have edited years ago, as well as talk-page discussions that I was involved with - I found an ANI regarding incivility allegations in 2016, with a discussion regarding some edits I had done years ago. They can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933 #User:Burningblue52.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The account in question is Lorem ipsum5656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is indefinitely blocked, and I'm not entirely sure why you didn't just retract the supposed legal threat (and become immediately unblocked) instead of creating a new account two weeks later. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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

You are telling me you have been evading a block for four years? Wow.

That's not how WP:FRESHSTART works. It is explicit in that Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions imposed (including, but not limited to, those listed here); or is currently or about to be formally discussed for their conduct (such as at an administrative noticeboard or in an open case with the Arbitration Committee); or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start. You can't just create a new account because your previous one was indeffed, then claim it is a "clean start". That's anything but "clean". Impru20^talk 00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

On top of the apparent socking with IP addresses, this would blatantly and unambiguously fall under WP:Block evasion. DarkKnight2149 05:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Seemingly, their previous account did acknowledge already in September 2016 having been an editor "under various emails and usernames". Plus, under the DisneyMetalhead account they attempted to pose as if the two of them were two entirely different and unrelated editors (diff). Considering all presented evidence, it is very likely that this older account isn't the only one or even the first one being operated by this person. Impru20^talk 12:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I just remembered something. I thought this account sounded familiar, and it turns out, I have a history with Lorem ipsum5656. Lorem is actually Burningblue52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who actually had an extensive history of original research, WP:CIR, restoring edits reverted by multiple editors against consensus, and a whole list of other problems. Burningblue52 renamed their account right before they were blocked, and they weren't blocked for no reason. If Burningblue and DisneyMetalHead are the same user, that's definitely a major problem. DarkKnight2149 19:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Tagging Doug Weller, who blocked Lorem ipsum5656/Burningblue52 the first time. DarkKnight2149 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, this certainly answers a lot of questions I had. I'm absolutely stunned and saddened that DMH has been block evading for years now. I think we need to keep doing some digging to see if we can find any other potential sleepers/previously blocked accounts, as this is by no means a small issue. JOEBRO64 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

If DMH has been doing that, shouldn't they be blocked by this point? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

We're still waiting for an administrator response. DarkKnight2149 23:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment from TheJoebro64

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just so everyone is aware, this thread has been open for nearly 20 days and (despite unanimous consensus that block evasion and bludgeoning took place, and clear evidence of sleeper accounts) the case still hasn't received administrator attention. Not that there's any rush, but given the threat of a premature archive, someone might consider adding a DNAU template. DarkKnight2149 02:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I added the DNAU template for 45 days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

45 days is extraordinarily excessive. At this point, I don't think this is a matter admins are willing to censure anyone over, and it's dragging on. Adding another month and a half is not going to improve matters at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's a little excessive. I've shortened it down to at least 10 days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Just a note to let everyone know that an admin is reviewing this discussion & taking appropriate actions. -- llywrch (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• This thread is a month old. Um... ? EEng 06:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikieditor19920

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

This report makes no allegation of a violation other than trying to Poison the well. User:Mr. Vernon suggested at an AfD discussion (Murder of Tessa Majors) on an article about a murder that the victim's race was the only reason that reliable source sources had reported on it. Further, they based their delete vote on this reasoning, which completely disregards AfD guidelines and frankly violates WP:NOTFORUM. I raised an issue with the editor about this, and they have since repeatedly posted on my talk page to challenge me about it, restoring a thread I had deleted violating my right to WP:BLANK.

In addition to beating a WP:DEADHORSE on my talk page, this user is also canvassing [24][25][26][27] "support" for this thread. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not use quotes around something I did not say. I never said the victim's race. I did say that if she were of another race, she wouldn't be getting this kind of press coverage, and the article I linked to has peer-reviewed data to back up that assertion. Second, this isn't WP:CANVASSING; there cannot be an attempt to move the needle on consensus because ANI does not operate based on consensus. These users have had interactions recently with this user and may want to provide input; but that's all they can provide, input. All of these users have had interaction with this user recently about this specific AfD (and only those users.) Notifying them that there is an ongoing discussion seems correct. If it IS canvassing (or otherwise against another policy that I am not aware of), please let me know ASAP and I will remove the notifications and apologize for getting it wrong, and accept whatever punishment I get for breaking the rules. Also, the "vote" (which it isn't, AfDs run based on consensus) had nothing to do with this, but rather my reading of WP:EVENT and determining notability guidelines for crime based on a reading of the material; see here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User acknowledges that they said what I said they said (I italicized for emphasis, didn't use quotes) and asks if they can unring a bell re: WP:CANVAS. Over a comment that I agreed to disagree with them on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Odd, I thought Canvassing was more like this attempt to solicit a user's "vote" into the AfD you are involved with. Did I get that wrong? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The above diff shows that I solicited the advice of an uninvolved admin about an article possibly qualifying for WP:SPEEDYKEEP, whose position I had no idea about beforehand. Indeed, the admin disagreed with me. You are going around asking for editors who you believe will be on your side because they either a) agreed with you at the AfD discussion (constituting a small minority), b) have had disagreements with me in the past, or c) both, to "chime in," or rather, gang up on an ANI thread. Apples and oranges. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Followup on canvassing: my mistake, I interpreted the article to apply to matters of consensus only. I've rolled back the changes, and as far as I know those editors have not read it (they have not posted here or tried to contact me.) It's up to the admins how they want to handle it. Of course the edits are still there (Wikieditor19920 has linked to them) so they can be examined and the appropriate action taken. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And for repeatedly restoring a deleted thread (yours) to my talk page? Was that a mistake as well? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, how is that inflammatory comment?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam—is it proper to imply that the article exists because the victim is a white woman? Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop that's not what he/she said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam—why are you saying "that's not what he/she said"? Of course that's "what he/she said". And Mr. Vernon goes on to say "If she were of another race, there wouldn't be this kind of coverage." Also User:LaraGingerbread responds to Mr. Vernon saying "So Tessa's case got attention because she's white?" The whiteness of a victim is not a reason to delete an article. Such comments can be considered extraneous to a deletion discussion. And possibly a violation of WP:FORUM. Mr. Vernon is still writing (4 days ago) "Furthermore Missing white woman syndrome is an input here. She is getting significant coverage because she's a young attractive white woman." I don't think Wikipedia second-guesses sources and looks skeptically on sources based on our belief that we know what motivates sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Question Is it permissible to ping the talk pages of an admin to ask them to Speedy Keep an article going through AfD? I've read WP:SK and it gives very limited reasons for doing so, none of which apply here. WP:SNOW wasn't even applying (not at the time, anyway.) I've always thought that the folks at AfD do a good job of monitoring and applying Speedy Keep/Snow/etc. when they apply without needing to go around asking. It also seems odd that once the admin said no, Wikieditor19920 kept pushing [28] [29]. This is an honest question - is this ok to do? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wikieditor19920 appears to be WP:BLUDGEONING at this AfD. Not only 14 additions to the AfD (one now gone), but editing another user's edit[30] and posting to three user TPs [31] [32] [33]. I suggest a warning to let others !vote without harrassment. O3000 (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And now the canvassing kicks in. I'll note that User:Objective3000 is criticizing me for my number of contributions at an AfD, while exhibiting the same behavior at a move discussion for that same page. Ironically, 03000 took the AfD as another opportunity to attempt to re-litigate the move discussion, which was completely irrelevant.

User:Mr. Vernon purports he didn't know that canvassing was a technical violation, but common sense should hold that seeking out other editors to gang up on someone is not in accordance with WP policy. He actually violated 3 tenets of canvassing with this thread: 1) posting a non-neutral message "chime in... Wikieditor is getting absurd..." 2) to a non-neutral audience (those he believes more likely to agree with him for reasons above) and 3) perhaps spamming (posting the same message rapidly on 4 different user talkpages). It's difficult to believe that this was an unintentional innocent mistake, and you can't unring a bell.

Lastly, this user forced me to delete his thread from my talk page four times [34][35][36][37] to challenge me on something I had already acknowledged, our disagreement about his comment, and which there was nothing further to say about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am confused about how an editor can force you to remove something from a talk page. Being very proactive about pruning a conversation from a talk page (as in, within a few minutes) seems like a choice. Your comment is still on my talk page; what of it? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You are not entitled to restore comments to my talk page that I have deleted. Removal is an acknowledgment that I have read it, as were my (multiple) responses. WP:BLANK, WP:TPG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

All involved need to stop bickering here and at the AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, which is why I suggested a warning about bludgeoning with no sanction. O3000 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'd love to. It should be kept at the AfD. And if Wikieditor19920 did that, as is the case for most AfDs, that would be fantastic. But they take it to my talk page. They [edit my comments. They harass the person who nominated the article for AfD on their talk page. They request a speedy keep from an admin and harass them after they say no to the point where the admin says "I must also admit some curiosity as to what you think you'll accomplish, practically speaking. It should be clear by now I'm not going to change my mind." I'm wondering if this user is here to build an encyclopedia or not. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Simply, the user needs to stop bludgeoning debates in which they are invested. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 16 is not too impressive, as is the AfD mentioned above. Pretty much all of their last 90 edits are related to those two issues. I don't particularly mind the issue of my talk page; after all, I'm an admin and get pinged for stuff regularly - however this assumed bad faith. Oh, and "If you can find the sources to meet GNG, then it is notable" is nonsense, which seems to be all too often repeated at AfD. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Aggressive bludgeoning is WE19920's main mode of interaction on talk pages; a stern warning from an attentive admin is sorely needed. --JBL (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis—Wikieditor19920 nicely asks Mr. Vernon on their Talk page if they would consider striking their comment. They explain that the comment is "in very poor taste in an AfD discussion like the one above". And Wikieditor19920 nicely asks Cryptic on their Talk page about the same subject. I will point out that Cryptic says that this incident "shouldn't have gotten the disproportionate media coverage it has". No, that is not what Wikipedia is about. We follow sources. Sources clearly enunciate that the Murder of Tessa Majors is interpreted by some to herald a return to high crime rates in New York City.[38] Wikipedia does not get to decide that the incident "shouldn't have gotten the disproportionate media coverage it has". Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop I see that you have learned nothing from your recently expired topic ban. --JBL (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

JBL—there are often two sides to a story, and I feel it is important to support somebody being treated shabbily. I think I am weighing in to this discussion in a measured manner. Thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't want to be blocked again. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite—you say "Simply, the user needs to stop bludgeoning debates". An overly simplistic understanding of the current juncture might find that you should not have initiated the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tessa Majors. It is OK to have such a discussion—why should we have an article on Murder of Tessa Majors? We can discuss this. But it has to be done in a civil manner. That should not include an extraneous comment about Missing white woman syndrome. That comment immediately followed your nomination of the article for deletion. I don't think that is what you had in mind. You made no mention of race in your explanation for why you were nominating this article for deletion. The comment should have been expunged and that is simply what Wikieditor19920 was endeavoring to do. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Mr. Vernon—your comment about Missing white woman syndrome was illogically placed near the top of that discussion, right after the nomination of the article for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Bus stop: That's because it was I saw the AfD a few minutes after it went live and replied to it immediately. As far as I know that's the basic order of AfDs, top-level comments are in chronological order, which is why my input (keep or delete) is much further down the page. I'm not sure why I saw the AfD so soon, but I had been watching that page closely due to issues regarding posting the names of the suspects (not by anyone involved here) and of course when I'm looking out for vandalism, watching recent changes/new pages is a must. --Mr. Vernon (talk)

• You don't mention race in your deletion argument therefore in my opinion your comment about Missing white woman syndrome is gratuitous and needlessly inflammatory. Bus stop (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

That's fine, but User:Mr. Vernon has now 1) violated my talkspace by restoring a thread that I intentionally deleted, multiple times, and 2) has filed a frivolous ANI report over an issue that had ended (my striking of a comment he made at an AfD discussion, that wasn't part of his vote, and with an explanation, which he objected to and that I took no further action on) and 3) engaged in blatant canvassing to unduly influence an ANI thread against me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Further, the fact that this user would try to compensate for the lack of any perceptible reason to have come to ANI in this instance by trying to create prejudice with a full history of any time I've been involved in an ANI thread (which is limited and never resulted in any sanction), in addition to the canvassing, is a complete misuse of what ANI is for. WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, this user is not allowed to restore any comments to my talk page, once, twice, or at all. And repeatedly re-opening a thread title that I deleted with new comments is just as much of a restoration as his restoring a deleted conversation thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The main question, in my opinion, concerns the propriety/impropriety of striking through a flippant comment on race. I wanted to do something about the comment "What makes this one unusual?" Please see Missing white woman syndrome—but I did not. It is a response to the Nom (Black Kite) asking What makes this one unusual? There in fact may be a racial component to the Murder of Tessa Majors but it is imperative that any such racial component be addressed in a serious way. The comment was out of place. If I would have done something, I probably would have outright reverted it. In general, I support Wikieditor19920's striking through of what I am terming a flippant statement. The statement is not respectful of anyone—not black people, not white people—and we can know that it was not intended with complete seriousness because there was no followthrough—that line of argument was not continued in Mr. Vernon's actual deletion argument. In fact there is no mention of race in Mr. Vernon's actual deletion argument. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The comment was perfect.

-EEng

• Except judging by your comment you have not understand what that editor said. It was a perfect comment. The editor asked why that was unusual and that was the right reply, showing why the media is extensively covering the story. It was not inappropriate.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, LOL, good one. My English is still developing and I listen to Trump all the time. He has some influence on my English.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  I certainly hope you're joking. EEng 15:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Has this thread gone far enough into the Twilight Zone yet? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call ANI.

-EEng

I think of ANI as more like the Towaway Zone. EEng 01:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• SharabSalam—if the idea of Missing white woman syndrome was a part of a cogent argument for the deletion of the article Murder of Tessa Majors, wouldn't we expect that concept to be invoked in the actual deletion argument posted by Mr. Vernon? We do not. Nor do we see any reference to race. If it was such a "perfect comment" then why doesn't Mr. Vernon use that comment or related concepts in their deletion argument? Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop - you're missing the point completely. Whether the AfD I started was correct or not, the editor has been bludgeoning discussions that he doesn't agree with (not to mention heading off to other editor's talk pages to annoy them), and he needs to stop doing it. This was quite clearly pointed out above. This is not about the validity or otherwise of a particular AfD or DRV. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

My comment at your and Vernon's talk page was not to "annoy you" -- it was to ask that you reconsider an off-topic comment about race that has absolutely nothing to do with notability guidelines. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Multiple users cited my arguments as persuasive enough to influence their vote, and frankly, it seems like the discussion is overwhelmingly favoring keep. Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have, though when an editor agreeswith you, it seems it isn't bludgeoning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Black Kite similar behaviour in Talk:Ilhan Omar in the RfC. The same editor has been bludgeoning almost every vote in that RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• "Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have". Some advice - I'd stop replying when you can't even count. You've made twenty-eight comments at that AfD. Mr.Vernon has made nine. I don't think I need to say anything else, so my point about your bludgeoning stands. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: I have no idea where you are pulling those numbers from. I have about nine comments at that RfC, most of which are very short replies to pings, and Vernon has seven, including an extremely long counter-response to Levivich's analysis. I suggest you double check your work before accusing other editors of "not being able to count." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• You've edited it 28 times, Vernon 9. I dare say some might be typo fixes and so on, but, whatever. You made 25 edits to the DRV as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I made a few typo fixes for each comment - guilty of occasional typographical errors? Sure. Vastly more participation than Vernon? I don't think so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have. Not according to ctrl+F. You have made the double amount of comments made by Mr. Vernon.[42][43]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Your contributions to this discussion have been partisan and sloppy, SharabSalam. I really don't even want to engage with you on this, but note that Ctrl F captures a) pings (including yours) and other editors citing my username when agreeing with my arguments "Per Wikieditor19920..." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, omg, do you think I would search only for "Wikieditor19920"? I searched "Wikieditor19920 (talk)" see the screenshots.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• Bus stop, It was a response to Black kite question. Why this was covered widely in the media.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Black Kite—I pointed out that the reason given for your initiation of the AfD was detoured by the next comment by Mr. Vernon. It was a non sequitur. Mr. Vernon was asked on their Talk page to remove their comment, but they refused to do so. That is an out of place comment. If there was any cogency to that comment then Mr. Vernon or someone else would have told us that the article should have been deleted because the news tends to favor white female victims over black female victims. But we don't see that. An extraneous and inflammatory assertion should be removed from an AfD such as this one, especially appearing at the top of the discussion. They were literally responding to a question you posed, Black Kite. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted that you don't think the comment from Mr. Vernon applies. But, other editors are allowed their own opinions. Hasn't this been discussed enough? O3000 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

O3000—I didn't ask Mr. Vernon to initiate a section on WP:AN/I about Wikieditor19920. If it has been "discussed enough" then maybe Mr. Vernon can request that this thread be closed. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, the issue now seems to be bludgeoning. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

The filer was incorrect in restoring an edit on your TP, and you were incorrect in striking the filer’s edit on the AfD. Your comment persuaded on your incorrect statement that GNG overrules NOTNEWS when GNG is a guideline and NOTNEWS is a policy. As to canvassing, this is not an example of bringing like-minded folk to an AfD or RfC. This is bringing involved people to an AN/I discussion and seems kosher to me. And, your whatever sticks, right is uncalled for. O3000 (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC).

Black Kite Objective3000, Wikieditor19920 has made more than 50 comments in Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede? (based on ctrl-F "Wikieditor19920 (talk)"). This is bizarre. However, I don't think it has reached the point that it is sanctionable but I would support a warning for this behaviour.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Just ignore that “RfC”. It is way overdue for closure, there is no way the consensus will change, and requests for closure are heavily backlogged. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with O3000 that that discussion is due for closure, though I think we'll disagree on how it should be closed. I haven't commented on that discussion in almost a month, and I think you'll see pretty extensive involvement in that discussion from several editors. SharabSalam is the type of user who will pester me multiple times at an AFD to expound on my vote [44][45][46][47] and then come to ANI and try to pile on accusations of bludgeoning for my replies at that same page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, because your vote was "Speedy keep, snow" which is something that would require more clarification, and yet even if we removed the comments you made in response to me, the number of comments you made is still more than the number of comments made by -Mr. Vernon. Also, I am not the only one here accusing you of bludgeoning. There is also O3000 and Black Kite. I have seen the same bludgeoning by you in this discussion where you made 53 comments in that RfC including some three to four unindented bullet comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, There is nothing in the sources that suggest that this is any different from any "murder" or "killing" that happens in the U.S. in daily basis. This is why wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.? Your repeated pings and comments under my vote were not about "clarification," you were merely quibbling me over my vote. Which you also did to other editors at that page.[48][49]. When I reply, don't come to ANI and complain that I've "bludgeoned" the discussion by responding to you. This is a perfect illustration of why canvassing at ANI is prohibited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, In addition to that RfC and that AfD. Here is another recent example of your bludgeoning [50]. Note: I wasn't even in that discussion so you can't say I forced you to reply. An editor there, S Marshall noted your response to every vote and said From the large number of times you've posted in this discussion, I would tend to suspect that you might be very concerned about the outcome. It's up to you, but I do suggest that you consider not replying quite so much. And yet you continued.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam If a user makes a comment about me as the nominator at an AfD or the propriety of the nomination, I'm allowed to address it. As for threads where we've been mutually involved, you, tend pester me and others for responses to inane or pointed questions long after everyone's begun ignoring you, and then you come here to cite my replies to your pings as bludgeoning. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Enough. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• I'm asking nicely: please stop.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• Wikieditor19920, I don't believe that we've ever interacted (or if we have, I'm not remembering) and I don't think I've ever interacted non-trivially with any of the other main parties here, so I think I'm fairly uninvolved here and can look at this without any sort of bias. As such, please hear me when I say that while others may not be guiltless, you really aren't doing yourself any favors right now. You keep responding frequently and somewhat aggressively to most of the statements here (hence the repeated references above to WP:BLUDGEON), and it's really not helping your case. It seems like this behavior is what Mr. Vernon was concerned about when filing this, so you're actually proving them right and drawing attention away from any potential misdeeds of theirs. I suggest you take a moment to listen to the concerns of others, even if you disagree with them, then try to see it from their perspective. They're not crazy, just passionate about Wikipedia, too. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Everything's a two-way street, and my striking Vernon's comment was a mistake. I take WP policy seriously, so if something I do is on the line, I'll admit it. WP:TPO does seem to restrict those kind of actions for an off-topic comment. Maybe hatting it would've been the better approach, or just leaving it be (which I did after being reverted). So I do have an end in this. I think I acknowledged this to the filer, but apparently that wasn't enough to dissuade them from repeatedly bringing it up on my talk page and restoring a thread repeatedly after I'd replied, and then filing and canvassing this ANI report. I don't think any of that was necessary, but I've said my piece on it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Xenagoras - WP:NOTHERE

Xenagoras has been performing many dubious edits throughout the Wikipedia project since they entered in August 2019. They began their participation in the project by making multiple edits on the Tulsi Gabbard article and were temporarily blocked after violating rules set on that article. The user has also allegedly been invovled in covert email activity to other users in an attempt of stealth canvassing.

The current issue is on WP:RSN, a noticeboard that has the specific task of determining verifiability, reliability and preventing falsehoods from being placed in Wikipedia. Xenagoras has repeatedly promoted false material in WP:RSN discussions. In these incidents, Xenagoras promotes "unproven" and "false" statements about the White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) as being true. Before going further, I want to state that the incidents are not about the conduct of the White Helmets at all, but about Xenagoras' blatant disregard of what the source concluded and how they purposefully misconstrued what France 24 stated.

The WP:RSN incidents go as follows:

• Xenagoras provides an article by France 24, inaccurately presenting it as "a small analysis by France 24 about the collaboration of the White Helmets with al-Qaeda".

• I reply to Xenagoras, stating that "[t]he allegations you make and try to validate with the France 24 source are described as either 'false' or 'unproven' in the analysis". This was easy to conclude, but it was important to read the source given the scope of the noticeboard.

• Xenagoras again uses the France 24 sources stating "the France 24 analysis proves my allegations", framing numerous events France 24 concluded as "unproven" and "false" as being true. In this edit, they blatantly ignore clear conclusions provided by France 24 and twist falsehoods in to truths, again showing that they continue this behavior.

Xenagoras has received multiple warnings about their edit behavior, but the promotion of falsehoods on Wikipedia is unacceptable and dangerous to the integrity of the project as a whole. It appears that the user has received too many warnings for similar incidents for this to be accidental and that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I do not take the placement of this incident on the noticeboard lightly as I may have only done this once or twice before and only use this for serious concerns. Any reccomendations are helpful and thank you for taking the time to review this situation.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me address the WP:RSN incident first: The only interaction I ever had with ZiaLater occurred in the RfC about the GrayZone Project, where I quoted France 24 to disagree [51] [52] with ZiaLater about the type of interaction/relationship between the White Helmets and al-Qaeda, because ZiaLater quoted other sources to say [53] that GrayZone disseminates propaganda and attacks about that topic. I quoted [54] France 24. In cases where France 24 concluded that allegations about an event were "unproven", they said they could not verify the location where videos about these events were captured. France 24 never disputed that the events in the videos did occur. In these "unproven" cases, I quoted France 24' decription of the events. In cases where France 24 concluded that allegations were "false", they said the military/religious rank of a person was falsely described or there was an incorrect translation from Arabic to English. In these "false" cases, I quoted what France 24 claimed to be true.

All things ZiaLater wrote in their first and last paragraph of this ANI report [55] are irrelevant to the disagreement in the RfC about Grayzone. Let me explain them:

• ZiaLater's first diff links to an unwarranted and false suspicion against me that was raised without any evidence and without any reason to have that suspicion [56]. That other editor had also attempted to damage my reputation and discredit my future edits by making a false statement of fact about me [57].
• ZiaLater's second diff links to a 31 hours block against me for an 1RR violation that I unsuccessfully appealed [58], because I attempted to make a series of consecutive edits that amounts to one revert. But I inadvertently failed to make this an uninterrupted series, therefore the admins ruled that I should take it as a reminder to be cautious editing articles under 1RR, so as not to even inadvertently cross over that line.
• ZiaLater's third diff links to my misguided attempt to get an uninvolved editor to give his opinion on a stuck dispute. I am not yet familiar with dispute resolution procedures and was not aware that an unsolicited invitation to participate in a discussion is inappropriate. Nine days ago I started my first RfC, aiming to solve a stuck dispute.
• ZiaLater wrote, I had received multiple warnings about [my] behavior, but gave no example. I therefore dismiss this claim as an attempt to discredit me. They also wrote, it appears that the user has received too many warnings for incidents [similar to promotion of falsehoods on Wikipedia], but gave no example for such a warning and no example for any promotion of falsehoods on Wikipedia. They also wrote, these alleged many similar warnings were too many ... for this to be accidental and that [I were] not here to build an encyclopedia. I have always been aiming to adhere to the highest standard of editing and conduct and I continue to improve my editing and conduct.
• I firmly reject all accusations. The behaviour of ZiaLater amounts to casting aspersions against me and they are mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction. Addtionally, the lead of WP:ANI states, this page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This ANI report by ZiaLater does not concern any urgent incident, and it does not concern a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. The ANI lead further states, before posting a grievance about a user on this page, consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page or try dispute resolution. ZiaLater did not discuss the issue on my user talk page and did not try dispute resolution. Xenagoras (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

From my observation, Xenagoras has been the kind of balanced, fair, and considered editor that Wikipedia seeks to attract. His acknowledgement of his missteps itself shows that as well. Humanengr (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Like others, I have found Xenagoras' editing on Tulsi Gabbard to be uncollaborative and obstructionist. And I do not think that a character reference from Humanengr helps X's case. [59]. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Not just that, I discussed the user's edits ([60][61]) at Talk:Second Cold War about adding content related to Adam Schiff's speech. I don't know what to describe the user's response, but I can say that the user called my edits "one-sided", told (if not advised) me not to revert the user's edits on "Second Cold War", and that the user claims to have followed the lettering of the policy. Unsure whether the user followed the spirit of policies. Speaking of Gabbard, the user attempted this edit related to Gabbard, eventually reverted as "NOTNEWS". George Ho (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please WP:AGF and remember to try to treat others with dignity. Humanengr (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to. If it refers to this ANI, please be explicit. If it's something else, you're always welcome on my talk page. BTW your link is dead.. SPECIFICO talk 12:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the "dignity" part refers to WP:etiquette, doesn't it? George Ho (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO made one edit [62] on the article Tulsi Gabbard [63], and I did not interact with this edit. Xenagoras (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras, your remark is not relevant either to my comment or to this complaint against you. One reason I have not edited that one more is that it's evident that there is tendentious POV edit warring going on there and that editing the article is futile. I have commented on article talk and at BLPN, and that's more constructive IMO in such circumstances. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I have not done edit warring, instead I always aim to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My remark revealed that your severe accusation against me is baseless, has zero evidence and therefore amounts to casting aspersions against me. You are right that editing on that article (and some other articles) is very difficult, but please address your concern, that editing the article is futile, towards those editors who cause that problem. Xenagoras (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be defending yourself of things that I did not say. I accused you of nothing. For reasons others have documented, I do find your editing disruptive, but that's just my opinion. I hope anyone who sees this ANI will follow OP's links and also look at Xenagoras' conduct on the article talk page and at BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, Xenagoras, I think you're a big part of the problem on that article. The cited diffs suggest, maybe the biggest. SPECIFICO talk 00:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam

User repeatedly engages in personal attacks and shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors. Responded to a merger I proposed at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders with this remark, threatening a misuse of ANI and failing to acknowledge a distinction between a deletion review and a merger discussion. Also, continues to make combative taunts[64]. Made an unfounded accusation of tagteaming and "trolling" over a content dispute at an ANI thread. There are probably many more examples, but this should be enough to justify a warning. Edit: Note that user has been previously temp blocked for personal attacks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The section up this page was closed to stop the bickering. Please don't start again. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

User has continued to make taunts on other article talk pages after the discussion was closed (see diffs above). These are uncalled for and should stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Making a personal attack, followed by restoring the personal attack after it was replaced with {{npa}}. --WMSR (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, that's not a personal attack. This editor has an issue with identifying personal attack. Removing my comment is disruptive and might get you blocked if repeated.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't threaten me. You were taunting another editor. --WMSR (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't start again. Huh, maybe you should have dealt with it, then, instead of sweeping it under the rug. --Calton | Talk 06:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sharab's comments were taunting, thus could warrant a short block. But that's not gonna fix the underlying issue: Sharab and Wikieditor are deadlocked in a drawn-out struggle over Bernie Sanders (Is this what BernieBros are?) and can't seem to get along. Not sure what the next step is here. An IBan? Topic bans? I think a close of the thread above involving WikiEditor might go a ways to help solve this mess. I'm dissapointed to see Sharab at ANI...again. A perusal of the archives shows that Sharab has been at the noticeboards an awful lot over the last few months. So to Sharab: please remember to keep cool headed, and civil at all times. If you can't discuss an issue calmly, please seek outside help. Dispute resolution is an excellent tool. Please use it. If you can't, you may find yourself with an American politics topic-ban, or worse. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, When was the last time I was reported in an ANI thread? The OP has a thread #Wikieditor19920 above which I added some links to where he made comments under each vote in AfD, review deletion and RfC. He doesn't have disagreements with, he is probably following me after I reverted him in Jeremy Corbyn article and his ANI thread.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Also what's this comment about "Berniebros"? I am not even American!. I don't know where are the civility issues with me but your comment is absolutely insulting and warrants a short block.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, Don't play coy, you know very well: you were at reported at ANI twice in the last month; [65], [66]. You also brought two, rather spurious, claims just two months ago [67], showing that you were already not making good use of dispute resolution and instead running to the "drama boards". I'm not sure what you mean about you and WikiEditor not having a disagreement, it seems plain that you are disagreeing about Bernie Sanders. Correct me if I am wrong, but WikiEditor wants Media coverage of Bernie Sanders deleted, and you don't, which has culminated in an ANI thread. I would call that a disagreement.

As to your last point, I see my attempt at levity has backfired, I will remove the comment. You might wish to learn a lesson from my action: when someone suggests that you may have been in the wrong, more often than not, they are right, and you might wish to follow their suggestions, such as striking an alleged NPA, even if you think it isn't. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• These petty civility issues are not the problem. The problem is the war over the article, putting staunch advocates of deletion against supporters of keeping the topic. The former have engaged in relentless trimming of sourced text and repeated attempts at deletion or merger, despite overwhelming consensus to this point that the article is warranted. That consensus may change perhaps after enough supporters are topic banned or blocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Just noting that the filer of this report also initiated a largely frivolous DRV link recently. At this point further efforts such as the merge discussion recently opened are disruptive. Responding to such repeated efforts can be frustrating and editors should be given a bit of leeway for that. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That DrV was opened in good faith and was not without any agreement in my position. This has nothing to do with edit warring. I partially agreed with a point SharabSalam made on talk page and implemented it in the article, even though I didn't like how he was arguing it. I've never been involved, that I can immediately recall, in edit warring or even extensive editing at Bernie Sanders-related articles. Several opposers to deletion suggested they didn't like the idea of "nuking" the article, but would be open to a merger. Maybe the merger discussion should've come first, but I don't see why that's disruptive now. That's why I also opened a section on the merger to field responses on it before formally proposing one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Pro tip: Starting an ANI section accusing another editor of personal attacks with the sentence "...(he) shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors" is not the brightest idea ever, especially just after you've written the following about them in another section on this page; " SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another". Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Bring on the Boomerang. This is a waste of everyone's time. I have reviewed all the diffs by OP and I dont see this worthy of ANI. You seem to have content disputes, Follow WP:DR. ANI cannot be used in attempts to sanction folks you disagree with. I suggest this thread be closed immediately and OP be warned for WP:BOOMERANG if he repeats this in future. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Boomerang See what the OP started with, he said that there is a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors. Also, he said that I failed to acknowledge the distinction between a deletion review and a merger when I said that there a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue with the editor who is starting a merge discussion after his deletion review (of the third deletion request) got denied. Indeed, there is a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue with the editor and he cited the same diff saying that I am "threatening to misuse ANI". Also he said that made a trolling accusation, I didn't make a trolling accusation, I said that reverting for typos might be trolling. You can't revert someone's work and say "contains typos". FWIW, the editor has made a clear accusation to me saying "SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another" and that I should not be allowed to make a comment here unless I am involved, he made that comment in an ANI thread which I was involved. After his accusation, he joined the discussion in the article against me and also requested a merge and he also filled a report against me. Sounds like clear harassment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• It's amazing how an issue can be misconstrued and then blanket bans suggested for all involved like candy. I have not bludgeoned any discussions nor, frankly, have I had any protracted disputes with SharabSalam about content. My interactions with him have been pretty limited, other than an ANI thread here that he's been piling onto. This was not about a content dispute. I can handle an editor disagreeing with my proposal. What I have a problem with, and what the diffs I provided in my report show, are personalized taunts directed at me on an article's talk page. Despite several editors on this thread dismissing SharabSalam's comments and characterizing my calling his behavior here immature as a "personal attack," the kind of remarks that brought me here are expressly prohibited by WP:NPA. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Hopefully, when Sanders either wins the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination or drops out of the race, this delete/keep dispute over the related Media coverage article, will come to an end. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

OK. Enough. Here's how we fix this:

Proposal: User:SharabSalam and Wikieditor19920 are placed under an indefinite interaction ban under the standard conditions of WP:IBAN. In addition, each user is also indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Bernie Sanders broadly construed, including editing any content or participating in any discussion anywhere on Wikipedia where Bernie Sanders is a subject.

• Support as proposer. --Jayron32 13:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you show me the reason why I would I get IBAN or a topic ban?. This is a ridiculous proposal --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The reasons on this page alone, including comments you've made here and links to diffs of comments you've made elsewhere, are legion and those who will vote on this matter below do not need me to repeat them. --Jayron32 13:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a vague response. You need to show me what are the comments and why they are bad. I literally didn't editwar or made any policy violation edit.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an unduly harsh proposal. I've never had any issues editing at any Bernie Sanders-related articles to warrant any sort of sanction, let alone a topic ban. An IBAN will limit both of our ability's to make constructive edits to the project, which I believe SharabSalam is capable of the issues I raised here notwithstanding. I am willing to work with SharabSalam if they will stop the taunts and focus on content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Me too. I have never made any policy violation in any of these articles. Also, I am focusing on the content. You have made a merge proposal just two days after your deletion review of the third deletion request got denied. How is saying WP:NOTGETTINGIT a taunt here? Anyway, I also think I can work with you. At least we both agree that this proposal is unduly harsh.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam: It's shocking how fast you disproved your own statement. It took all of the width of a space character to do that. You state "I am focusing on the content." and then immediately start a sentence with "You" and go on to discuss a user, and not content. Perhaps that is some of the source of the problems you are having. You make assertions you aren't doing something and then in the next breath you do it. Consider that going forward, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. --Jayron32 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban: the endless talkpage fighting is unpleasant enough when it's just one of them, it's pointless and unending when both are involved. I am indifferent to the topic ban: for both users the behavior extends to any topic they touch, be it American politics, Middle Eastern politics, ..., and so banning them from one particular tiny part of that seems pointless. --JBL (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. There is lack of evidence that shows SharabSalam is behaving badly. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  @DBigXray: Would you support a one-way ban against WE19920? --JBL (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't support that, although I think the editor is attacking me. What are the things that warrants a topic ban here? I have literally started getting involved in these discussions. I didnt editwar or made any non-policy based arguments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as presented. --Please establish with specific evidence that each user has behaviourial issues regarding the other that isn't part of a general pattern of their behaviour with regard to every other user, and please establish that each user has violated content policies and/or behaviourial guidelines in the topic area that isn't part of a general pattern with their approach to all areas. Fault needs to be established on each user's part justifying each of the sanctions before I'll reconsider. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• I disagree with Usedtobecool. It's not necessary to assign blame before we decide that these behaviours are a timesink and they need to be contained. They certainly are a timesink and they certainly do need to be contained, but I think this specific proposal is the wrong container. A better solution would be some kind of throttle. I can see good grounds to restrict the number of discussion page posts that Wikieditor19920 can make in a 24 hour period, because, damn. I would also suggest a limit on the number of times they can reply to each other in a 24 hour period. The problem is not so much their edits as the fact that they're hurting the signal-to-noise ratio on talk pages and thereby drowning out other editors. —S Marshall T/C 15:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• The fact that these two editors are constantly bludgeoning discussions and bickering with one another (and others), is borne out by their behavior in this very thread. How about this: The first one of them to admit their part in this problem doesn’t get TBanned. (Only half kidding.) O3000 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• I've had moderately decent success tamping down feuds by warning everyone on both sides that they would be blocked for 1 month for feuding the very next time they did anything remotely feud-like. A one month block for a personal attack, a one month block for frivolous AN/ANI reports, a one month block for broad baseless accusations, a one month block for gravedancing... Not great success (this can be gamed like any other sanction), but moderately decent success. The editors who are here just to feud get ID'd fairly quickly, because they can't seem to help themselves. The editors who just got caught up in the heat of the moment get a wake up call and often stop. Any support for that? If not, Jayron's proposal seems like a good alternative, so I support both my suggestion and Jayron's suggestion, whichever gains more traction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  I'd also be fine with your suggestion. Anything which stops these kind of time-sinks and which also would serve as a way to discourage future time sinks. --Jayron32 16:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Please don't hand down the same restriction to both editors. Their behaviours aren't equivalent. Wikieditor19920 is bludgeoning discussion pages where SharabSalam isn't, or isn't noticeably.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, (edit conflict) I would stop whatever this thing we are doing. But could you review what happened here? Yesterday, I was having a content dispute in Bernie Sanders article, an editor reverted another editor for "contains typos" then the other editor started making personal attacks and I was involved in that then Wikieditor19920 jumped into the discussion saying that I am biased and that I should not be allowed to make any comment here. Then after his discussion ended he went and made a revert in that article. Who do you think is the attacker here? Anyways, I have not made any policy-violation or any sort of editwar in that article, I have been discussing and basing my argument on policies and reliable sources.

Here is what the dispute of yesterday was about

So Chris Matthews from MSNBC compared Bernie Sanders victory to the Nazis takeover of France.Even CNN covered this story What is MSNBC's problem with Bernie Sanders?

Yesterday, I added the reason why this was a controversial comment: all sources say that the core reason this was a controversial comment is that Bernie Sanders is Jewish and his family were killed by the same people who Chris Matthews compared his Nevada victory to. And I have even noted this reliable source from Australia just to show that there is international coverage of this story Mr Sanders was born in New York to a family of Jewish immigrants from Poland. Many of his relatives were killed in Nazi death camps during the Holocaust.[68]

Their argument for deleting this content kept changing from, this isnt Chris Matthews article to family of Bernie Sanders killed by Nazis is true of most people with Ashkenazic backgrounds[69] and a deletion argument This is what happens when we have an article exclusively focused on a niche subject like "coverage of a candidate." This could be summed up in a paragraph or two at Bernie Sanders. SharabSalam, I presume you're familiar with WP:NOTNEWS since you've cited it before. How do you feel that policy applies to a page like this?[70].

Anyways, I apologies if I caused some stress to other editors. I dont and didnt intend to do that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would strongly support Floquenbeam's suggestion as applied to WE19920, less strongly as applied to SS. --JBL (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Usedtobecool's reasoning. The "a pox on both your houses" approach is lazy and ineffectual. It won't solve anything, it just punishes editors for complaining too much. The reason there are so many complaints is because this article is an absolute dumpster fire, and it has spread to ANEW, ANI, AE, AFD, DRV, user talk pages and other article talk pages. As one who has been watching this article for some time now, I don't think that either Sharab or Wikieditor are at the core of the problem, and thus I don't think IBANing or TBANing them will make a difference to stability at that article. A real fix requires a careful and in-depth examination of evidence–evidence which takes a very long time to put together. I've started digging and have posted a few diffs in other venues; I know other editors have done the same and are continuing to prepare evidence for community review in some appropriate forum. I predict this will go one of two ways: either by the time the evidence has been collected, it will be stale, because the editors involved will have voluntarily cleaned up their act in response to these community grumblings. Or, they won't have cleaned up their act, and by the time the evidence is collected, it won't be stale, it'll be damning. We'll see which one happens. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• Comment I’ve had the opportunity to see both of these editors on pages I watch interact with each other, and with the editors in a particular topic area. And I’ll say that they’re both generally net positives for the encyclopedia, though occasionally problematic in certain topic areas, or in terms of certain behaviour. I’ve interacted with both of them, but only minimally. I will say that Sharab is very good at editing articles related to Yemen, and while there is a bit of intrinsic bias, it isn’t overriding or interfering with his editing. He does less good work in articles related to Israel and Palestine, Islam (though he’s been somewhat amenable there), and AmPol. As far as the latter, I think it’s mainly due to a lack of familiarity with the nuances of American Politics, which is perfectly understandable. I do think there’s a definite battleground mentality in certain topic areas, though. Likewise with Wikieditor. A certain degree of battleground mentality, but most of their edits and proposals are firmly within policy and generally based on reason. They edit in highly contentious areas where they’re likely to encounter entrenched editors though, and bludgeon the talk page. They’re both decent editors learning the ropes. I don’t think the sanction for either, is unreasonable. But I do think there needs to be less battleground behaviour, irrespective of whether they’re the ones trading barbs. I think Wikieditor was right to bring this up as well, as he has been on the receiving end a bit more, and Sharab isn’t providing the full context. But I’d urge both editors to just drop it, and be less reactive. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #2

A two-part proposal. (1) SharabSalam and Wikieditor19920 are restricted not to reply to each other more than once in a rolling 24 hour period, and (2) Wikieditor19920 is restricted to a maximum of three edits to each discussion page in a rolling 24 hour period, both restrictions to be lifted 90 days after implementation.—S Marshall T/C 21:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

An unbalanced and vindictive proposal. So I'm to be subjected to a severe three-month sanction for reporting a personal attack, and in-turn, the editor who made the personal attacks is let off with this "mutual restriction."

I'm not sure what entitles you to make a proposal for sanction as a non-admin, but your comments here are consistent in a) criticizing/punishing me based on vague innuendo and b) overlooking the blatant personal attacks by SharabSalam that were the basis of this report. This follows a content dispute between you and I over my recent AfD nom of the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders article, where you disagreed with my proposal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why these "proposals" involve me at all. This seems a purely punitive measure for my filing this report, perhaps egged on by users who chimed in here and have personalized content disagreements with me in the past. SharabSalam, nor any user, is not permitted to make personal attacks in response to content suggestions, which is what occurred. My response consisted of a warning, and then a resort to ANI when the conduct continued. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, call it a sort of WP:BOOMERANG if you want. This case acc/ to me was trivial and should have been resolved at each other's user talk. It should not have been dragged to ANI, but you thought it was a good idea. So here we are. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 22:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that Marshall has suggested a milder sanction (albeit a tad difficult to follow). Your response is to suggest that they are doing this as retribution for a content dispute, which is not a good move IMO. I suggest less combative responses would work better. And anyone can make a proposal here. O3000 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, 1) your whole report here is a boomerang, you said I "threatened to misuse the ANI"? What does this mean? and the diff shows that I said This is probably a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue. I think I should note this in your ANI thread after you start again a merge proposal just days after your deletion review which you filled with comments under each vote and yet got denied and I didnt even participate. You also said that I "failed to acknowledge the distinction between a merge and a deletion", OMG, what does this mean? I failed to acknowledge? because I said that starting a merge proposal after a deletion review of the third deletion request is probably a WP:NOTGETTINGIT? Did any admin actually read Wikieditor19920 report?.

2) The section diff I pointed out that an editor revert because of typos is absurd might be trolling, that's not a personal attack, I also wasn't talking to you nor that you were involved at that time.

3) Then you added that I made a tag-team accusation, I didn't accuse you and I didn't make a direct accusation. I have also pointed out that the same editors who got involved were previously accused of tag-team also I didn't accuse you.

4) You said I was blocked for a personal attack, yea, that was at my beginning times in Wikipedia, I said to an editor who has insulted me, to stop acting like "something insulting" and I appealed for unblock, the editor who insulted turned to be a sockpuppet. I am asking admins to actually review this editor report, its baseless.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support this appears innovative to me, is not hard to follow and most importantly isnt anything remotely draconian. Unless there are strong oppositions from SharabSalam and Wikieditor19920, I would support this and ask both to give this a try. These are much milder than TBANs or IBANs that will eventually come if the community starts loosing patience. Both editors are requested to use the extra volunteer time (saved by not replying to each other) in other more productive work elsewhere. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Perhaps you're familiar with WP:NPA, perhaps not, but I'll repeat again that SharabSalam's comments on that threat were clearly personalized taunts/jeers, and this was noted by myself and WSMR at the talk page, and additional users here at the ANI thread. SharabSalam's responses in the closed discussion above continued this pattern of personalized comments. SharabSalam has been banned for personal attacks before (see block history above). I have never been blocked for any such behavior (discounting a mistaken block that was immediately lifted and still shows up on my block log) and none of my participation here or anywhere else justifies a sanction. No editor is required to tolerate personal attacks and ANI is the appropriate forum for resolution of these issues. I resent that I've had to answer these kind of charges for filing an appropriate report and worry about the kind of precedent this sets.

Perhaps you would be fine with an editor making similar comments towards you following a content proposal. Maybe you wouldn't have filed a report. But that doesn't mean that other editors aren't within their right to do so, like I've done here, and it certainly doesn't mean they should be subject to punishment for it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I looked at your diffs again, Just to make sure I had not missed anything. No sir. You are way over reacting. Can you list the actual PAs that you are referring to ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 22:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The diffs are included in my report summary and you are free to scroll up and review them anytime, along with other editors' comments agreeing that they were personal attacks (which, indeed, another editor tried to strike, an attempt which SharabSalam reverted). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920: SharabSalam is the type of user who will pester me multiple times at an AFD to expound on my vote.

Wikieditor19920: SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another (prejudiced by past content disagreements/possible disputes with user) and should be wholly disregarded, and probably forbidden from commenting on threads unless they have a reason to be directly involved

Wikieditor19920: [SharabSalam] shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors.

This is all just in this page. Compare to what I said. And you have just accused the editor who made the proposal of being biased just because you had a disagreement with him..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, each of the improperly presented comment "excerpts" above are specific references to behavior originally supported by diffs or other context, and made at the appropriate forum (here). You should focus on providing diffs, as required, not disruptive higtqighting/other inappropriate formatting. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

These are all on this page. Anyone can see them. And they are not supported by evidences, they also shows how you don't assume good faith which is also a personal attack if repeated, just like your accusation against the editor who started this proposal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Support obviously. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• The problem I have is that I see zero realization from Wikieditor19920 that they have any part in the problem. Without that, it’s difficult to see how behavior will change. Looks to me like a “deep end of the pool problem” as the articles are higtqy controversial. That’s not to say that SharʿabSalam, with a longer history and a block log, doesn’t also have responsibility here. But at least that editor is asking for a bit of guidance. I like to see some indication that there will be a change that won't bring us back here once again. And, timesink is a real problem and applies. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I have said that I apologize if I have caused any stress to other editors and that it wasn't my intention to do so.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I observe with some amusement that these users' conduct in this very thread justifies my proposal as written. I know it's a novel idea, but I think tbans and ibans would be disproportionate. Neither of these editors is irretrievably disruptive. Both are congenitally incapable of stopping themselves from replying to each other, so the community needs to assist them to do so. Wikieditor19920's the more problematic because he can't stop himself replying to anyone.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, both of them have a right to defend themselves on an ANI thread about them. No defendant should be shamed for defending themselves. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely agreed. They have the right to defend themselves. This' self-defence is taking over the board. It's not any individual edit that's problematic, it's the sheer volume of edits that's the issue here.—S Marshall T/C 13:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support Something needs to be done. Where my proposal was adjudged too harsh, I think this one is a good start to calming things down for a while. --Jayron32 13:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
• Note: This may be relevant. If there are any global CUs or someone with advanced permissions on Wikivoyage, that may be helpful in getting to the bottom of that. --Jayron32 14:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall Nothing I've done justifies this kind of draconian talk page community sanction, and this proposal is only more unfair than the prior one in how completely unbalanced it is. Notice that SharabSalam has gone ahead and continued the very same behavior that I and others have justfiably pointed out as problematic here on this page. Jayron32, you remarked on this earlier, and I'd say your warning had little effect:

• Here, SharabSalam opened a talkpage thread with a header specifically naming an editor and criticizing their edits in violation of WP:TPG, and again, focusing on an editor, not content.
• Here SharabSalam reverted 10 edits by that same user with a short and largely unhelpful summary.
• Continued commentary focusing on other editors, not content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• When you say "I'm not doing anything wrong", when the wrong thing you are doing is "not disengaging from the situation with SharabSalam and backing away", you then (like he did in my comment you alude to) ALSO disprove yourself. If you want to make this sort of thing go away, stop making yourself the self-appointed SharabSalam investigator. It's the repeated refusal to back away and disengage from him, including stopping trying to catch him doing something wrong and trying to play "gotcha!" which is THE PROBLEM everyone is trying to sanction you for. You can't say "I'm not doing that" and then immediately with the next breath do that. --Jayron32 17:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use quotes when you are paraphrasing me, because that's not what I said. I said that there is no basis for this ridiculous proposed sanction against me (because that's essentially all it is), I never claimed perfection. Others have offered constructive feedback that I'm completely willing to consider going forward.

Further, I'm allowed to present evidence of the issue I raised in my report. I don't appreciate SharabSalam's remarks towards me, and I don't think that it contributes to a healthy talk page discussion when he does it to others. With those headers, the talk page looks like a war zone. Naming editors in headers is explicitly prohibited, (edit) and I pointed this problem out[71] to the user previously when I had to change another problematic header they created. Perhaps as an administrator you should try to assume good faith, not just accusing me of being petty or selfish. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I didnt know that talk headers should not contain a name of an editor. There was a lot of problems in that editor edits and I didnt know what would the title of that header be

Wikieditor19920, Which remarks I made against you?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Well, the two folk under discussion have made clear in this filing that they cannot make a point and then sit back – but must respond to every parry even when in view of the community as a whole. I don’t think much of IBans. I’ll not make a formal proposal. But, I think it would help both the project and the two editors if they were both TBanned from all articles under any DS for two months, giving them the opportunity to edit elsewhere, better familiarize themselves with the concepts of consensus, and how to gain such, while dealing with a less fraught environment. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Reminder, Wikieditor19920 edited my comments in violation of WP:TPO. This editor can quote guidelines but refuses to obey them. Their entire goal on Wikipedia is making it a WP:BATTLEGROUND; while I have apologized and volunteered to take responsibility for my errors on ANI, in their mind they have never made a mistake, and never will. I'm not going to defend everything SharabSalam has done but judging by their contributions they have made Wikipedia better by helping build an encyclopedia; I cannot say the same about Wikieditor19920. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Seeing these two go at it makes clear that this is necessary. Personally, I think that the iban proposal would have worked better, so I tend to think that that was closed prematurely, but I guess this is sufficient. Worldlywise (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam—I think you should read WP:TALKNEW. We debated this at Talk:Religion in Israel. Here are diffs from that debate including one to my User Talk page. [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], and this on my Talk page. And I just gave up. The section header now reads "A chart that is about religion". The simple rule of thumb is that section headings "should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." You suggested a section heading of "Chart that is actually about religion". I find that not quite neutral because whether or not nonobservant Jews have a "religion" is part of the question. In essence you are creating a section heading that provides an answer for an aspect of that which is being disputed, when all that is called for in a section heading is that it "indicate what the topic is". Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, how is thata non-neutral header? The chart was about religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm) and I was trying to solve that issue.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Then just write "religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm)". There's your section header, SharabSalam. It is one of many neutral headers. Shortly after another editor said "Replace with a chart that is actually about religion, not ethnicity" you changed the section header to "Chart that is actually about religion" from the entirely neutral section heading "Proposing a new chart". They are permitted to make that argument in Talk page discussion space but in my opinion you are not permitted to make that argument as a section header. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Innovative and fairly applicable to the situation, but too complicated to implement in practicality. I much prefer Floq's suggestion above in the first proposal (1 month blocks handed out to anyone who continues to push the envelope). This is seriously getting out of control. They're essentially flooding several talkpages/noticeboards with this immature behavior and apparently simply can not help themselves. We're not in primary school, and are expected to act like mature people with a goal of collaborating to build an encyclopedia. Waggie (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree; there's nothing overly complex about it. If you have the English comprehension, analytical skills and mature good judgment necessary to edit encyclopaedia articles, then you can certainly follow this restriction. And these users will police each other -- or they won't, in which case, the sanction has worked.—S Marshall T/C 11:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Waggie Yes it is seriously out of control and what would be helpful is if the people who realized this would support proposals that might improve the situation, rather than oppose them. (And if those proposals are inadequate, then at least there will be precedent for the idea that there is a problem and that something should be done about it.) --JBL (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis—disjointed communication is the antithesis of interaction. You are only partially correct when you say that we are looking for "proposals that might improve the situation". Shouldn't there also be interaction on this noticeboard? Should I be content with "Bus stop, how is thata non-neutral header? The chart was about religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm) and I was trying to solve that issue"? Is SharabSalam really interacting with me? What does it mean that they were "trying to solve that issue"? They changed a neutral section heading to a section heading that advanced a specific view about the topic being discussed. They changed the section header from "Proposing a new chart" to "Chart that is actually about religion". The first is neutral, the second advances a viewpoint on the very issue being discussed under that section heading. They chose to use the section header to advance their argument which in this instance happens to be that the term "religion" would not apply to nonobservant Jews. The question is valid, but need that question be touched upon in the section heading? I don't think so. It is not necessary that this question be addressed in a section heading, but SharabSalam does not seem to grasp this point—if I am to judge by their interaction with me on this noticeboard. Why did they change the section heading from "Proposing a new chart" to "Chart that is actually about religion"? WP:TALKNEW tells us: "Keep headings neutral: A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been spending too much of my life on ANI recently, so please stop tempting me to open a thread requesting that your topic ban be reinstated. --JBL (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Perhaps it's time that you stop showing up to stir the pot. Bus Stop, You bring up a valid point, but I think enough has been said about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A measure of how entrenched the problems with your behavior are (and hence why restrictions are necessary): I first asked you to stop pinging me more than 10 months ago. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Jayron32: OK, you were right, I was wrong. Levivich (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Jayron32 11:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment by SharabSalam I am going to self-impose ban on myself from making any type of comment in response to Wikieditor19920 in the politics or noticeboards area and if I violated I get a block with any duration that the admin thinks is appropriate, the ban will start as soon as this report get closed. I am not going to lose anything. Even if the other editor replied to my comments, I dont want to reply. I saw a comment above saying that we are flooding several talkpages/noticeboards.I never noticed this?. This is started just lately after some content disputes, I am not going to blame anyone, it doesnt actually matter to me. Since the community thinks I am annoying them with my interaction with the other editor I am willing to impose on myself a ban from making any type of comment in respone to Wikieditor19920 in the politics or noticeboards area. The self-imposing ban will start as soon as this report is closed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem is now apparently solved. It seems SharabSalam has a self imposed Iban. If anything changes we can find ourselves back here to revisit. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  Since the problem is with WE19920, the problem is obviously not solved. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  And the proof there is, which of the two editors has volunteered to step aside, and which hasn't? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Just pointing out to Lightburst, that SharʿabSalam▼ has not proposed an WP:IBAN so it is inappropriate to claim that he did so. And I do agree with Mr. Vernon and JBL above. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  Voluntary bans take effect only after they are logged by an administrator at WP:Editing restrictions, until then it's an unenforceable claim at best. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

We all have memories. I take the editor at their word, that they will stop engaging. Solution for peace is offered and committed to by one party and we can revisit if there is disruption to the project. Lightburst (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose part 1, at this point (though I was leaning support earlier), in light of Shar'ab's voluntary undertaking above and in preference to the proposal below. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry I keep flip-flopping. I'd support part 2 of this proposal (as well as Proposal 3 below), if there is no voluntary commitment forthcoming from 19920. S Marshall makes a good point that the problem extends beyond interactions with Shar'ab. I agree that part 2 of this proposal is maybe more complicated than it's worth, but at the same time, I hear what others are saying about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and not opposing proposals that may be better than nothing. I'm still holding out hope of a voluntary resolution, though. Levivich (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is my commitment, Levivich. I don't need SharabSalam to impose an IBAN on himself or any other form of restriction. All I ask is that a) he focus on content, not editors, and b) stop with the personal attacks, at me or anyone else. I, of course, commit to do the same, though I've made no personal attacks. If that occurs, I'd be thrilled to collaborate and edit with SS. Despite what some other editors in this thread believe, SharabSalam and I are not diametrically opposed on all content or locked in some dispute, and I find several of their proposals to be reasonable, though not always. I think that's the most satisfactory way to move forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, your definition of personal attack seem to be very wide and something I do not agree with. As I said above, I do not consider those diffs you presented here ANI worthy. It seems you do. There is a difference of opinion. Despite what you have said above, I feel that it is highly likely that during the course of interaction. you will again call a non PA by SharabSalam as a PA and drag him to ANI. Where you will use this thread as a justification for sanctions making mountain of a molehill. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Multiple objective and uninvolved editors here have already acknowledged and agreed with me that SharabSalam's remarks were taunts, and taunts are personal attacks, so I'm not going to try and persuade you on that issue. I agree this has become too drawn out, and I've provided what I believe are clear and reasonable guidelines on how I see a path forward. These punitive, one-sided sanctions against me that you and others have pushed for repeatedly and failed to get community support for has not brought any sort of productive resolution to this, so this is my proposal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The proposals are still ongoing, I would not rush to tag them as failed. If you think you have a better proposal feel free to present them as proposal 4, 5 etc. regards. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, my advice: it's well past WP:1AM; get a good night's sleep, come back tomorrow, re-read this thread. Ignore the obvious at your own peril. The obvious is that there is already consensus on this page to sanction you; the only disagreement is over what kind of sanction to apply. The reason a sanction hasn't already been instituted is because everybody recognizes how easy it would be to avoid a sanction, since all that is really being asked of you is to back off. But you're refusing to back off. And the longer you refuse to back off, the stronger both the consensus, and the sanction, will become. Through multiple threads over many days you have been asked to climb down from the Reichstag. Seize the opportunity! Shar'ab did. You should, too! This won't matter in a month, if you let it go. If you don't let it go, you won't be here in a month. That's not a threat, that's my attempt to get you to understand the seriousness of the situation you're in, and the ease with which you can get out of it. Levivich (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Or to put it even more clearly: You don't currently look like an editor we can work with to build an encyclopaedia. You've got the judgment and the language skills, but you're uncollaborative in that you don't admit fault or error, you don't accept when the consensus is going against you, you get overly invested in an outcome, you're oversensitive to perceived slights and you're exhaustingly disputative because of your insistence on replying to everyone saying what you've already said. And if we can't work with you then we'll arrange matters so we don't have to. I tried saying this less bluntly but you seem to miss the subtleties here, which is another bad sign.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that my comments above seemingly aren't registering. Another objective editor, whose feedback about my own editing I said I'm perfectly willing to consider and adopt going forward, commented I think Wikieditor was right to bring this up as well, as he has been on the receiving end a bit more, and Sharab isn’t providing the full context. But I’d urge both editors to just drop it,. I've expressed a willingness above to drop it and move forward and collaborate with SharabSalam as long as things stay civil. You can take me at my word or not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, one of us is having trouble with their comments not registering, and you think it's me. Time for a sysop to make the call, I suppose.—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #3

User:Wikieditor19920 gets an WP:IBAN for User:SharabSalam. This seems to solve the root of the problem, WE19920's battlegrounding and abuse of Wikipedia policy. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sometimes even unsuccessful proposals can have a very beneficial impact if the editors involved take on board the feedback generated during discussion of a proposal (regardless of whether it passes). I think both Shar'ab and 19920 should re-read Symmachus Auxiliarus's comment at the end of the first #Proposal section above. Shar'ab's voluntary commitment above seems to be taking these comments on board. I'm hoping 19920 does the same. If not, I would support this proposal. Levivich (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, several folks have shown concern on Wikieditor19920. And I am especially concerned since Wikieditor19920 had made no efforts to discuss this "problem" with SharabSalam on his user talk page, before escalating it to ANI. Wikieditor19920 has not made a similar offer of avoiding interaction, yet. In light of all of these, I do agree with you that Wikieditor19920 should propose a similar restriction on himself or I would support this proposal. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• The reason why this doesn't reach the root of the problem is because of pages like Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 16, where Wikieditor19920's behaviour doesn't involve SharabSalam in the slightest, but is still unacceptably persistent and confrontational.—S Marshall T/C 23:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: WP:SBAN then, or something else? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's considerably too harsh; my suggestion's at Proposal #2.—S Marshall T/C 01:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Mr. Vernon's proposal accuses me of an "abuse of Wikipedia policy," without evidence or an indication of what that means, and a few lines back he said I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia," which is uncalled-for and untrue. This is dancing right on the line of a personal attack, if it hasn't already crossed it. No editor should be subjected to this at ANI or anywhere else.
• Levivich, DrBigXray, I didn't ask SharabSalam to self-impose an IBAN, and he's apparently retracted that. However, my interactions with this editor have been limited, and I wasn't the one who made the personal attacks, while this editor has a history of doing so and being blocked for it. Nonetheless, I am happy to collaborate with SharabSalam civilly if he a) stops the personal attacks, against me and others, and b) focuses on content, not editors. I did in fact raise this issue with SharabSalam in between the first and second diffs provided, before filing this report, as did multiple other editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think you are here to build an encyclopedia. I think you are here to win. Even now you refuse to admit any problem with your behavior. It's always someone else. And don't bring up editor history because you have your fair share of warnings, like Bishonen telling you that you will be blocked if you post to a certain user's talk page, or Bishonen asking you to stop personal attacks or you will be topic banned, or this 1RR violation, or this edit war warning, or this ANI about your move warring. I haven't even begun digging into the BLP warnings you've received. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree, Mr. Vernon, with you, when you say "I don't think you are here to build an encyclopedia. I think you are here to win". On the contrary Wikieditor19920 is trying to keep the building of the encyclopedia honest and pure and free from bias and in accordance with our core principles. They are ardent about that and you may be perceiving that as being about winning. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• They have a lack of willingness to look back upon their behavior and listen to constructive criticism from multiple editors and admins. That's not in accordance with WP:CIVIL which is policy. You are honestly not helping here; your defense of Wikieditor19920 is enabling. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon, You are treating this like a battleground right now between this and canvassing at another thread and attacking Bus Stop for his opinion. Appreciate the kind words, Bus Stop. I've never violated BLP and edit them frequently, so don't insinuate that I'm some habitual BLP-violater, which is deeply prejudicial. I've collaborated with other editors and built consensus to get highly-contentious BLPs elevated to GA-status. The few other threads you linked over the past year were closed without action. This feels like a tirade, and I'm not going to continue responding to it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• There is Al-anon, cocaine-anon, food-anon, game-anon, and about 20 others. We are now seeing on-and-on. 23 posts by Wikieditor19920 in this thread alone. I fully understand the desire to defend. But, this thread is looking like other threads involving this editor. First rule of ANI: Don’t manifest the problem on ANI. SharabSalam has exhibited some of the same problem. But, appears to have taken criticism here to heart. Time sinks are harmful to the project and must be dealt with. The editor must realize the problem. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, no they don't. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Mr. Vernon—you are linking to User talk:Wikieditor19920#way forward but I fail to see anything egregiously problematic there. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Andybasil

The user refuses to formally declare his COI or stop editing EIFA International School London in violation of WP:COI and WP:PAID despite my {{Welcome-COI}} notice on the user's talk page and his admission that his wife works for the article's subject in this edit. See also the discussion at User talk:Jeff G.#EIFA International School London.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early to say that he refused to do anything. He asked for help, which seems to indicate a willingness to comply with our policies once they've been explained. 331dot looks to have explained the situation, so maybe we should see what happens next. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't refused to do anything!? I don't have a conflict of interest. I just wanted to learn how to use wiki and chose a subject matter I know something about. I've been transparent and honest. Why would I attempt to write about something I have no knowledge of? I also edited a Jaguar cars page but have noticed that has been deleted.. so I guess ths is all a learning curve. Frankly I'm very annoyed that jeff has taken this aggressive attitude towards me. Please delete the EIFA edits as you see fit. As for me, this is not the friendly environment I hoped it was and want nothing more to do with wiki editing, if this is the result. Jeff, grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybasil (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Andybasil: Please sign your posts. I'm sorry if I was unclear or overly strong in my use of the word "refuses". You claimed that c:File:Eifa International School London.jpg was your "own work" when you cross-wiki uploaded it for use here. What gave you the right to make that claim, and to license the file freely?   — Jeff G. ツ 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: 1. I would sign my posts if I knew how to so kindly stop pointing out my errors without also providing the solution 2. I quote; "You claimed that c:File:Eifa International School London.jpg was your "own work" when you cross-wiki uploaded it for use here".. Yes, and I also ASKED for help, BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE WHAT I WAS DOING. Condemning people who make mistakes, especially new 'editors' who realise they have made a mistake and ASK for help, is not clever and not acceptable. You clearly wouldn't talk to me in person with that attitude so why should the anonymity of the internet be any different? There is enough abuse and rudeness floating about the internet as it is, without displaying it on a site such as Wiki. As a result of this unfortunate turn of events, I am remaining a 'member' only so long as this 'conversation' has breath to continue, after which time I shall cancel my account and resume life in the real world. Please, consider your tone, your response and the consequence of your accusational attitude. Hopefully I have even discovered how to sign this post.. User:Andybasil

@Andybasil: Not sure what you mean by "cancel my account", that's not possible, accounts can't be deleted. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. When I don't know what I'm doing, I don't do it. Has that somehow gone out of style? The lack of personal responsibility here is reprehensible. Yes, our help systems need improvement. But bottom line, if you cannot accept responsibility for your own actions, you're not mature enough to participate in a collegial project like this. John from Idegon (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon:..and this is what I'm talking about. Your post is once again antagonistic and unnecessary. making assumptions over my 'maturity', questioning my actions etc.. bottom line, I was experimenting, made a mistake, asked for help and was met with abuse. If I can't cancel my account I can simply choose not to use it! What's the difference? What's your point.. other than to throw your hat into the ring and join in the bullying. Posts from Jeff and now yours just reinforce my growing opinion that wiki is being administered by a bunch of rather petty, small minded, anally retentives, more interested in lambasting new 'members' over minor misdemeanors than actually providing assistance. If you really want to continue with this fruitless attack you feel free and fill your boots. I'm logging out. (Andybasil (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC))

@Andybasil: Descending into ad-hominem personal attacks can get you blocked here; I suggest you strike them out like this. Your signature worked, aside from a superfluous set of parentheses. Did you design the school's new logo? Did you snap the photo of Isabelle Faulkner which you tried to upload?   — Jeff G. ツ 11:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.:Dear Jeff. As I've already stated I would prefer to cancel my account than continue on with this abuse, though have been told I can't actually cancel my account, so I would be very grateful if you would block me please. That at least will put paid to your repeated attacks. You are obstinately missing the point - in that I requested help, not a telling off from some anonymous pompous arse such as yourself. So please, I say again.. do your worst, block me.. it really won't spoil my life. I realise wiki is not the place for me and I have no wish to become as petty-minded as you have proven to be. Amazes me you can't see the irony in describing my posts as ad-hominem personal attacks. Anyway, I sincerely hope I've 'personally attacked' you more than enough to warrant blocking me.(Andybasil (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC))

@Andybasil: Jeff G is not an administrator Special:UserRights/Jeff_G. so they cannot block you. Even if they were an admin, they're potentially too involved to block you. Others here could block you, but frankly if I were an admin I don't know if I would bother. If you really no longer wish to edit here, it would be far simpler to simply stop editing. I'm not sure why there's any reason to complicate things so much when you have a simple solution that does not require action from anyone else. BTW, when you want help, it's generally ineffective to insult and yell at anyone and everyone in sight. This applies to much of the world, and not simply the English Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thanks for your response. I agree it's ineffective to insult and yell however, my original request for help was perfectly civil. It was Jeff's response and subsequent replies that have irritated me. I object to being treated somewhere between a naughty child and a petty criminal. As I've just mentioned in a different post, I wanted to try editing 'something'. I scanned through many pages connected with my life and knowledge and came across the school page, found it to be out of date so decided to give it a go. True I failed to read up on Wiki policy BUT, I realised I was making mistakes and asked for help. What I received from Jeff cannot be construed as such. Best. (Andybasil (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC))

@Andybasil: I was trying to help you and the WMF to avoid costly litigation by respecting content creators' rights, and to maintain Wikipedia's standards. I'm sorry I was so blunt in doing so.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Andybasil: I'm not planing to look into the history here so I can't comment on the specifics of how you were treated. However Wikipedia has a big problem with editors being paid to edit articles who refuse to declare their connection, even lying about it, and who make a big mess because the articles they write are utterly crap. Such editors waste a great deal of volunteer time, and to be clear, since there a lot of them the problems they create for wikipedia are not simply minor. They harm wikipedia an incredible amount. So plenty of us have zero tolerance for such editors.

While inexperienced editors often also have problems, at least most of them are here to help built an encyclopaedia, in other words, their hearts are in the right place. Further, because they are here for the right reasons, most of them can over time learn how to be good editors producing good work. So many experienced editors here are willing to spend their time helping such editors, and we can better tolerate the problems they cause

Because of the great similarities between the initial outputs of these two sort of editors, it's often difficult to tell them apart. So well meaning editors are sometimes unfortunately caught in the cross-fire. Because of the risk of misidentification, we do try to to deal kindly with editors suspect of a COI, but it a very tricky area. and unfortunately, there is no simply solution to such problems. Despite our TOU and occasionally legal action by the foundation, and also the Streisand effect on some occasions for those paying, it's very hard to stop those who are destroying Wikipedia for money.

As for the copyright issue, I in part agree and in part disagree with Jeff G. In reality, the chance of any lawsuit over a logo copyright against the WMF is likely to be slim. However, we are here to create a free encyclopaedia. We have some allowance of non-free content which is clearly marked as such. For many of us, our free content goal is an important one, and a key part of it is ensuring that any content which is marked as free is indeed free. Unfortunately plenty of editors have a very poor understanding of copyright. While there is always tolerances of mistakes by editors, copyright is an issue we don't mess around with, in part because of the legal risks but in big part also because of the harm it does to our free content goals. Therefore editors who do make mistakes on copyright issues need to quickly learn, or they will be restricted.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Fair enough, thanks for the response. In my case I did 'rush ahead' to edit but once I realised I was getting things wrong I asked for help, not aggression. I was also transparent with Jeff. I explained my wife worked for the school in I believe, my first response to Jeff. I think it must be pretty obvious I'm not a 'professional' wiki editor, with so many rookie errors and so on. I have had a wiki account for some time and never had the time to use it until now. In choosing my first page to edit, I looked through many pages connected to my interests, people and companies I know, including the school page - because my wife worked there - and I saw it was completely out of date and decided to use the page as my first attempt at editing. There was no COI as far as I'm concerned, as I neither sought permission from the school nor requested payment. I saw it was wrong and decided to have a go at putting it right. I really have no objection to being told when I get things wrong and will seek to rectify, but I strongly object to being treated disrespectfully and abruptly by Jeff (and John). Thanks again (Andybasil (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC))

ANI Report for Cdneh95

• Cdneh95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am here to start a ANI against Cdneh95 for doing a WP:3RR deliberately (1) and other disruptive behavior. The disruptive behavior was noted by numbers of editors, but seems to be ignored by page blanking. 2 3 I seek a preventative measure against user. The ongoing chaotic behavior was noticed by Rockchalk717,CASSIOPEIA, and Gsfelipe94. The user was blocked by C.Fred before for edit warnings. 4. 5 El_C blocked the user even earlier (May 2019).Regice2020 (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020, the user is allowed to revert/remove other people's edits on their own talkpage as many times as they like, if that is what you mean. If you mean their article edits, please note that several reverts in a row, without anybody else editing in between, only counts as one revert. Also, thank you for reporting, but if you have a complaint about edit warring again, the noticeboard WP:AN3 is the best place for it. This place, ANI, is indeed the right place to report disruptive editing, but you'd need to provide specific diffs and descriptions of the behavior. In other words, please tell us what's disruptive about it. Bishonen | tålk 21:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Its for both disruptive behavior and edit warnings. I would assume the user would not get in anymore trouble after learning the lesson in 2nd block. After 2nd block expired, the user jump back into trouble again Diff. This user been noted for sourcing issues 1 2 (not being collaborative) 3. The user proceed on disruptive behavior by reverting back without giving a source. 4. The belt was already vacated long time ago, but the specific user cant accept it. Regice2020 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

* On topic comment It continues. Considering he always blank the talk page. It will be difficult to connect with the user. Waiting for a admin to response to this issue. Regice2020 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

_

Regice2020, who do you mean when you say "we"? You should not be talking on behalf of anyone except yourself, so "I" is the appropriate pronoun. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I note that Regice2020 changed "we" to "I" in this edit without striking or replying here, thus making this question look meaningless. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of an aside that is not relevant to the main issue here

(And, as an aside, why is it that people who edit articles about martial arts seem to be unable to resolve issues in the normal way by consensus on talk pages?) Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"as an aside, why is it that people who edit articles about martial arts seem to be unable to resolve issues in the normal way by consensus on talk pages?". That is uncalled for. If you have a specific complaint to make, provide examples. Generalised unfocussed accusations will get you nowhere and may reduce your credibility. Narky Blert (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Absolutely uncalled for. This report is not about content dispute, but a user lesson not being learned after being blocked 2nd time. The WP:DISRUPT behavior can be seen in Wikipedia pages, not just MMA. That is the reason why the disruptive editing page was created just for that reasoning. Regice2020 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger Regarding the small comment you made at end. Was that even necessary? Regice2020 (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No comment is absolutely necessary, but I think it was relevant. How about answering the substantive, normal type, question? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger I understand your reaction, but i am currently focusing on that small comment you made. What is the real reason you decided to add that small comment? Regice2020 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I share Phil's frustration with the inability of both editors to work it out (his comment is appropriate). And I am not seeing any major disruption to the project. So I would also ask why are we here? Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The answer to Phil's question is that these editors -- like editors in the pro wrestling, video game, and classical opera topic areas -- lack cultural role models displaying skill in nonviolent conflict resolution. EEng 00:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The real reason that I added that comment was simply that I see lots of disputes over articles about mixed martial arts being brought here, in sharp distinction with their real-world importance. As I said below, I don't remember any dispute about boxing being brought here, and it is very rare for much more important issues, such as international conflicts that involve wars leading to very many deaths, to be brought here. Something is failing in our dispute resolution processes for articles in some areas that most people regard as comparatively trivial, and I simply asked the question of what that is. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020: For what it's worth, there are subject areas where regular editors seem to constantly cause problems that uninvolved people have to solve. Sometimes it's admins handing out sanctions, sometimes it's RFCs where people with no expertise weigh in, and sometimes it's stuff getting elevated to ANI or other noticeboards. When a topic's biggest editors always seem to be fighting, the topic itself can turn toxic. Some users who frequent locales where disputes get settled get driven absolutely up a wall when they see the same stuff over and over and I think we're seeing that in this thread.

Any user saying something like what Phil said surely didn't do so for evil reasons. He has a right to be frustrated by a recurring problem. But strongly implying that there's something specific and inherent regarding that topic that makes it a problem is not a good look. (See also the comment above mine, where an editor who absolutely knows better bemoans a lack of "cultural role models" with regards to martial arts.) Phil isn't taking your concern seriously because you're not explicitly spelling out what you're obviously getting at. So I'll try.

giggles

giggles

@Phil Bridger: martial arts is, by and large, a topic area whose key BLPs are almost all about non-white people. Similarly, most martial arts were created, developed, and mastered mostly if not entirely by non-white people. Did you mean to say that you think martial arts is a contentious topic because, culturally, it's primarily non-white? Assuming you wouldn't be caught dead in hell actually answering "yes," will you, next time, take a minute to think about how what you're saying comes off? You're working to portray most heavy contributors at a mostly non-white topic area in a uniformly negative light. It's not because you're racist but surely you can see how, like I said, it's not a good look. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That is rubbish and rot. That you took to the time to articulate that nonsense is alarming. I hope you will put yourself in the corner for a timeout. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice how I managed to evenhandedly offend non-whites (martial arts), rednecks (wrestling), hipsters (video games) and, of course, snobbish Eurotrash (opera) all at once. EEng 03:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You are teaming with talent in your brevity, EEng - clearly a plus if you ever decide to run for president in the US. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I personally have no talent so I try to team with it when I can. EEng 18:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Expand your horizons, WP:GLOBALIZE. Narky Blert (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop blerting things out. EEng 06:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

To start with, I certainly didn't expect so many responses to the question that I asked in a small aside, but Wikipedia discussions often throw up the unexpected. I was a bit sloppy in my wording, because the problem seems to be particularly with articles about mixed martial arts and professional wrestling rather than, for example, traditional East Asian martial arts and, more relevantly in the light of later postings, boxing. Boxing is a martial art that, in recent decades in the Anglophone West, has seen a disproportionate number of black people at the top level, and I am not aware that there is any great difference in the number of positive role models that it has thrown up between it and mixed martial arts. So why have I never seen an article about boxing being brought to this noticeboard but regularly see articles about mixed martial arts? This difference doesn't seem to be explained by either 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724's or EEng's responses to my question, which was a genuine, rather than rhetorical, one. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal and Harassing Attacks

It has just come to my attention that a Wikipedia has been slandering me behind my back, if you wish to make allegations could you perhaps try to display some level of decency by telling the accused of the allegations? It is highly offensive to discover that Wikipedia has seen fit to covertly add this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Daeron slander to chronic harrassment I have had to endure since becoming an obcession of User:Wik and User:Merbabu. FYI it took all of thirty seconds to discover that the IP address that I am being accused of using for abusive behaviour, is based in Brisbane; I do not and have never lived in Brisbane. Nor did the talk-page edit that I found leading to this allegation behind my back, appear to be anything other than a reasonable suggestion to which User:Merbabu appears to taken covert offence on which he has acted. In 2004 I said Wiki appeared to be a good use of php and other technology, but within twelve months the ugly head of bigotry rose not simply because I knew something about the subject I was writing about, but because 99.9% of people want to look the other way when ever the alleged racial superiority of Causian and Asian people over African and Melanesia people has come into play; and for fifteen years Wikipedia's unwillingness to address this systemic facilitation of biggoted behaviour has made the platform the throughly unpleasant platform that it has become.Daeron (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The edits in question were made 10 years ago, Merbabu added those sock templates in 2010. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's much more likely to be a blunder than an attack. My guess is that Merbabu got confused when creating categories and tagging and used the wrong user name. Assuming no one can give a reason to keep the category, I suggest deleting Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daeron and removing all occurrences of {{sockpuppet|Daeron}} (for example, at User:58.107.10.36). I will notify Merbabu about this discussion but User:Wik has been blocked since February 2005 and their last edit was in May 2004. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've notified Merbabu about this thread, which is a requirement when posting a discussion here about another user. Unless there was a good reason at the time, I don't think it is appropriate for that category to exist, as you were never blocked and it's unclear whether edits by those IP addresses were ever abusive in violation of WP:SOCK. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Pft - the dates are 10 years ago. I've recently returned to wikipedia after perhaps a 5 year break. So it seems I suggested a user was a sock puppet. To look at it in detail would be a waste of my time...but I suspect it wasn't a typo on my behalf, rather I would not have done so without reasonble cause. Does checkuser work on edits made 10 years ago?

As for User:Daeron, as i recall, he was a one-issue editor that didn't like it if people had a different idea on how wikipedia should be written. I think his post above says enough. "Personal and harrassing attacks" indeed - with his accusations of biggotry and racial supremacy...I think Daeron's behaviour is more the issue.

goodnight --Merbabu (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Fairly sure it was not was not a case of wrong username. This [77] seems to suggest it was a genuine belief to me. I mean Merbabu could have just remembered the wrong name when posting that too but I think when people make such messages they tend to get the right username. The fact that AFAICT, Merbabu seems to have tagged usernames based on edits a few years old in some instances would be another sign of this.

I make no comment as to the correctness of the claim since I don't know the editor involved. However the IPs would never be publicly linked to an account by CU data no matter the age, so are a moot point here. I don't think "I've never lived in Brisbane" is particularly relevant here. Geolocation can be inaccurate. More importantly, current geolocation of IPs used 10 to 15 years ago may be inaccurate for that period even if accurate now. ISPs need to adjust their management especially with the spread of mobile broadband, IPv4 exhaustion etc. I mean these IPs could even be belong to some ISP outside Australia 10-15 years ago although that's probably not that likely.

About the socking issue, editors editing from IPs is always a complicated one. However generally speaking, if an editor persistently edits the same articles, and especially if they get into disputes with the same editors [78] [79] [80], without ever making their connection to their account known, it starts to become a problem. And even though this is ancient history now and no one would care, if an editor comes along and actively disclaims responsibility for those edits, that seems to be evading scrutiny if not true, even now. This [81] would also be an ancient sign of the same problem if it is an edit made by Daeron and the name "Andrew" was not widely associated with the name "Daeron". (Beyond simply making so many edits to the same articles and getting into disputes involving the same editors without declaring their connection.)

P.S. While researching this, I came across [82]. I did not recall any interaction with either Daeron or the IPs while writing most of this message.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This is particularly interesting to me [83]. Unlike Merbabu and others the IP got into disputes with who were active so it's possible possible their experiences were recent, Wik had evidently been long banned or blocked by 2007. So that they are being brought up Wik means it's some editor with a significant history when Wik was still active. This [84] also supports that view.

This suggests an even longer history [85]. There's of course nothing wrong with someone editing with IPs in general and many of us did it before creating an account. But as I said, it is problem if you persistently use IP to edit the same articles which you do as an account, especially if you get into disputes with the same editors, in a manner that may lead people to believe you are a different editor.

The nature of IPs means it's possible that not all of those IP's edits were from the same editor. Also even if some of the IP's were used by a certain editor, it doesn't mean they all were. But I repeat my earlier comment, that especially after 10 years, no one really cares. So I'm not sure if it's wise to make a big deal over any possible misidentifications unless you're sure all were misidentifications.

In other words, while it's up to User:Daeron, I would just drop this.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: But why should there be a sock category for Daeron when they have been blocked once only (in January 2005 for a 3RR problem). There is no SPI page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daeron. I think a speedy delete of the sock category should occur, and the tags should be removed. I looked at a couple of your links but I must be missing something because I can't see the connection with Daeron. Re whether it was an error or not, I have done some spectacular copy-paste blunders on- and off-wiki—you write a message and hit Ctrl-V to insert the name so you only need to get it wrong once. At any rate, it is not reasonable to keep sock pages just because someone "suspects" socking when the target (Daeron) has had no significant block and is not mentioned at SPI. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: to be clear, I have no idea if the IP is Daeron. I explicitly said I was not commenting on that aspect since I do not know about the history of Daeron. My main points were

1) If that IP was Daeron, it's hard to say it wasn't abusive sockpuppetry since they were extensively editing the same articles and getting into disputes with the same editors, to the extent of maliciously modifying comments left by other editors and also signing with a name that wasn't Daeron in at least one instance.

2) Whoever was behind that IP was clearly an experienced editor.

3) Daeron should consider carefully whether they want to go down the route of disavowing all those edits. Normally no one would care about edits made 10 - 15 years ago. But if you come here now in 2020 to claim abusive edits were not yours when they were, then it becomes a problem now. If Daeron is certain that all those edits were not theirs, then fine. If not, it seems a bad idea to me since if anyone bothers to look into it it may become a problem for you now.

As for the rest, I make no comment, but I'm fairly sure it's not unheard of. The ideal process may not have been followed, but there are so many things like that. And again, no one would normally care about something 10-15 years ago, unless you make them care.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. As for the wrong username issue, while it's not impossible, I still find it exceedingly unlikely. Again it's one thing to accidentally copy and paste the same user name when identifying suspected socks including socks which haven't edited in several years. It's another to post a personal message nearly a month later asking that editor why they are socking. Especially when the that user name is so short. Maybe I'm unusual in this regard, but if I am writing something nearly a month later, it's based on something in my mind rather than simply something that I copied and pasted. In other words, it means a genuine belief in my part based on an ongoing pattern I'm seeing and familiarity with the editor's history. It's not just because I see a tag I placed and go 'well it must be true since I wrote that even though I see no similarities'. I probably am not even going to copy and paste the name, I'll just write it out. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S. If anyone does want to look into this: Although I still make no comment on any connection between Daeron and the IPs, beyond the similarities in edited articles and users they were in dispute with, I also noticed both seem to make typos or spelling errors. Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Final comment I promise. I forgot to mention that IMO, this is one area where saying too much may be more harmful than helpful. If this thread was started simply as a question over whether the process used by Merbabu was correct given the details, and what should happen if not, then concerns are far less likely to arise especially given the age. Frankly I still wouldn't have bothered anyway since I suspect few would have come across that stuff, but still a better way to handle things IMO is to not bring up unnecessary questions by defending yourself if it isn't really necessary unless you have looked into those IPs and contribs enough to be sure they aren't you. (And personally, investigating whether some 10-15 year old IP was me seems a lot of wasted effort.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mild edit war on Ellington, Connecticut with canvassing from Reddit

Sorry I haven't edited WP in years so I don't remember all the exact terminology/procedures, but there's a slow-motion edit war brewing at Ellington, Connecticut over whether to include the [crime of some very low-level official] with some canvassing from Reddit [[86]] ("Id say create a bandwagon of people willing to edit the wikipedia page to where it needs to be everytime the stuff gets hidden. MAKE it stay"). Just wanted to let you guys know in case in needs some temp protection. SheepNotGoats (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow. As an actual Connecticut resident who's been to Ellington, even people in Connecticut almost never care about that town. I'll keep an eye on it. Anyone for a WP:LAME entry? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on it. I have no dog in this fight and just stumbled across this while browsing Reddit, but I find it amusing they think some volunteer ambulance worker is a "highly important official" that an entire town would conspire to protect. I could maybe understand including him in the article if it were the mayor or something, but honestly many small towns have a sex offender who turns out to have worked in some public facing position (I can literally think of two off the top of my head from my own rural town that were discovered in the last couple of years). We don't list them in every town's article. SheepNotGoats (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. I mean, this is the state that had no less a corrupt slug monster than John G. Rowland for governor, a nobody in a nowhere town there is totally insignificant in an article like this. Definitely good work on your part keeping it out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if the material should be revdel'ed. It is sourced, but not to very strong sources, and it makes serious accusations as if they are fact. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Don't forget about Joe Ganim! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, gotta love our biggest city. Sometimes I just can't with this state... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a reaction to the statement you guys made from the person who made the reddit post. I notice I did something bad to this community and I'll say my part. I'm sorry. I didn't know better. I was honestly just concerned and I freaked out too much. I wasn't trying to raise a lynch mob, I stated I wanted to have support on what to do but it backfired as people came here. Even I stated in the Reddit thread I only wanted advice and I never added more. But that was not enough. I should have blurred out the IPs and names. I've already deleted everything regarding it so no people attract more attention from that. I didn't mean to raise a mob one bit, but the internet is a crazy place and someone wanted to boycott it and get people to bring more people here to keep it in here or something. That too, I didn't mean to conspiracy monger. I used cover up because I didn't have better english to use, I meant to say they removed it and it was bad. It violated trust a bit for them to do that to this and it felt like a slap on the wrist for any of the people who were abused by him. The person who said "Make it stay" I did not endorse either, I just said "I'll contact the mayor" and nothing else. I hope you guys don't put this on WP:LAME, because I honestly didn't mean for it to get this way. Of course being a human I have my misunderstandings. It is your choice though I guess. I would quote the reddit post on my wording on why I didn't want to start a "edit war" and just wanted advice, but I already deleted it and I just deactivated my reddit account because of the damage I caused. I'm sorry, I will research more on many things and I will admit the tone of the edit I put back in from another user was a bit biased.

I don't think an edit war will start now. I deleted everything on that Reddit thread.

Chennai94 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chennai94: Thank you for removing all that from Reddit. Please don't be too hard on yourself and consider finding productive ways to contribute to the Encyclopedia!
...Or you can be like me and run for office IRL in Connecticut to shed light onto the issues you care about (Just make sure to leave your political agenda at the door here, though!). In terms of disruption, this wasn't the worst by any means either way. Lessons learned, and I hope to see you around on Wikipedia soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Krish!

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

It should be noted that I NOT indulged in edit war with editor in last 24 hours. Krimuk 2.0 has reverted 3 edits on Priyanka Chopra's article, 2 edits at his talk page and I have only reverted his one wrong wrong edit which he later accepted here.Krish | Talk 21:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Kindly read THE REAL version that happened. This version is written to make people confuse into think that I was the one who was edit warring.Krish | Talk 00:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I would kindly ask to the administrators to go through the history of Priyanka Chopra (an article that I have been updating and expanding; it was un-updated for a long time). It should be noted that I ONLY reverted him once because he did had reverted my last 5 to 6 edits (an improvement) without reading as he accepts here. I did not engage in edit war as I just reverted his edit saying you don't WP: OWN the article because as an editor I can add things in articles by giving strong sources. But he has been reverting all of my edits since last night BUT not once did I revert any of his edit, except the one where he accepted he reverted without reading. After his constant revert spree, I wrote to Cyphoidbomb on his about Krimuk 2.0 reverting all my edits and I been afraid of editing further in fear of getting blocked. I even tried to extend an olive branch but he rejected me twice: her saying "i was wrong, clearly nothing has changed. sigh" and here saying Not interested.Krish | Talk 20:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hmm. Adding puffery and removing poor reviews (including changing a section header to "Widespread success"). Adding puffery ("Several critics and media publications have described Chopra as one of the most talented actresses in Indian cinema") and moving a mixed review down the paragraph in favour of a favourable one. This is a featured article. I am unconvinced that it is a good idea for someone who has just been unblocked from an indef per WP:ROPE to go straight back to doing exactly what they were doing before they were blocked. I suggest a partial block on Priyanka Chopra so that they can prove they can edit collegially on other articles. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite Chopra being "one of the most talented actresses of Indian cinema" was there in her article for 5 or so years, until 2018 and this editor was the one who removed it without any reasons. Same goes for "widespread success", it was there all those years but was only removed by the said editor in 2018 without any explanation. Also when he reverted my today's edits claiming PUFFERY, I did not revert him, I welcomed his edit. I had added several important things in the article that were missing and updated the article. He reverted most of my edit but I recerted just one edit. I only reverted his edit when he had added a misinformation in the article which he had later accepted [that it was his mistake yet he filed a complain against me. Kindly read my talk page post to know what really happened. Thanks.Krish | Talk 00:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• Krish is very dedicated and probably means well, unfortunately it isn't always expressed in a great way. I'd recommend instead of a block extend him a 1rr restriction. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket But I reverted him because he had added a wrong information and later accepted he accepted his mistake. That user reverted me 2 times on his talk page, 3 times on article and here I am. Please understand I did not edit war. Please read the post on my talk page. I am feeling so helpless right now. What I am supposed to do? I have done everything to explain what really happened yet I am being blamed.Krish | Talk 01:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Krish!, If someone removes your post on their talk page, leave it that way. It's allowed, the assumption is that they read your post. If they revert you on an article, leave it, and try to discuss it. If they don't use the noticeboards or other forms of dispute resolution. You need to be the perfect editor, in any circumstance. Ravensfire (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ravensfire I understand what you are saying but I did not revert any of the debatable stuff. I reverted his wrong edit where he re-added a wrong information. When he had first reverted my edit 2 days ago, I actually went to discuss on his talk. Then he kept repeatedly reverting my edit as if he [[WP: OWN]s the article. Should I have to now discuss about adding links to an article? He kept reverting my edits and I am here being reported. How is is fair? And, no one is ready to listen to my version.Krish | Talk 04:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

To counter his points:

You clearly had said on Berean Hunter's page that I was edit warring. I only reverted your one edit that too the wrong UNICEF information one which you accepted later. Your contant reverts of all my edits shows that you were trying to provoke me to edit- war. I on the other hand was explaining every edit of mine.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• 1) Then explain why the same line was used in the article since 2018? You removed that without giving any explanations but hid it under "trim redundant info; add 2 new important lists" summary so that no one would notice.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• 2) I had removed it and you re-added it by reverting me and then I realised you were right and I did not revert. So why are you trying to make it seem like I reverted them? It is notable that these two performances that have been shown as negative/mixed by Krimuk are actually well received as I proved it on the article's talk page. Plus see his response. He says he won't accept it as he considers a positive reviews only if the ratio is 100 positive: 1 Negative. This is violation of wikipedia guidelines.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• 3) Again it was therein the article since a very long time, removed by in 2018 without explanations. So you think that you don't have to give explanation to edit but constantly wants explanation and discussion from others. Again WP: OWN violation.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• 4) My summary clearly states there was no BOX OFFICE BOMB mentioned in the source but you had used BOX OFFICE BOMB in that article. Again WP: NPOV violation. MONEY CONTROL is NOT used on wikipedia for Box Office figures and that was my reason to remove it. I had replaced that source with a better source. Also, my other summary says I used it more widely accepted BOX OFFICE website source on wikipedia. Source was replaced but I still used a neutral tone to describe an unsuccessful film as unsuuccessful/did not do well and not BOMB like you did.]Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• 5) It's not about Battleground. It's about you constantly reverting, removing everything from articles without explanations YET you want editors like me to add a coma, link after taking persmission from you. I have challenged your edits on Priyanka Chopra's talk page and it's obvious that your edits violated WP: NPOV.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• 6) You have been accusing me of WHITEWASHING Chopra's article. Is that not a WP: Personal Atack? Also people can see that I have properly given my response to your edits on Chopra's talk page discussion and it is obvious, they violate WP: NPOV. See his response [here and [87] when I quoted a wikipedia rule about WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight, he says "tiny minorities" would be 1 negative review for 100 positives, which does not seem the case anywhere". What is does suppose to mean?Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please NOTE: This user behaves as if you WP:OWN the articles on wikipedia. Could you explain why you significantly changed Bajirao Mastani article which was decided after several days of grueling discussions on its talk page? You removed the version of the article that was the consensus of the same wikipedia community that you are talking about. But you reverted it without discussing with any editor forget community, why? As per WP: I Don't Like It or WP: OWN? Could you care to explain? Isn't this a violation of wikipedia rules to remove something from article that was decided after consensus of the community or you just do it as you please? Similarly, in 2018 he removed several things (with strong sources) that were present since a long time from Chopra's article, an FA written by other prominent editors, without any explanations. I saw no discussions happening there. Yet he wants me to ask his permission to add even a comma in that article.Krish | Talk 06:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As for "Yet he wants me to ask his permission to add even a comma in that article." that's yet another unverified claim against me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

So you revert most of my edits on Chopra's article. You reverted my edit when I linked an article, you reverted my edit when I corrected your false information about UNICEF, you reverted my edit when I added Chopra's "noted for philanthropy" line, you reverted me when I renamed a section and others. Yet you can do everything without any questions by others? After my response on Chopra's talk page on those discussions, it is pretty clear that you have WP: OWN and WP: I Just Don't Like It problem as I gave my response and proved that Chopra's performances in those films were positively reviewed yet you are not ready to consider my voice. Why? I even provided my response with very strong sources yet you are not ready to accept an alternative view point.Krish | Talk 07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"it is pretty clear that you have WP: OWN and WP: I Don't Like It problem". Instead of making repeated false accusations against an editor, comment on the 6 gratuitous edits highlighted above that go against your standard offer. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

So now, I cannot even defend myself by tackling each of your accusatory points? You have done the same thing that you are accusing me of and are still doing. I'm countering "your edits" and not you. While you have been accusing me of whitewashing and then falsely accusing you. I'm just explaining my version of what you have added here and ANI is about that. I am suppose to defend myself here.Krish | Talk 07:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

More...

• 7) Please note that the editor has removed the same Moneycontrol.com reference, as mentioned in point number 4 above in another article related to Chopra, here. And this much after the ANI was filed.
• 8) When asked to not reply under my comments above, as it can confuse readers, he reverted me again. And this after multiple editors have been telling him not to undo anything at this moment. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• 7) NOTE: This editor has been trying to show me a constant edit-warrior. This was an INNOCENT mistake. You can see here that I MISTAKENLY removed THAT source, along with other sources as I was cleaning the TOP section. I have started working on that article as you can confirm that by checking its history. Now I have moved all the sources to the body of the article where it should have been all along, yet this editor had not added that in the body but only in the lead, despite him editing that article since last 4 months. It was my Mistake. Another NOTE: As I had said on Cyphoidbomb' talk page while discussing to him that MONEY CONTROL sources are NOT used for Box Office figures and that was the reason I had removed it 2 days ago, you can see it in Chopra's edit summary. I had replaced that source for "box office flop" claim with a BETTER source which is widely accepted here. That the Money Control source had no mention of BOX OFFICE BOMB yet was used for KRIMUK had added BOX OFFICE BOMB on his own;WP: NPOV violation). You can check my edit summary. These two are different occurrences but here he is trying to link those two different incidents to prove I am an edit warrior. Can he claim that I removed the claim of box office flop to whitewash Chopra?Krish | Talk 13:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
• 8) I did not revert. You can check the history of this page. It said this edit cannot be UNDONE. I did re-arrange my points which took so much time. Interestingly, this user has been reverting me all the time yet I cannot even arrange my points below his points like how the replies are done. And at ANI, one accused can reply those each points. But if that is not the norm I apologise for my mistake.Krish | Talk 13:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"MONEY CONTROL sources are NOT used for Box Office figures" -- please provide a written policy that states that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I, who has written over 1 FA and 17 good articles on films, know that for the first time I have seen a Money Control source being used in any Indian film article, especially for BO. Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ does not list Money Control as an important source for Indian films. After replacing that Money Control source, I had given a link from Box Office India, widely used source here, that described the poor performance of the film. But it should be noted that your edit described that commercially flop film, as a Box Office Bomb. While even that Money Control article source did not say anything about the film being a Box Office Bomb, violating WP: NPOV. Would you like to tell everyone here, why?Krish | Talk 23:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Box office flop redirects to box office bomb. It’s a synonym. And also, as stated multiple times above, not the issue here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"Box Office Bomb" is a term used for describing a very expensive film that looses a huge chunk of money, not for an independent/small budget film. Plus that article does not say anything about how much money it lost or what the budget was. So how did you come to conclusion that the film was a box office bomb? You even linked it. Yet I have observed you did not add "Box Office Bomb" to an another article you have been editing, Chhapaak which has been described as a "A Big FLOP" by Box Office India, the most widely accepted BO website on wikipedia, a site which you yourself have used several times to cite edits like XYZ is the biggest box office star in India but did not cared to use in that article. Box Office India wrote another piece saying "Chhapaak - A Rare Loser For The Industry". The analysis said "Chhapaak is that rare loser for the industry which will lose money. Chhapaak will put its investors in the red with even with satellite and digital." This sounds more like a Box Office Bomb. Don't you think?Krish | Talk 00:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

And yet again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to draw attention away from the subject at hand. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's your WP: NPOV violating edits and then treating every article as WP: OWN, removing discussed/consensus reached edits like you did on Bajirao Mastani.Krish | Talk 08:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That is precisely the definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and very similar to the previous ANI thread in which you made unvalidated accusations against me, which got you blocked in the first place. Just like that case, this ANI is not about me and I am not the one who is back here on the WP:Standard offer. You are. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It's here you changed a version of the article which was decided after several days of grueling discussions and different POVs of several editors on its talk page. Then you removed the version of the article without explanations or any reason, violating Wikipedia rules. So I am not pointing to just any random stuff because it is documented in that article's history. Now coming to the main point, one of the many Wikipedia rules says Be Bold and perform edits backed by strong sources. That's exactly what I did after coming back but you started reverting my edits. I did not revert any of your edits. I did not revert you for reverting my edits and I accepted my mistake and respected your reverts as those were discussion worthy and hence left it the way you wanted. I only reverted you once when you re-added a misinformation to the lead which you later accepted saying "this was entirely my mistake -- i misread". Then you reported me at Berean Hunter's page and then started a discussion and when I was writing the response to that discussion, you reported me at ANI. So now you tell me what I am supposed to do? I would do exactly as you say. I s that okay?Krish | Talk 09:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yet again an attempt to mislead. Your revert also included the re-inclusion of puffery terms and removal of negative critical and commercial response, as highlighted in points 2 and 3 above. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You reverted my last 4 "constructive edits" just because you did not agree with my one edit but in process re-added a wrong information, yet somehow only I am wrong? In Chopra's article, critical and commercial response of many of her hit and acclaimed films/roles are not present either. So I removed it to balance it out. But I accepted your reverts of critical response of DDD and did not revert. I reverted you only once when you reverted five edits at once, with four of which were actually constructive and one was debatable. I only reverted you once when you re-added a misinformation to the lead, which is a violation of wikipedia rules. Let's accept it we both were wrong and we should move on.Krish | Talk 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Break

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

Also, Krish, the amount of bold you are using is excessive, please calm down on it.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Maybe LakesideMiners is talking about your bold sentences like this? -MegaGoat ^Contribs 19:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

MegaGoat, yes, that is what I meant. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

MegaGoat Oh I am sorry for misunderstanding. I know I overdid it above but I won't be doing it from now LakesideMiners. Thanks for calling out my mistake. I appreciate it.Krish | Talk 19:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Revenge trolling vandalism by User:96.238.128.155

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

---

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

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

Final warning (uw-disruptive4) issued. El_C 23:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/96.238.128.0/21 seems to be the range that is causing the most trouble at that article if that warning doesn't help. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

Note this is after the IP vandalized El_C's talk page here. I'd still suggest extending the block to the /21 range to prevent further disruption. The same person was blocked 2 weeks on February 12 for disruptive editing on the same subject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the range for the duration. Thanks, Eagles247. El_C 04:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

The IP came back after the block expired with the same nonsense. I’ve blocked the IP address for 3 months and blocked the range for 1 month. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, violating WP:NOTBROKEN, unresponsive

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

Wow. I'm a DABfixer, and I don't correct even the easiest bad links that fast. (I have better things to do than fixing NOTBROKEN links; unless they're counter-intuitive WP:EASTEREGGs which might puzzle readers.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Funny that, I just left a note encouraging WP:DPL. Prodego ^talk 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been a heavy-duty DABfixer since 2016, and I don't recall ({{senile cackle}}, my memory could be going) any issue similar to this having been raised at WT:DPL or WT:DAB during that time. Although all help is welcome, I'd be reluctant to point to point an IP towards towards the tools we use the most; there's too much risk of difficult-to-detect damage. Narky Blert (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Blocked both. Materialscientist (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Materialscientist:. DuncanHill (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Has started again now the block has expired. @Materialscientist:. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Corona virus disruptive editor

I just semi-protected Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/South Korea medical cases due to an IP -- 202.168.59.122 -- repeatedly reverting edits. (It's late for me, so I did little more than count 3 reverts, but this may involve as many as 20 reversions.) I've dropped a warning on the talk page of the editor in question.

In brief, while the situation has been handled for the moment it looks like everything related to the coronavirus epidemic could benefit from at least one more set of eyes. (Panic shopping at supermarkets is not the only side effect of this uncontrollable medical event.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The virus page is also unprotected again, but not doing very well on its first day—mostly editors trying to add a variety of different nicknames involving Wuhan or China, whether or not they are in widespread use. Dekimasuよ! 11:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked both the IP and the editor Rethliopuks for 24 hours, following the report of this issue at WP:AN3, as both reverted each other many more than three times. And it looks like a straight content dispute over what to include in the template, rather than disruptive or vandalistic editing by the IP. There is a short discussion already started on the talk page, but that needs to be continued there rather than the two parties warring over it.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Chuckwick 2020 (talk · contribs) seems to have a preference for integers written as figures, not as words, and has been going through various articles modifying integers in them to number format (e.g.[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97]). MOS:NUMBER, on the other hand, states "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)."
In addition to these entirely unnecessary changes, Chuckwick 2020 does not use edit summaries, nor do they use their Talk: page. Thus a series of notices on their Talk: page have gone unnoticed or unheeded. Is there some way of encouraging them to stop making unnecessary changes, and start using edit summaries? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I was notified that I may be involved, but I only provided one of the six warning templates on Chuckwick 2020's talk page, and it was requesting the use of edit summaries, That was repeated by another editor a few weeks later, and the rest are actual warnings. From what I can see, some of Chuckwick 2020's edits apply MoSs correctly, while others do not. I think that we need to know what the editor is thinking and why the incorrect changes are being made, and engagement with other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess the first step is to get them to respond here. They've continued to edit, but have neither replied on their Talk: page, nor commented here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Hi Jayjg, thank you for the ping. The only interaction I've had with Chuckwick 2020 concerned his edits on Tupac Shakur. The edits ([98], [99], [100]) removed some of the clunky inline Unreliable source? tags but also correctly changed the capitalization in a reference name to match its source title. It wasn't really evident to me why he removed the tags given the lack of edit summaries, and I myself didn't see any problems with the tags, so I reverted the edits so that the tags can possibly aid future improvements to the article. I then added a templated notice to his talk page as a courtesy. Although he seems (to me) like a novice editor acting in good faith, despite the lack of communication, I definitely think that competence is required at some point and that he should at least try to communicate his intentions (and help edit more in-line with MOS and the like as necessary). – Aranya (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC) (edited again 03:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC))

Continued disruptive/WP:CIR editing despite multiple warnings and blocks

94.175.199.138 seems to be a hopeless WP:CIR case. Looks like a static IP, same type of edits to British children's TV show articles, mostly adding/linking actors' names (usually incorrectly), on and off over the past year. The IP has already been blocked four times last year for disruptive editing and for creating talk pages for non-existent articles. Today they created ten more (now deleted).

It looks like they also edit from some mobile dynamic IP numbers in 92.40.174.0/24 and 92.40.175.0/24, though it doesn't look like a block would be possible there. Compare: [101], [102], [103], [104]; and [105], [106], [107], [108], etc. --IamNotU (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I blocked 94.175.199.138 and deleted the eligible pages. Regarding those two ranges; /24 ranges aren't that big (256 IPs each); there's definitely more bad than good that I see at a glance. Partial block might be tricky due to the wide breadth of articles targeted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I can also see some blatant vandalism in those ranges, not sure if it's one person or more, but I don't think it's from this person. This one is just focused on the children's shows, especially Mr. Bean, and Thomas the Tank Engine, Team Umizoomi, etc. The edits are mainly haphazardly adding redlinked names of actors. I just noticed them also in 92.40.170.0/24, which was rangeblocked a few days ago. I looked through the whole 92.40.* and didn't see them anywhere else. Maybe a short rangeblock on those would be good then, though it's already been a few days for the one, and a couple of weeks for the other, so maybe a bit late. --IamNotU (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

adding "Pogrom" to a riot in Delhi, India

Situation in Delhi, Inida are kind of violent right now, and there is an edit war going on at the relevant wikipedia article regarding this. This notice is regarding including "pogrom" to this incidence. Some editors are engaging in edit-war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#This_is_not_a_pogrom for the talk page.

Please advise. Crawford88 (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• 175.118.193.119 (talk · contribs)
• Rfefr4r4f (talk · contribs)

Stop edit warring. Keep discussing on the talk page until you come to WP:consensus. If you fail, use some form of WP:dispute resolution (and ANI is not part of that). Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Incheon International Airport Terminal vandalism

This users change the image on infobox on the Incheon International Airport Terminal 1 Station and Incheon International Airport Terminal 2 Station using this photo i keep revert his edits how many times.

Not an admin: I reverted, gave a final warning to the user, and put in a RPP for the pages. Thanks for reporting this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Found that user spamming that image on kowiki as well, after looking into it further. Tagged it for speedy deletion on Commons and reverted the kowiki vandalism as well. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Just quickly noting that 175.118.193.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for 1 month by Ymblanter. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

user:Dmehus

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

---

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

• this firm but clear explanation about this RFD by Tavix where Doug's responses do nothing to address the problem but indicate what appears to be an unwillingness to learn combined with some wikilawyering. I find this discussion to be the final straw as it offered encouragement, advice and warnings from several experienced and respected editors that went ignored (specifically, the advice to go find another area to edit, such as articles needing sources otherwise the continued behavior is likely to end up in a topic ban, or worse.) It also appears that messing around with ambiguous DABs is not a new problem

• Another discussion started by Tavix, about Doug's problems at AFD, touching again on the lack of due diligence and bludgeoning.

• Another thread about inappropriate edits (and closures) in XFDs

• There are also multiple discussions about WP:BLUDGEONING at XFD, which have gone unheeded, despite clear acknowledgement from Dmehus, at least twice. (The bludgeoning is not unique to XFDs, but most any discussion area on WP.) Here is an ANI thread on this matter, another discussion on his talk page.

• There also seems to be a problem with just not listening in general, like when he has repeatedly pinged and thanked editors despite being asked several times in various venues not to.[109][110][111][112][113]and even a twice about ping-canvassing In fact, in this thread he even states "I tend to overuse the thank button", even after the above discussions. To put it into perspective, he's made 2903 thanks in his tenure (actively editing for ~6 months) which is about 483/month. That's a lot of thanks. I know they mean well but at some point you have to realize that the thank button just generates annoying notifications when you use it repeatedly.

• This comment by primefac really sums up a large part of the problem. they give the impression that you are commenting on a discussion purely to comment on a discussion. If you don't know what a template does, or why it would be useful, there is really no need to comment saying that; simply wait until someone else has done so and/or leave well enough alone. Your comments (both the initial one and the subsequent replies to the other participants) add almost nothing and (if anything) make it more tedious to read through the actual discussion.

• Even as I was writing this, he's taken the content from a draft at a (controversial) MFD (leaning delete) of a subject that was deleted by AFD a month ago, currently at DRV (leaning delete.) and recreated it in his userspace after the above linked warnings by Bradv in the very same discussion. This single diff is a great example of Doug's highly problematic behavior, especially after they acknowledged bradv's warning/statement that draftspace is not a place holder. Oh and as I linked above, plenty of warnings about canvassing and yet managed to do it again in the last hour. How many more false assurances do we need to see before something is done?

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

Praxidicae, I'm not going to comment on most of the above, only the portion which is related to this notification, which was the last bullet point. I assumed that we were permitted to userfy content that is currently at MfD, as another editor did the same in regards to another discussion currently in "old business." If this is not the case, I will request G7 deletion. My message to GoodDay was not a request to be involved in the MfD discussion, but rather just to mark the page in my own userspace as "reviewed." Doug Mehus T·C 16:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I will request G7 deletion. My message to GoodDay was not a request to be involved in the MfD discussion, but rather just to mark the page in my own userspace as "reviewed." I cannot fathom why you would need to seek out someone to mark your userspace article reviewed and it seems like a thinly veiled way to canvas people to the MFD. The fact that you see nothing wrong with this or canvassing is a problem. And it's not just this instance, it's all the others brought up above (and more.) Also, you do not need to ping me to a discussion that I started. Praxidicae (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, Absolutely not. My understanding is that all article and user namespace articles need to be reviewed including subpages. Since GoodDay and I have collaborated on articles relating to the Senate of Canada, I have GoodDay's user talk page on my "watchlist," to which it was near the top of my watchlist. I did note GoodDay's participation in the previous AfD and, judging from their arguments, they seemed to have more expertise on the subject than I, so they seemed as good as any page patrolling editor to reach out to see whether or not this was an appropriate userification and whether I'd done it correctly. Doug Mehus T·C 16:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the ping, but reply-link inserts it automatically, so I don't always remember to remove the username ping. Doug Mehus T·C 16:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I asked you above, now on your talk page, please stop pinging me to discussions I have started. Second, that doesn't address any of the other problems here. What value other than creating busy work, does patrolling a userspace draft have, that would lead you to seeking out a patroller to ask for it? Why is yours more important than any of the other thousands waiting for review? I genuinely don't understand the logic here or in any of the other conversations I provided above and I cannot for the life of me figure out how the first two canvassing warnings (which you acknowledged) were unclear. As far as replylink goes, this appears to be a significant problem for you and as I noted, you've been asked several times to stop. Perhaps you need to turn it off. Praxidicae (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not certain how this is canvassing, to request another editor review one's userpage. I simply didn't want to see it deleted, given potential for notability. Also, I could've misread Bradv's message to me, but it didn't seem like a "warning," as you've characterized it above, but rather Bradv's interpretation on the purpose of Draft: namespace. I noted that other editors in that discussion, with varying tenures, have disputed that view of draft namespace. As another editor forked a contested MfD page into their userspace, I assumed it was possible to fork this page. as well, provided I follow the requirements for tracking attribution to the original version. My purpose of messaging GoodDay was, since they were familiar with the subject and an experienced editor, they would be familiar with the requirements for userification and whether I'd done it correctly, so it seemed reasonable that an editor familiar with the page "review" it versus a random editor at some point in the future. I had zero intention of having GoodDay participate in the MfD discussion, so I'm not really certain how that's canvassing? Doug Mehus T·C 16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I honestly debated even responding to this because I can't tell if you're genuinely not understanding or not listening to justify a multitude of incorrect and poor edits after multiple editors, including several admins have outlined relevant policies and guidelines and the most frustrating part is that you've acknowledged said discussions each time and continued the behavior. Praxidicae (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for raising this matter, Praxidicae. As you can tell, I have become very frustrated with Dmehus recently—notably on my recent post on his talk page, along with this thread on Rosguill's talk page. I was hoping it wouldn't come to AN/I, because I wanted to first see if he can be steered towards being a positive contributor elsewhere, and offered a suggestion that might challenge his deficits in a beneficial way to the encylopedia. I have said my peace at Dmehus' talk page, so I don't want to relitigate any of that here, but I'll be paying close attention to this thread and will chime in if I feel it necessary. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Here are a few more discussions of interest:
  1. User talk:Steel1943/Archive 17#A bear hug for you!
  2. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 13#Christopher Wilson (reporter)
  3. User talk:Rosguill#Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30#Redirects to Marble, specifically White marble (I'm not sure if this pinged Rosguill or not; If so, Rosguill, my apologies)
  4. User talk:Dmehus#Competency is required

...At the present time, I do not have the time or bandwidth to break down the points of those discussions, but merely presenting them for review by other editors to make their own conclusions. (I'll probably be back to participate in this discussion at a later time.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Dmehus has exasperated many of us by relentlessly offering the benefit of his inexperience with great confidence and a near-total lack of self-criticism or acceptance of feedback. I have no idea what to do for the best: a restriction to article and talk space is likely only to perpetuate the same issues in a more diffuse manner. Guy (help!) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Following a discussion with GoodDay, it seems like it may be best to wait at least six months before recreating this draft article in userspace, so I've requested speedy deletion. Moreover, I just noticed there is already another userspace forked version of the draft article, at the original location prior to it being moved to Draft: namespace, so this forked version isn't specifically needed. I have other things I need to do be doing, so it seems appropriate for me to actually self-enforce an extended wikibreak for a few months (noting Steel1943's encouraging comments to me on my talk page of the difficulty in "retiring"). I'm not going to retire, but the similarity is there in that it can be difficult to actually effect one's desired wikibreak. Doug Mehus T·C 17:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  Dmehus, if you would like me to perform a self-requested block of a few months I will. That is one commitment mechanism for taking a wikibreak. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, I had hoped it wouldn't come to that, but yes, if you could block my account from editing all areas of Wikipedia other than my talk page(s) so I can respond to any messages as may be required, until I complete my diploma program—say May 15th or June 15th—that would be helpful. Following that, I would like to complete the NPP School curriculum, with either you or Rosguill as a mentor. Some modification of the curriculum may be needed, to focus on the areas which I seem to have less knowledge (specifically, userspace patrolling, editor relations, etc.). Doug Mehus T·C 17:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  "...my talk page(s)..." Huh? Could you clarify that? Steel1943 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) ...Unfortunately, I do not believe that will be enough, especially since that resolution would be on Dmehus' terms and not the community's. Dmehus already had a few chances to prove that they could abide by terms set out by themselves, but most (if not all) such self-imposed terms were broken shortly afterwards. The community needs to have their consensus enforced at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    Given the objections laid out by Steel and Praxidicae I will not make that self-requested block until this ANI thread is resolved. Doug - we can discuss this more at that point. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to reply further to this thread. Honestly, had I known about self-requested blocks sooner than the past month, I probably would've requested this back at the end of December / beginning of January. I think it's a reasonable outcome because, ultimately, the self-requested block, and this firm-as-possible, clear-as-mud warning at ANI should give me both the time I need to concentrate on other, offline priorities and also to reflect on the events which precipitated this discussion. I genuinely have positive contributions to make to Wikipedia, and I'm confident that this would find support among most editors on here. I seem to just need some guidance in areas which I'm obviously struggling to contemplate. Doug Mehus T·C 18:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

...The problem with self-requested blocks (or really blocks at all for that matter) is that if an editor cannot get away from Wikipedia still, they may fall back on using sockpuppetry. I'm not saying that would happen here, but I've seen it happen before. There really needs to be additional terms set out to help identify what the community can do in regards to sanctions to hopefully put you in a better position to edit again either during the sanctions and/or when the block is over. (Also, in your context above, "...clear-as-mud..." probably doesn't mean what you think it means. But if it does, that sort of enforces any WP:IDHT concerns already voiced in this discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of giving a good faith but overly exuberant editor who has acknowledged their shortcomings-- and asked for a forced break-- the chance to try it. Dhemus himself would accept a very long forced break; that says a lot. The idea that they might resort to socking amounts to ABF. If they do, they will be blocked then. I am in favor of letting Barkeep49 and Dhemus give the forced break a try. A long time away from Wikipedia is often enough to change one's perspective, and Dhemus has admitted there are problems. This is a very good first step. (I don't support the mentoring idea; it is always too much work, this is a better alternative.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• (after edit conflicts with JzG and Dmehus) Like Tavix above I was hoping that Dmehus would become a positive editor without being brought to ANI, but it seems that, as I was afraid might happen when I first encountered this editor several months ago, it seems that something more than a bit of helpful guidance is called for here. Every so often we seem to get a new editor who is full of ideas that are pasted all over Wikipedia pages, but who doesn't listen to advice from experienced editors. Sadly this seems to be such a case. What can we do short of a "competency is required" block? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Confused-- you mention a new editor. Best I can tell, Dhemus has been editing since 2007. Is this a new behavior pattern, or long-standing? Dhemus, has something changed? I, too, was mildly frustrated at Dhemus shutting down a conversation I was having at SilkTork's RFB, while continuing off-topic chatter himself, but saw it as not such a big deal. I would like to know if there is a history, and for Dhemus to indicate if something has changed recently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  I've had an account for a lot longer than 2007 and 2007 may have been my first real edits, but haven't been editing regularly since around 2017 or so. As to the canvassing instances, in the two instances mentioned (the Canadian Tire Financial Services one), it was a piece of friendly advice. In the second one, it was determined in the discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson to not be canvassing since the editors I'd notified mostly held opinions in opposition to my own. At most, it was an inappropriate notification. I think it's a general misunderstanding of WP:CANVASS because my understanding is one can still neutrally notify a user, so long as they have no expectation of expressing a certain viewpoint. Part of the problem may be that the guideline, like so many, is open to interpretation. The 'thanks' log usage is just because I am serial thanker who wishes to express gratitude for edits on pages that I follow (my userpage even notes this). I was actually going to put together a 'Thanks Log Opt-out' page for editors to add their name, in my own userspace, to opt out of being thanked and/or pinged. Doug Mehus T·C 17:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You have 11446 edits since 2004-01-25. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus I think it would be beneficial for you to actually reflect on what is being said here before you decide to speak. Your above response is just as troubling as the others I've pointed out here in that you are explaining exactly what your problematic edits are (in fact, better than I and others have) but not actually addressing a single one of them. You are an experienced enough editor that others can have a reasonable expectation of competence from you without having to suffer through multiple diatribes with empty acknowledgements and continued disruptive edits. Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia They are relatively new, despite their registration date, they had no substantial edits until about 6 months ago, and those edits have been nothing short of problematic. Praxidicae (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks; fingers hurt and I didn't check closely enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm just commenting here to say that I've seen this. I share the frustrations expressed above, and have talked to Dmehus several times about how to edit less disruptively. I'm fine with whatever solution gets proposed here. – bradv🍁 17:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Noting your reply was made as a result of an edit conflict, you may not have seen my reply. As I stated, given the recency of Tavix firm advice to me on my user talk page and the fact that I've proposed to take an extended wikibreak, I think this is the best solution here. Following my return from a wikibreak in several months, it might be useful to construct a modified NPP school curriculum with recommended essays on editor relations with which to read and be quizzed. Doug Mehus T·C 17:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

...And therein lies an issue: A few days ago, Dmehus stated they would take a 2–3 month Wikibreak, but then a few hours later, went back to editing as if the discussion never happened. At this point, I don't know if the issue is WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, lip service, or a combination of some or all of that. Whichever it is though, my confidence in Dmehus' capability of self-control is almost nonexistent at this point, and I strongly believe that the community has to do their part to enforce sanctions of some sort on Dmehus as they seem incapable of enforcing restrictions on themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

As you stated though, when you've contemplated retirement several times, it is difficult. I had a number of pages still on my watchlist, so wanted to see those discussions through. I would note that I haven't nominated any pages or redirects for deletion, and don't plan to, until I come back from a wikibreak once this is settled. Doug Mehus T·C 17:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"I haven't nominated any pages or redirects for deletion..." ...But you did in the following edits after the diff I linked, and Tavix pointed that out to you in the same discussion on your talk page (User talk:Dmehus#Competency is required). When one says they are done, they have to be done, or at the least explain when and why they have changed their mind ... and you never did any of that. All of this seems to validate my lip service concern: You are trying to say what we either want or are expecting to hear, but then either not follow up with it and/or do the exact opposite ... which is why I'm in the belief that the community needs to do something in response to this since you seem to not be able to follow through with and/or control your actions. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And as I've noted multiple times above, a promise of a wiki-break in this case does not stop the seemingly endless tendentious editing and mess you've caused, as with much of what's been discussed your promises to cease certain behaviors have gone unfulfilled. Why would this be any different? In the end, it just seems like a way to skirt any sort of fix or restriction so we will just have to re-hash this same exact discussion in 3 months. Praxidicae (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

When I said above, "every so often we seem to get a new editor who is full of ideas...", that's exactly who I had in mind as the most recent case. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I would be opposed to an indefinite talk/Wikipedia-space ban, as Doug also makes positive contributions at forums like RfD. That having been said, Doug does need to dial back the volume of participation on talk pages, and recalibrate his understanding of what things are actually worth hashing out at length vs. creating busywork or using this website as a social network. The pinging of administrators to review articles or otherwise deal with non-urgent issues also needs to stop: there are proper noticeboards to request such actions (although I would note that to his credit, Doug has stopped pinging me to things quite so much following my request that he do so). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rosguill: Would a 'one edit per page per day' restriction work for them, on Wikipedia namespace pages ? Nick (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    Nick, given the format of RfD, maybe a better restriction would be one edit per discussion, with additional replies allowed if someone requests their opinion (including indirect requests such as "delete voters, please clarify whether the new suggestion is amenable" etc.) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  • (Ironic that you should mention "...using this site as a social network...": During all of this, I found the essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site in my quest to provide Dmehus a page regarding such concerns. However, it turns out that is an essay that hasn't been edited for some years. Given the prominence of social media these days, it may be a page in need of some serious TLC for today's audience.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    weird, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK points to a section of WP:NOT so the underlying sentiment is policy, even if the specific advice is not. We should probably try to reintegrate that essay with the policy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I'm only painting pictures, but I think it's that the policy page is to prevent articles being turned into an extension of FB, Twits, Insta pages etc (it's in the same section as WP:NOTWEBHOST after all), while the essay is advising editors not to treat the site as a social forum  :) ——SN54129 20:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Doug's commitment and dedication cannot be criticised. I do however question his judgment and his choice of areas on which to focus. I have been concerned by his editing piechart. When I first discovered that tool, I ran it on some experienced editors I respect. They all had articlespace percentages better than 90. In contrast, Doug is in the low 40s.

Our goal is to build an encyclopaedia. An extremely important element of that is improving the 6M articles we have. Anyone can write a new article (and many of them, it seems, do). WP:XFD and other maintenance areas are necessary, but are relatively minor issues. I would like to see Doug develop his editing skills, get his articlespace percentage up somewhere towards a respectable number, and voluntarily hold back from the behind-the-scenes stuff for the time being. Other editors have suggested a couple of possible areas above. To those, I would add: any of the maintenance categories in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month which need cleanup (obviously not tracking categories such as Category:Use American English). Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Please take care with WP:EDITCOUNTITIS and how to use the edit count tools. I spent five years as FAC delegate, while also active at FAR, and a year building all those articlehistory milestones you see on every GA/FA, which involved a lot of deleted edits, so in spite of my heavy article contributions, my editing pie chart tells a worse story than Dhemus's.[114] Whole lotta Wikipedia edits per FAC and FAR. Use the edit count tool to begin to investigate where the problems are, not for raw statements. Look at whether Dhemus has specifically made good article contributions (I haven't done that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. I forgot to include my planned sentence saying that such a pattern is unlikely to be unique. But, I've never seen any reason to look at your piechart, and still haven't done so. Also, the piechart isn't the only stat which that tool produces. I first looked at Doug's a couple of weeks ago, because what I'd seen elsewhere made me wonder what the hell he was doing. Narky Blert (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Mentorship

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

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

Was trying to add but ECd: perhaps a topic ban/restriction that only allows for mainspace editing and only on XFD's where DM's content is being nominated..Praxidicae (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I sort of echo Praxidicae's comment above: Given the apparent WP:CIR and WP:IDHT issues, I don't see a mentor/mentee situation working out well for Dmehus or the mentor. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unless someone is offering to mentor Doug, this is kind of an empty proposal. If someone was willing to mentor him they would have volunteered already – he has certainly asked enough people for help. – bradv🍁 18:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(Dmehus) What should happen here?

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

• As I stated above, I am in favor of trying the idea proposed by Barkeep49, and accepted by Dhemus, of a self-imposed break. Dhemus agreed to a very long self-requested block (longer than we would likely dish out); this shows good enough faith for me, and I believe it won't hurt to try this for an overly enthusiastic editor who admits they need a self-imposed break. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• The user should be indefinitely blocked as NOTHERE. If he wants to return later, he can make an unblock request when he feels he is mature enough to edit in a constructive fashion. The user is an annoying time sink and often disruptive, sometimes in such an insidious manner as it's hard to reject his edits. Many times, by the time he's done his damage, it's a bit late. If it were not for this discussion, I would block him myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Unless someone has diffs to present of problematic mainspace editing, it seems all complaints are centered around Dmehus participating too much in talk page discussions. A self imposed restriction to reduce posts-per-discussion would seem to solve the problem. Like any editor, Dmehus should be able to request a self block at any time from the admin who offer it. Going straight to an involuntary block seems overly harsh. There are a lot of editors I find annoying, and who find me annoying, but we don’t block people for being annoying. Some concrete volunteer commitment should be tried first. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree somewhat that an outright indef at this point in time would be inappropriate however I do not think a voluntary restriction is appropriate given DM's clear message here, while they intend to contribute productively, have no intention of addressing or changing the ongoing disruption. I feel that a self-imposed restriction is also inappropriate given the history here which demonstrates a wealth of empty promises and acknowledgement. Praxidicae (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• TBH, in my dealings with Dmehus, I never thought him to be disruptive. May have pinged too much, but that was a minor annoyance for me. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Might as well state my part here too: I don't support any type of voluntary restrictions or sanctions since Dmehus has a proven track record of not adhering to such restrictions or sanctions; Dmehus should be subject to whatever the community decides. Even if the end decision lines up with something that Dmehus suggested, they should have no option to decide when the restriction is lifted or removed; the decision of when and/or if that happens should he made by the community. I mean, after all, Wikipedia is a community project, not a project that one editor gets to do ... basically whatever they want and don't have to stick by what they say ... which there is, again, ample evidence present above that they have done just that. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  ...And as I have stated below, I think Dmehus should be blocked for 3–6 months, and then escalating blocks if the behaviors continue after the block. Any restrictions, sanctions, and anything voluntary will both be ineffective and a time sink for those who become involved with ensuring that Dmehus is following the restrictions/sanctions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've run into Doug a fair bit in the last few months, and not once had an issue. He's a bit long winded at times, and comments just to comment in some discussions, but if that's a crime then there's a lot of experienced editors who need a ban. If Doug seeks a self block, that's up to him. But I strongly oppose a community block. A restriction could be reasonable however, perhaps limiting talk/project space page edits to one a day a page (or whatever folks think is reasonable). Let's give Doug a chance to follow a simple restriction. If he follows it, bam, no problem and we lift it in like a year once he's learned his lesson. If not, then it's a CIR block. Easy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Personally, I feel as though the self-requested block, to enforce a wikibreak while I work on offline activities, would have the dual effect of giving me the opportunity to reflect on what seem to be the main issues here—that is, my excessive use of the 'thanks' log and pinging editors with whom I've collaborated into discussions in which they were involved. I've recently seen Steel1943 and other editors make use of the {{noping}} template to hyperlink to a referenced user, in referring to their participation in a related discussion, without causing a {{ping}} notification. Following my enforced wikibreak, this should used almost entirely. While I have never intended to canvass editors into discussions to solicit a particular viewpoint—indeed, it is either because (a) I have valued their expertise and had a question or (b) I have valued their expertise in related discussions. While neutral notifications can be done, it seems prudent that I should limit my notifications to talk pages and the village pump. In merging discussions, a neutral talk page merge note to substantial contributors can also be done, which I have done for the proposal to merge small penis into penis (disambiguation), which generated no complaints. A combination of having a mentor that would provide between-the-lines guidance on appropriate and inappropriate notifications and my voluntarily curtailing notifications to users who had not already participated in the discussion at hand would alleviate any concerns. So, to address Praxidicae's and Steel1943's concerns of some sort of community-sanctioned penalty to accompany the self-requested block to enforce my wikibreak, it seems there is at least rough consensus to formally admonish me for my inappropriate, albeit good-faith, notifications and excessive use of the 'thanks' feature. Some guidance, from a mentor following my wikibreak, on specific instances when the 'thanks' should be used and to what frequency would also be helpful. And, finally, I will also institute an Opt-out page to allow editors to add their names to opt-out completely from 'thanks' and/or 'pings'. Doug Mehus T·C 21:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've seen Doug around quite a bit lately, and have a very similar impression of him that I do of many other users in their early days, including people in this very thread (and which, possibly, some others had about me). Doug seems to have fully guzzled the Wikipedia Kool-Aid recently, and is eager -- perhaps overeager, in some ways -- to be involved, to help out, and to understand. And he's looking around for all sorts of opportunities to do so (mostly in projectspace). I do not get the impression that he's not interested in learning, even if he does continue to make mistakes. As such, first and foremost I strongly oppose the suggestion above that this is a NOTHERE issue, or that an indef is at all needed. This sort of energy is something that needs to be helped/focused/maybe redirected, not shut down. From what I'm seeing here, the issue is more about a compounding tax on people's patience rather than any of the particular edits being all that egregious. I'd like to hear from Doug what sort of voluntary restrictions he would be willing to abide by, taking into consideration the various concerns above, but stopping short of a block (I really don't think that's in the best interest of Wikipedia). How about these for a couple possibilities: (a) a voluntary restriction to main, talk, user, and user talk namespace for a period of time; (b) voluntarily limiting yourself to 2 comments per discussion outside of those namespaces; and/or (c) maybe something unusual like editing fewer than 25 times each day (the idea being taking some time to reflect, etc. before saving, and so that if there are mistakes while you're learning, they don't overwhelm the other volunteers). Just throwing things out. I do feel like something voluntary is a good step here. I know it can be overwhelming to see so many people taking issue with things you're doing. I would take onboard what people are saying, but consider it part of the learning experience. You'd probably be surprised how many of the experienced, well-respected editors you see around today started out frustrating people in one way or another. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not a big fan of Doug trying to set the terms here. Let's just block him for six months and then he can decide how to act when he returns. He doesn't need to tell us now. – bradv🍁 21:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I think I'm on board with this option. After seeing examples of what editing sanctions would look like for Dmehus, I feel like it's going to end up looking like the paragraphs of fine print in a contract; it would require too much of other editors' time to both make sure they understand the sanctions in their entirety as well as ensure Dmehus is following all of the aspects of the sanctions. Just block for 3–6 months, and deal with whatever behavior may arise afterwards. (I also agree that a indef may be too much at this point; do the 3–6 months, and afterwards, escalate appropriately if necessary.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment in reply to Rhododendrites and Bradv's reply. To what Rhododendrites is saying where he writes that I am "eager, perhaps overeager, in some ways," I think that's hitting on the nail on the proverbial head. It touches on what I discussed on my talk page, whereby I feel as though I'm trying to be too involved in too many areas. I think I should limit my behind-the-scenes project namespace focus to a particular area after more fully absorbing related policies, whether that be at CfD, RfD, or MfD, rather than trying to participate in everything, sometimes poorly and without thought. So, maybe that means I focus more on our categorization of articles and guidelines and participate more at CfD, or maybe I understand the nuances and guidelines at RfD, and participate only in discussions in which I have a firm command of and understanding of the issues. If I don't understand the rationale behind keeping, or not keeping, redirects from foreign languages, then I should avoid that discussion. Similarly, there's clear consensus here that I need to focus more on my main namespace editing—I've expressed an interest in writing articles on Canadian provincial prisons, so perhaps that, combined with work in improving the categorization of articles and adding additions to articles would be beneficial at diversifying my editorial contributions by namespace. Taken together, by focusing my maintenance-related contributions to less areas of the of the project and only into discussions into which I have a firm command of the issues and on article space edits, which have been sound but just too sparse for most editors' likings, I will, in turn, have less time to socialize with editors or to request their expertise on various topics. Doug Mehus T·C 21:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• While a self-pause would be good, I just don't see their actions as warranting either an indef or a month+ community ban. CaptainEek's thoughts seem reasonable - a rate limit for wikipedia/wikipedia talk or some more nuanced form seems a good route to take. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how easily the rate limit idea could be implemented, but this could be a very effective tool to limit my project namespace participation following my self-requested 2-3 month block to enforce a wikibreak. Something of, maybe, 10-15 edits/discussion contributions per day in either Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk. This could be in existence for, say, three months following my return in May/June, possibly tied in with a recommendation of a mentor who could assess a more balanced participation across namespaces and a more focused participation instead of trying to participate in too much, sometimes with less expertise than is required. That is, if the mentor felt a longer rate limit was warranted, then they would simply make a note of that on the applicable noticeboard, and the per day WP/WT edit rate limit would be extended on a rolling month long basis. Doug Mehus T·C 21:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thinking about this a bit more, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing for the development of this encyclopedia would be to block Dmehus for a considerable length of time. His editing is a time sink for other editors who would be more productive without him. I know he's always nice to everyone, but let's remember that our primary purpose is to be a workplace building an encyclopedia, not to be nice to each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Awww...c'mon now. Doug is a good person, a bit overzealous/enthusiastic as bradv pointed out and definitely not beyond learning to assume the type of behavior expected of him by others in the community. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Levivich, Rosguill & SandyGeorgia also made good points, and I agree with all of them for the most part. Keep & userfy - dont delete. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• What do you mean by your last sentence? This is a discussion about an editor, not an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • What I took from Atsme's last sentence was that she were using the !vote icons to signify what should happen to me. "Keep" and "Userfy" in this context means they're supportive of efforts to correct the behaviour that needs correcting (principally, the excessive 'thanks', excessive use of pings, and excessive participation in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces), versus "delete," which would mean a community-sanctioned block or ban. Doug Mehus T·C 22:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    • That takes quite a bit of mind-reading to get from Atsme's comment. Shouldn't we let the editor who made it explain the meaning, which is far from explicit? Or do you have some inside knowledge about that editor's thoughts? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I think it means that Atsme opposes a block ... at least from what I'm understanding, and possibly getting Dmehus a mentor. (Note, these are not my opinions.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Atsme, if he could accept that he lacks the competence to opine in the vast majority of places he turns up, it would be fine. But the entire reaosn we are here is that he doesn't understand that small but fundamental fact. Guy (help!) 22:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposals

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

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

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

• 3–6 month block (Option 2). Reasons why already explained above. Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. I have also explained the reasons above, and prefer to keep things simple and not open to interpretation, because this editor appears not to understand anything approaching subtlety. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• 2 3 or 4if 2, an additional restriction upon his return that would fall in like with 3 and 4. Praxidicae (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Striking, 2 should be the only option at this point based on this absurdly tone-deaf statement to the point I'd now also support option 5, an indef. We're well into WP:IDHT territory now. Should Doug return from that block, 3 and 4 should be required. Praxidicae (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that some sort of action wasn't necessary, but rather, other options were discussed above, and the discussion was continuing. So, we should be to assess from the discussion thus far in the above section what action(s) to take that would have broad community support from the editors who have participated. Doug Mehus T·C 23:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• (a) Prefer three-month self-requested block to enforce a wikibreak accompanied by,

Formal community admonishment for the excessive use of the 'thanks' feature, good-faith albeit, at times, unnecessary and excessive use of pings, and to pick an area or two on which to focus, hone expertise, whilst increasing article namespace edits, and,

3-9 month (longer, if needed) daily rate-limiting editing restriction in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces to help to enforce the idea that I need to focus more time editing articles and limiting my involvement to one or two areas of the project namespace (this could be extended by either of the community or the NPP School "mentor"/coordinator); or,

(b) Three-month self-requested block to enforce a wikibreak followed by,

Option 4, Formal community admonishment, and/or 3-9 month (longer, if needed) daily rate-limiting editing restriction in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Doug Mehus T·C 23:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It feels like this lengthy comment is sort of indicative of the problem people are trying to point out to you, Doug. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but there were only four options listed, even though other options were discussed above. So, it felt as though the four options presented were too constricting, and were trying to effect a desired outcome from a certain group of editors. So, I wanted to show that I'm open to multiple options, but not, specifically, the ones presented. To be honest, it's not clear this section was even needed; other editors have already expressed their views above, so we should be able to assess from that an outcome that meets the prevailing consensus of the sentiments expressed by all editors. Doug Mehus T·C 23:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You should never have to request formal community admonishment of yourself - if you recognize that you need admonishment and are continuing the behavior, then that shows that you are just not getting it and a formal community action won't change anything. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not support any form of admonishment, because this editor is clearly acting in good faith. I support a block as a preventative, not punitive, measure. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• I can't even read this anymore. Option 2. – bradv🍁 23:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• 2. After requesting a block, Dmehus has since !voted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Recent. He does not have enough self-control, so nothing short of a block will work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  Note, though, that I've requested a block to enforce the wikibreak due to the lack of self-control. In tandem with that, I do think some sort of editing restriction within Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces would be appropriate, but rather it shouldn't be limited to, say, 6, 9, or 12 months. It could be extended, if necessary. Ultimately, since blocks are meant enforce corrective action and not be punitive, a three-month self-requested block should do this just fine; it would enforce the wikibreak and, following that, an appropriate control measure to help ensure my time is limited in Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces would be much more in keeping with our guidelines. Doug Mehus T·C 23:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• 2, some kind of block even if not a whole 6 months. Based on the replies Dmehus has posted in this section it's pretty clear that he has no understanding of what the problem is. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Eh. Still of the opinion I wrote above, which isn't covered by 1-4. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No need to prolong this, especially with Dmehus continuing to respond to almost every message. Blocked for 4 months — I know that many preferred six, but what can I say? I'm an optimist. El_C 00:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: Per WP:CBAN, community sanction discussions have to be open for a minimum of 24 hours, please undo your block. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  I've undone it as El_C has been off for quite a while. Hope that's alright. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the timestamps. Carry on! El_C 15:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strong opposition to a complete block I have been following Doug since November and have been offering him some advice on how to act in XfDs, one of these threads were even cited by Praxidicae in the opening statement ([115]). I've seen Doug improve over these months and have taken well to some formal suggestions such as when Primefac suggested they should stop closing TfDs which they haven't done since (link). This clearly shows that they have the ability to improves which makes me highly skeptical that a block would be the best way to handle this. Dmehus enthusiasm would be very beneficial as a content creator or new page reviewer and preventing them from helping in these areas would be more punitive then preventative since as far as I can see no concerns have been raised about their work outside of discussions. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2. As I stated in the discussion, my preference is for a longer block. Dmehus's comments in this thread confirm that his conduct is disruptive and unacceptable. As for El C's closure, although it was done in good faith, it was wrong not only because it was way too early, but also because the closing administrator should judge the community's consensus, not reduce the block length because of their personal feelings.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Per qedk's comment on my talk page, I am providing a brief statement on my thoughts on the "community block," particularly because I do not want to carry this on any further. I accept that my above my comment was too lengthy and, while I accepted that I do tend to overuse the 'thanks' feature, excessively ping experienced editors whom I know, and do tend tend to edit disproportionately in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces, El C's comment that I needn't have replied to every reply in a discussion that also focused on my bludgeoning of discussions was entirely on point. While not my preferred outcome in terms of it being characterized as a "community block" and while also somewhat longer than I would've preferred, I still think El C's closure was reasonable in that his rationale reflected the prevailing concern from the discussion—the bludgeoning of this discussion and previous discussions. I had contemplated 'thanking' El C for the closure or replying to his comments on my talk page, but took heed of his advice not to do that, to demonstrate that I was getting it. So, my preference would be, as I stated above, for a three- or four-month self-requested block (four months is actually fine as well) followed by a mentorship by a willing adopting editor. This mentoring editor could be the same as the NPP training editor or a different editor. A mentor would be particularly instructive in providing functional guidance on when it's appropriate to reply to other users' arguments in, principally, XfD and merging/move discussions and when it becomes too much. I should add that I'm willing to accept a daily rate limiting editing restriction in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces as suggested by Nosebagbear for a period of time following any block as may be applied (note I've requested at least a two month block to help enforce my wikibreak), but a namespace ban, I don't think, would be helpful because strikes me as punitive not corrective in nature in that it doesn't address the main problem—that of over-participation in that area. In contrast, a rate-limiting editing restriction would provide a governor to controlling my participation.^Amended. Doug M. T·C 15:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  Dmehus, I mean this in the nicest possible way: stop. Every time you comment here, you are showing that you are not listening to the feedback of the many editors who have already weighed in on this discussion. If you genuinely cannot stay away from Wikipedia without a block, then request the self-block. Come back in a few months ready to learn, but to be blunt, if you feel that you have to have the community impose a restriction on you in order for you to behave, then that shows a distressing lack of self-control. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  Immediately following Creffett's edit, you decided it appropriate to make this addition to your prior statement which indicates to me that nothing short of a 6 month outright block, at minimum, is appropriate. This is absurd and a great case to provide at WP:IDHT as an example of this behavior and frankly your willingness to accept anything is irrelevant at this point, since it's clear the behavior isn't changing. Praxidicae (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I personally like Doug, yet I couldn't help but notice there was some problems with some of his conduct as well.
  (1) He pings a lot more than he needs to, and he should probably consider not pinging anyone unless it's an emergency.
  (2) He also has the bad habit of bludgeoning certain XfDs he takes a liking to, which I first noticed here (yeah, his bludgeoning saved a template I spent a significant amount of time using, but it didn't feel great seeing him respond so much in a single thread like that...). Should I have told him this at the time? Almost definitely... it's just well... I didn't want to break it to the guy that he was being disruptive since he's such a genuinely nice person.
  (3) I should also mention he also has a bad habit of accidently !voting multiple times in XfDs he's in (see this RFD for example).
  I think he could just do with a formal community warning, but I'm so obviously biased here that my opinion on the matter should be disregarded. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Dmehus Can you provide a more concise statement (say 1 or 2 sentences) about what you intend to do and areas you plan to edit upon your return? Praxidicae (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed close

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

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

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

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

• support as written, and I second Floquenbeam's aside to Doug. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as written, as it functionally meets what I've suggested with a firmer restriction than the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespace edit restriction. Doug M. T·C 17:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking the guy for any length of time, unless he shows he ain't gonna abide by the concerns of others in this ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support it's a start. Praxidicae (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good summary of the consensus here.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• While I disagree that a block is needed I think this is a fine reading of the consensus. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  With more comments making good arguments against the proposal I don't think this would be a good close, at least not yet. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Query 24 hours, Floquenbeam, I apologize for not having done the math, but did you add on the 15 hours per EL_C's premature close and the need for a 24-hour period for community bans or blocks? I ask because, after Dhemus continued to ... over-respond here ... I decided to hold off on forming my final opinion. Where are we on the 24 hours? The failure to adhere to the 24 hours (besides being one of the problems one fequently sees at ANI) really messed up what I was hoping to observe vis-a-vis Dhemus's behavior and response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  My thought was to close this 24 hours after Guy posted his proposals, i.e. in about 5 hours (22:45ish); the 1 hour interruption from El C's block was not included, that hour seems like noise in the signal. The thread as a whole has been going on for longer. Are you asking to postpone closing past 22:45? For how long? Especially in a case where the target of the sanction is agreeing with the sanction... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: I thought it was a 15-hour interruption; what am I missing? If it was only one-hour, yes, I agree we should proceed. My thought was that the premature shut-down didn't permit adequate observation of whether Dhemus would adjust behaviors (and didn't allow me to adjust my position accordingly). If my math is off, please do ignore me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, it's my math that's off. I looked at QEDK's timestamp, not El C's. You're right. I'll pause the clock during El C's block, where no new discussion happened. I'll do the math later, but for now, I'll make sure the thread has been open for discussion for at least 24 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry again for disrupting the process due to my misreading the timestamps. I thought it has been over a day, but obviously I was in error. El_C 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  Not a problem; I obviously misread timestamps myself. I did the math, and, I won't close this before 13:40 (UTC) on 5 March. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks to both. The unfortunate thing (for me, at least) is that the premature shutdown really did stop me from observing what I thought needed to be observed vis-a-vis the problematic behavior and whether it would continue or moderate. Considering that, I will refrain from lodging an opinion now; I feel we unfairly prejudiced the discussion, and I can't go backwards on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'd suggest re-writing indefinitely banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk space as indefinitely banned from the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces or similar. The way it's currently worded makes it sound like Doug would be banned from editing Wikipedia after his block expires, which is contradictory. Otherwise, this seems reasonable. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

   Done, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Honestly, with the best will in the world it seems as if Dmehus can't help themselves. Perhaps this will? In any case, since it's not much more in duration that he was willing to voluntarilly undertake, I hope it wil be useful rather tan painful. ——SN54129 19:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support; this is reasonable and a good read on the overall consensus above, I think. I've personally had good experiences with Dmehus and I'd potentially volunteer to be a mentor upon his return if he does want to get back into projectspace editing; but it's pretty clear that people who've dealt with him in more discussions than I have are now very, very tired of his behaviour. A block is clearly warranted by the consensus above; I'd have no issue helping Doug out afterwards once it's blown over. ~ mazca ^talk 20:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• For the record, I believe that Floquenbeam's assessment of current consensus is fairly accurate. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  Dmehus has been editing in the "Wikipedia:" namespace for the past few hours now. 1 2 etc. For this reason, I believe the block should be extended to 5–6 months due to their apparently lack of self control even when an official sanction/block is not present. Or, if the community sees fit, indef block per Ivanvector's suggestion below. Other than that, I agree with the assessment of the consensus ... there has to be a block as part of the resolution for the reasons I've already stated above. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support, this is an excellent threading of the needle. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per... well, really per Dmehus. I can't remember a more convincing demonstration of the Law of Holes. Guy (help!) 00:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• I am of two minds here. Mind one: I think this remedy is more appropriate than anything that was being mooted before El C's close. Mind two: I think this is a subversion of our process (this remedy is being presented as reflecting the consensus of the discussion which it didn't have but by proposing it in this way garners it consensus it didn't have before) and we're telling someone who had accepted their block without protest "you know what we didn't get a chance to make things bad enough for you, so we're going to reopen things so we can impose a stiffer sentence." I think it's a poor way to treat the human on the other end of this. But I really do think that this is a better remedy for the project. So there are my two minds. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the 4-month block, but I don't think we should be setting restrictions at this point. As I said before, he can decide how to behave upon his return. – bradv🍁 02:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Either set the restriction or do the block, both just seem punitive and honestly, way too harsh for a good-faith editor, Floq has completely missed the aspect where multiple editors (Atsme, Rhododendrites, Trialpears) have stated that the correct way is to refocus their efforts into something productive, this seems to be somewhat of a pattern after another two editors were dragged to ANI over the same thing, while I am perfectly fine with the community drawing a line and saying "stop", this "stop" seems to be more like a "we didn't like you tried too hard". Also, read Barkeep49's apt summary above. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  Fwiw, I recommend letting it run for a while so we can get concrete consensus, as it stands now any administrator can probably supervote this to a close without opposition I'm sure, but that would be unfair to the editor concerned, imho. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with qedk: it seems odd to do both a longish block and a bunch of restrictions; if the restrictions will work, they'll work without the block. --JBL (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, QEDK, Joel B. Lewis, and (partially) Bradv have now expressed the concern I have about how we are treating a good faith but overly exuberant editor. Thanks for letting this thread run longer, as we have now been able to see that Dhemus has backed off and has gone about productive editing elsewhere. One only need look at some of the egregious diffs surfacing on RFAs to know that other editors are not even warned over extremely serious behaviors, while we are looking to hand out a pretty stiff penalty to someone who has been a good faith pain in the neck. More than ten years ago, I mentored a very difficult editor who was occupying my time almost 'round the clock, and seemed to be incapable of turning around or demonstrating CIR. Today, she has a GA, and is still productively editing. We can take greater care in how we treat editors who are acting in good faith, particularly when they acknowledge the issues. Dhemus requested a block, acknowledging perhaps that they have a hard time pushing back from the computer; we don't need to add on scorn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think there's any doubt about Doug's good faith here but there comes to a point where we have to expect a certain level of competence and self-control and I know I'm repeating myself at this point but he has demonstrated an inability to take constructive criticism (as JzG and bbb23 pointed out) and self-control which is why I think people feel so strongly about a block over starting with restrictions, especially when they're still making edits like this, despite this very ANI and their promise to stop doing such things just hours before. Not only is the request quite absurd, since that is the French spelling, it is completely frivolous to take something (uncontested, at that!) to RFD with the rationale I'm not advocating deletion, which is the theme of the underlying behavior, speaking to hear oneself speak. yes, I've voted there because I came across it while de-spamming Butcher Praxidicae (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

If we "have to expect a certain level of competence and self-control", we should expect the same of all editors opining here in other recent examples, where some of the worst diffs I have ever encountered on Wikipedia are in plain sight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any issues with Doug's edits outside of discussions? If not I really don't see why a block would be necessary when editing restrictions would be sufficient. Doug stopped closing TfDs when firmly instructed to and has clearly shown that his behavior can improve. I don't see any issue with the RfD you linked either. He wants a discussion about how we should deal with the redirect since he isn't sure what the best course of action is and started a discussion at an appropriate forum. The request isn't frivolous since disambiguate is a perfectly plausible outcome based on Doug's nomination. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think Doug needs time away from Wikipedia but I think that for Doug not the project. I think the best thing for Wikipedia is for Doug to have clear editing restrictions. As such, I would prefer for this thread to close with the editing restrictions and Floq's were good ones which is why I said I liked this better than anything being mooted before. If Doug can't abide by those he's going to end up blocked anyway. I think Praxidicae's example only provides more evidence for restrictions over just a block. Doug could then have the option of requesting an enforced wikibreak via block and I'd advise him to take that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Praxidicae, for the love of all that is holy, chill out, cut DM some slack, we're all volunteers and it's pretty damn cheap to be nice to each other. It is very obvious from that request that DM just wants the redirect to be retargeted to something more apt in their opinion. I wish you meant it when you say I don't think there's any doubt about Doug's good faith because each time you comment here, it is so obvious that you'd rather see them blocked than have them contribute, not allowing room for any improvement on their part, what kind of editor retention are you even trying to advocate here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(literally) small segue: Following up on SandyGeorgia's comment, if civility was enforced as easily as we were handing out blocks against clearly good-faith editors who have been unintentionally disruptive, this community would be much better off. I'm saying this particularly because so many of our amazing contributors don't start off well but they atleast try and they remain civil throughout the process. This is a difficult community (explains our terrible editor retention) and we have a responsibility to cut people some slack for people who have difficulty in getting it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose a time-limited block followed by restrictions. If the restrictions purport to solve the problem, just do that. If the restrictions address the problem, then there is no need to force the editor to sit in the penalty box for a set length of time other than to punish them, and we don't do that. If the restrictions don't address the problem, then block them and don't set an expiry; enough time has been wasted. I separately oppose the second bullet of the proposal as it's currently worded, because it would ban the editor from venues like dispute resolution and noticeboards like this one unless they're being dragged there by editors they're presumably in conflict with, which can only lead to drama. Honestly I agree with what Steel1943 said a while back in the discussion that the set of restrictions that would address this behaviour without being overly restrictive will be too much of a burden on other editors to patrol. Also, Doug has separately stated, maybe more than once and not in these exact words, that he can't help himself. Really the only plausible approach here is an indefinite block, which may be appealed at any time to the community if and when Doug figures out a plan on his own for how he will constructively participate here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Barkeep’s second mind, Sandy, Trialpears, QEDK and Atsme, and also per Doug editing elsewhere and not replying in this thread anymore. Those editors worried about timesinks have now spent more time on this thread than the amount of time Doug has cost them. And oh that incivility were treated with as much vigor as verbosity! Doug did WP:PEPPER too much but seems to have taken that on board now. Seems to have resolved itself. I oppose an indef also. El C’s premature block may have done the trick (good job El C!). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: "Those editors worried about timesinks have now spent more time on this thread than the amount of time Doug has cost them." ...This thread hasn't been open for over five months. Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    • And Doug hasn’t cost you five months. One option open to you is: do not read what Doug writes. Just skip over it and keep scrolling. There are plenty of editors whom I just skip over like this. I don’t ask them to be sanctioned. Ymmv. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, I disagree with that, especially since that plan of action doesn't work in XFD forums. Lately, I've had to be more selective where I have been editing thanks to Dmehus' behavior. Considering that unless I did work in a space that didn't turn into an apparently repetitive WP:IDHT discussion time sink, yes, I count that as time lost from portions of Wikipedia I am more productive. So, to each their own interpretation. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
• I am aware of, and have considered, the later opposes, but there is still a consensus for this remedy, with some tweaks. And, not to get too meta, there's a consensus that this is a fair reading of the previous consensus. Including from Dmehus himself. Several people say they want to leave this open to get a better consensus, but no new suggested remedies have been proposed in the last 24 hours (except a renewed call for an indef block, which is actually harsher than what others who oppose this want, and comments that one or the other remedy is punative, which I have considered and address below).
  1. It is extremely clear that there is consensus for some kind of editing restrictions, and we have to pick some scope, even if there is not uniformity on what it is, and this is as close to a compromise of all the proposals I've seen as I can get. It also has the benefit of being simple. This has been discussed a lot now; it doesn't make sense to only block for now, and then discuss specifics for the editing restrictions all over again when the block expires.
  2. There is a less-clear-but-still-there consensus for a block of some duration, from 2 months to indefinite. Both to give the community a "break", and because Doug has said several times he is fine with (and actually wants) a time-limited block to force a wikibreak. I'll shorten the block to about 3 months, June 15th which Doug initially requested, but it's still a community block. Both in deference to the consensus for one, and because an optional one doesn't actually force anything.
  3. Also, a shout out to User:Mazca, who has offered above to mentor Doug upon his return. IMHO this offer has contributed more to a potential long term solution than anything else in the thread. Thanks. Because of this, I'll tweak the wording to say that rather than waiting 4 months to appeal the editing restrictions, that if he has an experienced mentor, he should appeal as soon as his mentor thinks he's ready, and that if he doesn't, he should probably still wait 4 months for it to have a decent chance at being successful.

Closing momentarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: Regarding "... waiting 4 months to appeal the editing restrictions..., may need some clarify on that in the close. Is that 4 months from now, or 4 months after the end of the block (or something else which starts the 4-month timer)? Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

((abot}}

Ongoing abuse from sockmaster "LightFromABrightStar", possibly connected to WorldCreaterFighter

I would like to request an investigstion as to whether or not these sock users:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/LightFromABrightStar

And

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/WorldCreaterFighter

Could be related. Both users have been identified as editing pages related to Turkic people's origins on sock accounts within the last week. They have continued to relentlessly abuse this website, in WorldCreaterFighter's case, for the past several years. -- Hunan201p (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Unrelated and in entirely different parts of the world.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass of IPs adding unreferenced content

Likely the same user simple switching IPs.

• 2601:2C3:4201:D70:E1A5:32B8:AA46:1FAD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 98.196.146.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:2C3:4201:D70:54FA:B357:1D59:1BAF (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:2c3:4201:d70:cc1a:c3c1:6db3:367b (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2601:2C3:4201:D70:9CD8:1D1E:1CD9:885A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Wondering if a range block would work? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• 98.196.146.160 and 2601:2C3:4201:D70:0:0:0:0/64 have been blocked for one month. Was previously blocked in December for one week. No one else is using the range. He created gibberish pages which have been deleted. If he shows up on another IP in the 98.196.xxx.xxx range then we can consider a rangeblock for that one.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Berean Hunter Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks by 68.132.126.95

• 68.132.126.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Classical library (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Seraphim Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The IP editor in question is currently under a partial block for disruptive editing at two articles. They have now focused their attention on Serephim Rose. They have removed a sufficiently-sourced section of the article. When challenged on this, they have repeatedly attacked other editors, first by accusing one editor of vandalism for their good-faith edits [116] and then by accusing me of a conflict of interest over a two-steps removed connection (I am a member of an organization that used to have ties to an organization that the subject is a critic of).[117] They have claimed that there was a pre-existing consensus from discussion on the article talk page, but when asked where it was, they provided a link to a book on Amazon.[118]

Since I am now an involved party to this matter as the target of personal attacks, I do not feel it appropriate to take further administrative action on this matter. I therefore ask for a broader set of editors to counsel this user on how to constructively contribute to Wikipedia or otherwise prevent disruption of the project. —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I was not intending to attack the editor with ad hominems, and I submit that the user complaint to this effect by C.Fred is entirely frivolous and misleading. I was merely pointing out a conflict of interest in which this editor is involved, by editing the content of this particular page (Seraphim Rose). The subject of the article is well known as a severe critic of Catholicism and the editor indicates on his user page that he is a member of Phi Kappa Theta, a Catholic fraternity directly associated with the Catholic Church. His membership in this organization constitutes a prima facie violation of WP:COIN in connection with the edits he's made to this page, and at the very least raises serious questions about his neutrality. This is something which needs to be pointed out, because it involves a violation of Wikipedia rules.

Moreover, contrary to this user's complaint, I have commented profusely on content in the talk section, where I have added page upon page of explanation in support of the current revision, most recently in the talk page section entitled "Matters Up For Discussion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seraphim_Rose#Matters_up_for_discussion and received no reasoned discussion from this warring editor in response, but only repeated, unilateral reverts with no real basis other than the fact that he apparently does not agree and seeks to perpetuate an earlier revision which, as I have pointed out, is highly problematic. The user C. Fred is the only one that I can see who is currently disrupting consensus by ignoring the long discussion in talk and simply reverting anything he does not agree with without any explanation or discussion whatsoever.

I have posted thousands of words in the talk section, he has posted literally none in connection with his edits. I am trying to reach an agreement, right now he seems to be the only one forcefully insinuating himself into this matter without providing any rationale in support of his edits. Also, I did not provoke this. There was an earlier revision which was tentatively agreed upon in 2015 after much discussion failed to yield agreement of all parties involved, and in the recent weeks user C.Fred and another editor named "Zaathras" suddenly began summarily altering the wording of this revision so as to subvert the earlier compromise struck as a provisional antidote to the persistent disagreement which had ensued over the disputed content, which had stood unchallenged for five consecutive years (from 2015-2020). When the problematic nature of the sourcing within the current passage was then recently pointed out to me I suggested that in the absence of the current phrasing (added specifically to achieve neutrality and compromise) the entire passage should be excluded and posted my intent to do so in the near future in the "Matters up for discussion" section of the talk page, before following up with the proposed edit two days later.

Finally, I never removed any entire section of the article, as User: C. Fred erroneously states in his complaint, but rather proposed a revision which excludes some passages of the "Early Life" section of the article. Far from being "sufficiently sourced" the claims contained in these passages are disputed and there are serious questions as to the veracity of the single and, in my judgment, highly problematic source from which they derive, which presents claims conspicuously at odds with the acknowledged major work on the subject and which are corroborated by no other independent source. In any event, I have within the talk sub-section previously mentioned, enumerated a list of reasons why, even assuming the source for the disputed info is accurate, that such would nonetheless bear no relevancy to a neutral exposition of the subject's life and work within the setting of an encyclopedic reference article, which should contain only the most straightforward, objective, independently verifiable, and relevant facts concerning its subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical library (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. This user has been previously blocked for edit warring on the Seraphim Rose article, and right about the time of this alleged consensus.[119] —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, due to some unintentional errors on my part being a novice user of Wikipedia and inadvertently violating rules which was then exploited by a pack of partisan editors to impose their biased views under the guise of an an exaggerated conformity to the strict punctilios of Wikipedia etiquette. It would take only a cursory read through the history of the talk discussion to establish the defamatory nature of the comments directed at both myself and others by some of these rogue Wikipedia users, and to notice the inappropriate bias expressed in them. Also, I made it clear that there was a compromise struck in 2015 which C.Fred and another user Zaathras attempted to summarily subvert with recent edits ignoring the preceding five-year-long compromise, after which I undertook further discussion in the "Matters Up for Discussion" sub-section of the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seraphim_Rose#Matters_up_for_discussion in order to further clarify the issue and explain why I believe that this questionable material does not belong in the article in the first place. C.Fred then proceeded to ignore all subsequent discussion appearing in talk while embarking on a one man editing crusade to thwart the reasonable revision I had enacted after careful and precise enumeration of my reasoning in talk. But C. Fred should not be editing this article at all, since as I've shown in my earlier post citing his Catholic associations and Seraphim Rose's strident anti-Catholicism, doing so would involve him in a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical library (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It's blindingly obvious that the IP and the account are the same person. The assumptions of bad faith have continued after my warning, so I'm changing the IP's partial block to a sitewide block, and blocking the account for the same behavior for the same term. The partial block idea is OK in principle, but all too often the partially blocked editor finds something else to argue about. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

...And the IP's response "I don't take orders from a self-important little bug-man like yourself, so stop being rude and try being polite and maybe even kind for a change." speaks for itself. The named account's denial, albeit more polite is undercut by the same inability to sign posts. Acroterion (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Legal threats?

• 210.6.209.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• "If you block this IP address, you are acting in an illegal manner"

Thought? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

IP is now edit warring to try to remove well referenced content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

And obvious paid COI/spammer for the subject of the article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Continues to edit war. Well past 3RR. Meters (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring, for 24 hours. Asked to RPP the page since they'll be back. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Improper page move and maintenance tags

Could someone look at what I deem as an improper page move. Boris Nikolayevich Belousov was moved to Boris Belousov (cosmonaut) without discussion and as uncontroversial. Along with the move valid maintenance tags were removed and this is during an Articles for deletion/Boris Nikolayevich Belousov. Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-communicative User: Whatiskeptinname

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

I don't want to give conflicting advice to whoever told you to stop reverting. So maybe check with them first, or direct them here. But based only on what you've said, without investigating further, you should be able to revert back to your preferred wording if they have stopped editing. If that causes them to return and revert, without discussion, I'll block them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, now that I've benefited from your reply, I should clarify that the advice to stop reverting that I got was not in exactly the same context as I have presented here. That "they have stopped editing" is the principal difference, although I'm sure that is only because I took the advice. Plus, I was also told to do as I saw fit except edit-war. So, I'll revert back and see if the editor comes back again. Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sustained BLP vandalism at Khalil-ur-Rehman Qamar

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

---

The page protection request for Khalil-ur-Rehman Qamar has been sitting unanswered for six or so hours now, meanwhile the IP/SPA vandalism is getting worse; there's already been a revdel. Can an admin resolve this ASAP? — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21,  Done. Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

User talk:Usr0001

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

---

My first AN/I report in a while. Let's see how this goes.

Diffs

Here are the diffs: [120] [121] [122] [123]

Summary

Usr0001 believes Talk:Fascism/FAQ is censored. Over the last few months, they tried to say Fascism isn't a right-wing ideology against current consensus. I warned them that the next try to change the FAQ like that could lead to a block, and they did anyways. They're pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE imo.

That's all. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have instituted a partial block of Usr0001for Talk:Fascism/FAQ. I have also warned them that if they repeat the behavior at other pages, they can be blocked site-wide. --Jayron32 15:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. Thank you, Jayron! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

current events

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

---

Resolved

Portal:Current_events/2020_March_4 do something about inserting "notoriously homosexual" ? 87.185.57.155 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Per the edits I see, I think this signals a WP:NOTHERE with RobertPaulsonn (all of their edits), so I'm pinging then in this edit and will place the traditional ANI notification template shortly. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

For added good measure, he now stands accused in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RandomAccount1235423. Favonian (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Just block them, they're clearly an LTA/sock and their edits indicate they are not here for anything good, including giving out fake block notices. Favonian, the fake admin notices are grounds for a block, no? Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

  I've indeffed RobertPaulsonn. SPI has a separate board. Materialscientist (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Epistle to the Galatians: multiple redlink authors massively changing and adjusting

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

Feline Hymnic, from a quick look at the history, I'm guessing class project or something similar (see the edit comment in Special:Diff/943949348). Recommend a friendly message on their userpages about sourcing, etc. to start. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits do indeed appear to be in GF, and given the timing It looks like a US class, as suggested. Later edits did start adding citations, though heavily primary as is common with new editors. I've watchlisted and will drop a line if it looks more than a flash in the pan. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page asking the students to have their instructor register the course with Wiki Education, so they'll get training and support from us. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ownership and competency issues on Silver Ghost

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

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

I would recommend a warning on their talk page first and requesting them to self-revert. Not only have they been edit warring, they've surpassed WP:3RR. I count seven reverts. If they don't self-revert, then perhaps a short block may be in order. Amaury • 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have never had reason to question Eddaido's competence, nor often any particular sense of ownership to articles; however their refractory obstinacy is legendary. Their is little likelihood of any success in attempting discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

On the Concord coach article mentioned above, he edit-warred to restore a claim he knew to be wrong, and added multiple cites to the talk page which explicitly contradicted his position. Perhaps this isn’t typical. Qwirkle (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it's typical. EEng 06:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• A 48h block for edit warring and ownership seems appropriate at this point - this does need to stop I think. Guy (help!) 11:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411

• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

So for the four pages he edits most often, despite having a remarkably low total edit count, he dominates discussion. In as much as a POV can be discerned in the absence of a direct statement, his edits clearly show a personal rejection of the established facts of Russian interference in the 2016 US election (e.g. [124], which changes a statement of the Mueller conclusions to frame it as Mueller having "asserted" Russian interference or this in which he quibbles with the fact that Mueller "demonstrated" Assange's knowledge that Seth Rich was not the source of leaked emails by continuing to correspond with GRU operatives after his death, and, based on that asserted quibble with the wording, removes the entire paragraph noting the established fact that Assange did indeed continue to contact Russia after Rich's death). This is a fringe POV, and in my view his continued advancement of this POV through talk page statements that assume its factual correctness is unacceptable.

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

Pardon me for asking, but is there any actual indicent being reported here? Is there any actual misbehavior? It looks like Guy is just complaining about me generally, as an editor they dislike.

Guy cites precisely two diffs: one in which I restored long-standing, well-sourced and DUE material (an opinion article by Glenn Greenwald that received secondary coverage in the Columbia Journalism Review, the Washington Post and Salon); and another in which I removed a recent addition that I think was worded in a POV manner and was UNDUE. Neither of these edits is particularly noteworthy.

As for the accusation that I don't have a large enough edit count, I don't see what Guy is getting at. Yes, I don't edit Wikipedia for a living. Is that an offense? I've been editing for over a decade, focusing on different subjects at different times, including American history, astronomy and physics, and American politics.

I'm actually quite proud of some of the contributions Guy complains about. At Useful idiot, I worked to reorient the article around what reliable sources on etymology, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, actually say about the term. Before I began editing the page (November 2017 version), it prominently reported what is apparently an incorrect etymology of the term (attributing it to Lenin). Compare that with the page now: [125]. I think it's clear that the page is much better organized, has better sourcing (including the OED, which I added to the article), and that it gives a clear explanation of the status of the popular attribution to Lenin (i.e., that the attribution is often made, though there's no evidence for it). In other words, I left the page better off than when I arrived. This took a lot of discussion on the talk page (something Guy is faulting me for). Sources had to be evaluated and discussed. References had to be tracked down (for example, I tracked down the origin of a reference that another editor claimed was from the Soviet Union, showing that the book was actually written in France - the question was whether the reference demonstrated usage of the term "useful idiot" in the Soviet Union, which would contradict what the OED claims about the term: see [126]). In any case, this is all to say that Guy is faulting me for using talk pages to discuss sourcing, edits, etc., which is precisely what talk pages are for.

The background to this complaint is a content dispute at Julian Assange, about whether to mention an appeal by 130 of the most prominent figures in German politics, journalism and media calling for Assange's release. I criticized Guy for referring to "Assange cultists" ([127]) and "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more" ([128]). It's still unclear whom Guy meant to describe with these epithets, but I felt they were out of place and said so. The current ANI complaint appears to be the result. I think Guy's complaint is vague (I'm not actually accused of any violations of Wikipedia policy or of any concrete forms of disruption), and should either be speedily closed or boomeranged. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, if it was specific it would be at WP:AE. My issue is more general: you are a single-puropose advocacy account pushing a fringe POV. You are also abusing Wikipedia process to gain advantage in content disputes, notable with respect to SPECIFICO and BullRangifer (and also Calton, who you managed to get blocked for three days). All three of these have massively greater contributions to Wikipedia than you do, yet you seem to think you have greater understanding of our policies based on your <4000 edits to a handful of closely-related articles. Guy (help!) 12:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't rank editor value by the number of their edits. This is a volunteer project, and participation is not required. I interacted with this editor at the Casualties of the Iraq War page, where they made clear improvements. Bringing up Calton is irrelevant - they broke a sanction in place, were given ample time to revert, and were blocked after they ignored it. If you have a problem with that you should seek to have the sanction removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This report alleges no wrongdoing. It is perfectly ok for editors to edit where they want to. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, no, it is not "perfectly OK" for single purpose accounts to dominate articles. Guy (help!) 12:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but that's not what I said. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• #Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@BullRangifer: Your description of what happened at WP:BLPN#Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy is inaccurate. I raised concerns about editors using talk pages to imply that Julian Assange is involved in some sort of criminal conspiracy, by referring to GRU agents as his "accomplices". You then posted at length, explicitly stating that Assange committed crimes in 2016, for which he supposedly deserves to be indicted. You stated, "It is not just an 'implication', but a legal fact, that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime. Why Assange hasn't been formally charged, unlike the GRU agents, is a question you'll have to ask Trump and Rohrabacher, who actually made a quid pro quo offer of a pardon, rather than a justified criminal indictment, to Assange, in exchange for a cover-up and denial that it was the Russians who hacked and leaked the emails" ([129]). I responded, "You should not be making these sorts of statements on Wikipedia. They don't serve any purpose related to editing the encyclopedia, and they violate our WP:BLP policy" ([130]). Your response has been to repeatedly ping me and post to my talk page, demanding that I answer your theories about Assange. As I told you at my talk page, I'm not interested in getting into political debates on Wikipedia.

Anyone is free to look at my edits to article space and see that they're almost always sourced to multiple high-quality reliable sources. For example, the content dispute that Guy and I are involved in at Julian Assange began with this addition that I made, which is sourced to three high-quality reliable sources. There is an ongoing RfC about this addition, in which a plurality of editors so far have supported my addition, which suggests that it was a reasonable edit. I take WP:RS very seriously. If you have any problematic diffs, you're free to raise them. So far, I don't see any in your complaint. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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

• Funnily enough, I was just writing up a topic ban warning for Thucydides. They have been trying to interest admins in what they call SPECIFICO's "very serious BLP violation" in using the word "accomplices" for GRU agents [131] at Talk:Julian Assange, then User talk:Drmies, then WP:BLPN. They don't seem able to find one that agrees with them. It's time you dropped the stick, Thucydides. Furthermore, while I know Drmies suggested you try WP:BLPN since you wouldn't accept the opinions of three admins (including Newyorkbrad of all people) on his page, it's time you stopped ascribing terms like "criminal conspiracies" to Bull Rangifer and SPECIFICO. You yourself are the only, single, solitary person who has mentioned conspiring/conspiracies in the context. Are you trying to exhaust your opponents by repeating it over and over and consistently ignoring both denials and questions about it? Your discussion style is disruptive, and you are coming close to a topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 US election. Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC).

BLP, IDHT issues

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

---

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

While patrolling, I came a across an edit I saw as a BLP violation, since accusations were being leveled based on an opinion piece on an activist website, which did not actually level that accusation. I reverted, reverted again and started a discussion on the TP. User: AzureCitizen concurred and reverted again. I reported the issue at BLP/N and hoped for the best. I also reverted one of their edits at Perfluorooctanoic acid per WP:OVERLINK, which was promptly reverted.

Responses have been a) a veiled accusation of me working for DuPont, ditto for AzureCitizen, calling me “arrogant”], accusing me of “not engaging in dialogue”, aspersions that AzureCitizen is a sock puppet account of mine. The BLP issue still stands, and the editor is currently at 4RR, but it’s the behavior I find troubling. Kleuske (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked him for 1 month for edit warring, BLP violations, and general tendentious behavior.--Jayron32 14:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Generative grammar

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

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

I'm not real up on the technical aspects of linguistics here, so I can't speak to who is 'right' (and that's not an admin's role anyways), however the page history shows a clear two-way edit war between yourself and Weidorje. I would advise strongly that BOTH of you desist from editing the articles under contention, discuss the matter on the article talk pages, and seek outside help from somewhere like WP:DRN or WP:3O if you can't come to an agreement. Also, you're required to notify someone when you start a discussion about them here. I have done so for you this time; in the future please let people know when you've brought them here. --Jayron32 15:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying the other editor-- and my apologies for not doing that myself. My concern isn't who is right about technical questions of linguistics, it's that the other editor is not responding constructively to comments on the talk page and that their edits do not reflect the sources they are citing. I have already attempted to discuss the issue, with detailed source-backed comments, but the other editor is responding by mischaracterizing my edits and telling me to stop editing the article. (I have also already raised the issue on 3O.) Botterweg14 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron. Botterweg14 is confused because he doesn't realise that the two articles are from the same researchers. They made a study in 1993 which showed no validity of the generative grammar claims, and then comment on their research in 2015 stating they never used the model again. Botterweg keeps deleting the sources without reading them – for me it's extra work for nothing on my special day. The issues could be discussed one by one and one at a time on the talk page, but we're not quite there, yet. Weidorje (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, it appears you're both already commenting on the discussions at Talk:Generative grammar. If you can also both agree to avoid editing the article text unless and until the matter is resolved at the article talk page, we can consider the matter closed here. Can you both agree to let the discussion play out, seek consensus, and ask for additional help as needed before editing the article again? --Jayron32 16:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I would be very happy to do that. I have laid out my specific concerns about specific sentences from the article on the talk page. However, before we close the issue here I'd like some assurance that the discussion will address on the substance of my comments. In particular, where I've raised concerns that the article doesn't accurately reflect the citations, I would like the discussion to focus on specifics of what is and isn't in the citations rather than blanket statements that I am wrong or accusations that I have a hidden agenda. Botterweg14 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)